"... Adam Schiff physically resembles a typical prosperity theology preacher -- a classic modern American snake oil salesman. And with his baseless accusations and the fear to touch real issues , he is even worse than that -- he looks outright silly even for the most brainwashed part of the USA electorate ;-) ..."
"... Realistically Schiff should be viewed as yet another intelligence agency stooge, a neocon who is funded by military contractors such as Northrop Grumman, which sells missiles to Ukraine. ..."
"... The claim that the withdrawal of military aid from Ukraine somehow influences the balance of power in the region was a State department concocted scam from the very beginning. How sniper rifles and anti-tank missiles change the balance of power on the border with the major nuclear power, who has probably second or third military in the world.? They do not. ..."
"... No where does Schiff compare to the evils and long lasting impact by that of Trump, Nunes, and Mcconnell. Comment over. ..."
"... Does not matter. Schiff is just a marionette performing prescribed function. He is adamantly inept is this function, but that happens with marionettes. Nothing to talk about or to compare with the major "evildoers" of Trump administration (although he, like Pompeo, is a neocon, so he belongs to the same crime family ;-) ..."
"... Actually, as a side effect, they might well sink Warren (which is not such a good thing), as she was stupid enough to jump into impeachment bandwagon early on with great enthusiasm. Proving another time that she is an incompetent politician. ..."
"... Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac. It matters that he is escaping impeachment. Of all the presidents impeached before him as #4, he is the most deserving. History will judge his actions and crimes. ..."
While I agree that the removal of Trump might be slightly beneficial (Pence-Pompeo duo initially will run scared), this Kabuki
theater with Schiff in a major role is outright silly.
Adam Schiff physically resembles a typical prosperity theology preacher -- a classic modern American snake oil salesman.
And with his baseless accusations and the fear to touch real issues , he is even worse than that -- he looks outright silly even
for the most brainwashed part of the USA electorate ;-)
As he supported the Iraq war, he has no right to occupy any elected office. He probably should be prosecuted as a war criminal.
Realistically Schiff should be viewed as yet another intelligence agency stooge, a neocon who is funded by military contractors
such as Northrop Grumman, which sells missiles to Ukraine.
The claim that Trump is influenced by Russia is a lie. His actions indicate that he is an agent of influence for Israel, not
so much for Russia. Several of his actions were more reckless and more hostile to Russia than the actions of the Obama administration.
Anyway, his policies toward Russia are not that different from Hillary's policies. Actually, Pompeo, in many ways, continues Hillary's
policies.
The claim that the withdrawal of military aid from Ukraine somehow influences the balance of power in the region was a
State department concocted scam from the very beginning. How sniper rifles and anti-tank missiles change the balance of power
on the border with the major nuclear power, who has probably second or third military in the world.? They do not.
They (especially sniper rifles) will definitely increase casualties of Ukrainian separatists (and will provoke Russian reaction
to compensate for this change of balance and thus increase casualties of the Ukrainian army provoking the escalation spiral ),
but that's about it. So more people will die in the conflict while Northrop Grumman rakes the profits.
They also increase the danger of the larger-scale conflict in the region, which is what the USA neocons badly wants to impose
really crushing sanctions on Russia. The danger of WWIII and the cost of support of the crumbling neoliberal empire with its outsize
military expenditures (which now is more difficult to compensate with loot) somehow escapes the US neocon calculations. But they
are completely detached from reality in any case.
I think Russia can cut Ukraine into Western and Eastern parts anytime with relative ease and not much resistance. Putin has
an opportunity to do this in 2014 (risking larger sanctions) as he could establish government in exile out of Yanukovich officials
and based on this restore the legitimate government in Eastern and southern region with the capital in Kharkiv, leaving Ukrainian
Taliban to rot in their own brand of far-right nationalism where the Ukraine identity is defined negatively via rabid Russophobia.
His calculation probably was that sanctions would slow down the Russia recovery from Western plunder during Yeltsin years and,
as such, it is not worth showing Western Ukrainian nationalists what level of support in Southern and Eastern regions that actually
enjoy.
My impression is that they are passionately hated by over 50% of the population of this region. And viewed as an occupying
force, which is trying to colonize the space (which is a completely true assessment). They are viewed as American stooges, who
they are (the country is controlled from the USA embassy in any case).
And Putin's assessment might be wrong, as sanctions were imposed anyways, and now Ukraine does represent a threat to Russia
and, as such, is a huge source of instability in the region, which was the key idea of "Nulandgate" as the main task was weakening
Russia. In this sense, Euromaidan coup d'état was the major success of the Obama administration, which was a neocon controlled
administration from top to bottom.
Also unclear what Dems are trying to achieve. If Pelosi gambit, cynically speaking, was about rehashing Mueller witch hunt
success in the 2018 election, that is typical wishful thinking. Mobilization of the base works both ways.
So what is the game plan for DemoRats (aka "neoliberal democrats" or "corporate democrats" -- the dominant Clinton faction
of the Democratic Party) is completely unclear.
I doubt that they will gain anything from impeachment Kabuki theater, where both sides are afraid to discuss the real issues
like Douma false flag and other real Trump crimes.
Most Democratic candidates such as Warren, Biden, and Klobuchar will lose from this impeachment theater. Candidates who can
gain, such as Major Pete and Bloomberg does not matter that much.
run75441 , January 25, 2020 4:48 pm
likbez:
Let me help you along with the rant . . . "so you are in trump's camp." That was not a question. Given anything the Dems may
have, the Repubs have done it bigger. No where does Schiff compare to the evils and long lasting impact by that of Trump,
Nunes, and Mcconnell. Comment over.
likbez , January 25, 2020 7:47 pm
> No where does Schiff compare to the evils and long lasting impact by abd of trump
Does not matter. Schiff is just a marionette performing prescribed function. He is adamantly inept is this function, but
that happens with marionettes. Nothing to talk about or to compare with the major "evildoers" of Trump administration (although
he, like Pompeo, is a neocon, so he belongs to the same crime family ;-)
Opening impeachment was worse then a crime, it was a blunder on the part of neoliberal Dems. Essentially they bet
that it can serve as the "Muller investigation II" helping the neoliberal Dems to win 2020 like it helped them to win 2018 without
reforming the Party. They forgot about their own crimes committed in the process (Ukraine, Stzrokgate, etc), which now come to
light
Pelosi somehow opted for this "Hail Mary pass" and allowed Schiff to destroy the last remnants of the credibility of neoliberal
Dems: none of House Republicans voted for impeachment, which dooms the idea converting it into the vote of non-confidence of the
majority party. Creating the situation in which Dems, paradoxically, can lose some House seats they gained in 2018. Which would
be a bad thing. Also due to backlash they now can well lose 2020 election while each of Dems candidates (with the possible exception
of semi-senile neoliberal Biden) is a better option for the country than Trump.
Actually, as a side effect, they might well sink Warren (which is not such a good thing), as she was stupid enough to jump
into impeachment bandwagon early on with great enthusiasm. Proving another time that she is an incompetent politician.
"Whom the gods would destroy..." (misattributed to Euripides)
run75441 , January 25, 2020 8:17 pm
likbez:
No it does not. He is inept at a function and does not follow the constitutional precepts put in place by the Founding Fathers.
Schiff and all of us are on unchartered territory where a president deems he can do as he pleases, is above the law, and can not
be reigned in by the law or the two legislative bodies of the nation. He is aided and abetted by illegal Congressional actions
with the support of renegade Senators. No where in history has anything of this magnitude occurred. He has to be ousted.
I told you once before, knock that neoliberal shit off. You are just using this as a filter to avoid what most people see,
Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac. It matters that he is escaping impeachment. Of all the presidents impeached before him as
#4, he is the most deserving. History will judge his actions and crimes.
"... In 2017, a woman working with frontline families told me why she didn't want reintegration. 'These [the population of rebel-held
Donbass] are people with a minimum level of human development, people raised by their TVs. Okay, so we live together, then what? We're
trying to build a completely new society.' ..."
"... And there once again you have it – one of the primary causes of the war in Ukraine: the contempt with which the post-Maidan
government and its activist supporters regard a significant portion of their fellow citizens, the 'sick trash' of Donbass with their
'minimum level of human development'. ..."
I'd never heard of the Euro-Atlantic Security Leadership Group (EASLG) until today, even though it turns out that one of its members
has the office next door to mine. Its
website says that
it seeks to respond to the challenge of East-West tensions by convening 'former and current officials and experts from a group of
Euro-Atlantic states and the European union to test ideas and develop proposals for improving security in areas of existential common
interest'. It hopes thereby to 'generate trust through dialogue.'
It's hard to object to any of this, but its latest
statement , entitled 'Twelve Steps Toward Greater Security in Ukraine and the Euro-Atlantic Region', doesn't inspire a lot of
confidence. The 'twelve steps' the EASLG proposes to improve security in Eastern Ukraine are generally pretty uninspiring, being
largely of the 'set up a working group to explore' variety, or of such a vaguely aspirational nature as to be almost worthless (e.g.
'Advance reconstruction of Donbas An essential first step is to conduct a credible needs assessment for the Donbas region to inform
a strategy for its social-economic recovery.' Sounds nice, but in reality doesn't amount to a hill of beans).
For the most part, these proposals attempt to treat the symptoms of the war in Ukraine without addressing the root causes. In
a sense, that's fine, as symptoms need treating, but it's sticking plaster when the patient needs some invasive surgery. At the end
of its statement, though, the EASLG does go one step further with 'Step 12: Launch a new national dialogue about identity', saying:
A new, inclusive national dialogue across Ukraine is desirable and could be launched as soon as possible. Efforts should be
made to engage with perspectives from Ukraine's neighbors, especially Poland, Hungary, and Russia. This dialogue should address
themes of history and national memory, language, identity, and minority experience. It should include tolerance and respect for
ethnic and religious minorities in order to increase engagement, inclusiveness, and social cohesion.
This is admirably trendy and woke, but in the Ukrainian context somewhat explosive, as it implicitly challenges the identity politics
of the post-Maidan regime. Unsurprisingly, it's gone down like a lead balloon in Kiev. The notorious website Mirotvorets even
went so far as to add former
German ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger to its blacklist of enemies of Ukraine for having had the temerity to sign the EASLG statement
and thus 'taking part in Russia's propaganda events aimed against Ukraine.' Katherine Quinn-Judge of the International Crisis Group
commented on Twitter, 'As the idea of dialogue
becomes more mainstream, backlash to the concept grows fiercer.' 'In Ukraine, prominent pro-Western politicians, civic activists,
and media, have called Step 12 "a provocation" and "dangerous",' she added
Quinn-Judge comes across as generally sympathetic to the Ukrainian narrative about the war in Donbass, endorsing the idea that
it's largely a product of 'Russian aggression'. But she also recognizes that the war has an internal, social dimension which the
Ukrainian government and its elite-level supporters refuse to acknowledge. Consequently, they also reject any sort of dialogue, either
with Russia or with the rebels in Donbass. As Quinn-Judge notes in another Tweet:
An advisor to one of Ukraine's most powerful pol[itician]s told us recently of his concern about talk of dialogue in international
and domestic circles. 'We have all long ago agreed among ourselves. We need to return our territory, and then work with that sick
– sick – population.'
This isn't an isolated example. Quinn-Judge follows up with a couple more similar statements:
Social resentments underpin some opposition to disengagement, for example. An activist in [government-controlled] Shchastye
told me recently that she feared disengagement and the reopening of the bridge linking the isolated town to [rebel-held] Luhansk:
'I don't want all that trash coming over here.'
In 2017, a woman working with frontline families told me why she didn't want reintegration. 'These [the population of rebel-held
Donbass] are people with a minimum level of human development, people raised by their TVs. Okay, so we live together, then what?
We're trying to build a completely new society.'
And there once again you have it – one of the primary causes of the war in Ukraine: the contempt with which the post-Maidan
government and its activist supporters regard a significant portion of their fellow citizens, the 'sick trash' of Donbass with their
'minimum level of human development'. You can fiddle with treating Donbass' symptoms as much as you like, à la EASLG,
but unless you tackle this fundamental problem, the disease will keep on ravaging the subject for a long time to come. In due course,
I suggest, the only realistic cure will be to remove the patient entirely from the cause of infection.
All that you have described above is very sad, but not very surprising – which is itself very sad. I think Patrick Armstrong is
right that a lot of the reason Ukraine is not and has never been a functional polity is because much if not most of the population
cannot accept that the right side won WWII.
Contempt and loathing towards the Donbass is a pretty popular feeling amongst Ukrainian svidomy. E.g., one of the two regular
pro-Ukrainian commenters on my blog.
To his credit, he supports severing the Donbass from Ukraine (as one would a gangrenous limb – his metaphor) as opposed to
trying to claw it back. Which is an internally consistent position.
Same guy who doesn't consider Yanukovych as having been overthrown under coup like circumstances, while downplaying Poland's
past subjugation of Rus territory.
In Part I and II we saw how much truth is there in Herr Karlin's claim of being a model of the rrrracially purrrre Rrrrrrrussian
plus some personal views.
Part III (this one) gives a peek into his cultural and upbringing limits, which "qualify" him as an expert of all things Russian,
who speaks on behalf of the People and the Country.
" I left when I was six, in 1994 , so I'm not really the best person to ask this question of – it should probably be directed
to my parents, or even better, the Russian government at the time which had for all intents and purposes ceased paying academics
their salaries.
I went to California for higher education and because its beaches and mountains made for a nice change from the bleakness of
Lancashire.
I returned to Russia because if I like Putler so much, why don't I go back there? Okay, less flippancy. I am Russian, I
do not feel like a foreigner here, I like living in Moscow, added bonus is that I get much higher quality of life for the buck
than in California ."
"I never went to school, don't have any experience with writing in Russian, and have been overexposed to Anglo culture ,
so yes, it's no surprise that my texts will sound strange."
The Russian branch of Carnegie Endowment did a piece on this issue. It mostly fits your ideas, but the author suggests it was
a compromise, short-term solution – what steps can be taken right now, without crossing red lines of either side – but compromise
is unwelcome among both parties. The official Russian reaction was quite cold too.
Upon a quick perusal of the website of the org at issue, Alexey Arbatov and Susan Eisenhower have some kind of affiliation
with it, thus maybe explaining the compromise approach you mention.
This matter brings to mind Trump saying one thing during his presidential bid – only to then bring in people in key positions
who don't agree with what he campaigned on.
In terms of credentials and name status, the likes of Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, Stephen Cohen and Jim Jatras, are needed in
Trump's admin for the purpose of having a more balanced foreign policy approach that conforms with US interests (not to be necessarily
confused with what neocons and neolibs favor).
Instead, Trump has been top heavy with geopolitical thinking opposites. He possibly thought that having them in would take
some of the criticism away from him.
The arguably ideal admin has both sides of an issue well represented, with the president intelligently deciding what's best.
On the BBC and on other media there are films of Ukrainians attacking a bus with people evacuated from China. These people
even wanted to burn down the hospital where the peoplew were taken (along with other unrelated patients)
This is a sign of a degraded society – attacking people who may or may not be ill!!!
Ukraine will eventually break up
The nationalist agenda is just degrading the society.
-The economy is failing
-People who can, are leaving
-The elected government has no control over the violent people who take to the streets
It's clear Zelensky is a puppet no different to Poroshenko – this destroys the idea that democracy is a good thing.
It's very sad that the EU and the Americans under Obama – empowered these decisive elements and then blame Russia.
Crimea did the right thing leaving Ukraine – Donbass hopefully will follow.
"And there once again you have it – one of the primary causes of the war in Ukraine: the contempt with which the post-Maidan
government and its activist supporters regard a significant portion of their fellow citizens, the 'sick trash' of Donbass"
[ ]
Only them?
[ ]
Yesterday marks yet another milestone on the Ukrainian glorious шлях перемог and long and arduous return to the Family
of the European Nations. The Civil Society ™ of the Ukraine rose as one in the mighty CoronavirusMaidan, against the jackbooted
goons of the crypto-Napoleon (and agent of Putin) Zelensky. Best people from Poltava oblast' (whose ancestors without doubt, welcomed
Swedish Euro-integrators in 1709) and, most important of all, from the Best (Western) Ukrajina, who 6 years ago made the Revolution
of Dignity in Kiev the reality and whom pan Poroshenko called the best part of the Nation, said their firm "Геть вiд Москви!"
to their fellow Ukrainian citizens, evacuated from Wuhan province in China
The Net is choke full of vivid, memorable videos, showing that 6 years after Maidan, the Ukraine now constitute a unified,
эдiна та соборна country. You all, no doubt, already watched these clips, where a brave middle-aged gentleman from the
Western Ukraine, racially pure Ukr, proves his mental acuity by deducing, that crypto-tyrant (and "не лох") Zelensky wants to
settle evacuees in his pristine oblast out of vengeance, because the Best Ukrajina didn't vote for him during the election. Or
a clip about a brave woman from Poltava oblast, suggesting to relocate the Trojan-horse "fellow countrymen" to Chernobol's Zone.
Or even the witty comments and suggestions by the paragons of the Ukrainian Civil Society, " волонтэры ":
Shy and conscientious members of the Ukrainian (national!) intelligentsia had their instincts aligned rrrrrright. When they
learned about that their hospital will be the one receiving the evacuees from Wuhan, the entire medical personell of that Poltava
oblast medical facility rose to their feet and sang "Shenya vmerla". Democracy and localism proved once again the strongest suit
of the pro-European Ukraine, with Ternopol's oblast regional council voting to accept the official statement to the crypto-tyrant
Zelensky, which calls attempts to place evacuees on their Holy land "an act of Genocide of the Ukrainian People" (c)
That's absolutely "normal", predictable reaction of the "racially pure Ukrainians" to their own fellow citizens. Now, Professor,
are you insisting on seeking or even expecting "compromise" with them ? What to do, if after all these years, there is
no such thing as the united Ukrainian political nation?
"Ukraine's democracy is flourishing like never before due to the tireless efforts of grassroots, pro-democracy, civil-society
groups. Many Ukrainians say their country is now firmly set on an irreversible, pro-Western trajectory. Moreover, the country
has also undertaken a top-to-bottom cultural, economic, and political divorce from its former Soviet overlord.
Today, Ukraine is a democratic success story in the making, despite Russia's best efforts to the contrary."
– Nolan Peterson, a former special operations pilot and a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, is The Daily Signal's foreign
correspondent based in Ukraine
Was anyone aware that in 1991 in the Ukraine almost 100% of the population had indoor running
water, but as of 2014 that was down to 87%? I'm talking of the western portion of the Ukraine
here and not the part being attacked by neo-Nazis where it is unsurprising that
infrastructure is being destroyed.
I was curious what happened to the Ukraine's infrastructure since the Soviet Union was
dissolved so I asked some Ukrops what was up. Apparently Putin himself has been sneaking into
the Ukraine at night and stealing the plumbing right out of people's houses. I kid thee not!
Putin did it! Ukrops wouldn't lie about that, would they?
If you think what Putin is doing to America is bad, then just be thankful you are not in
Ukropistan! Over there Putin causes people to stub their toes on the furniture when they get
out of bed to take a leak at night. He tricks people into not bringing their umbrellas on
days that it rains. He even causes babies to foul their diapers right after they were
changed. Putin's evil knows no bounds!
"... The NATO alliance was established to protect war-devastated Western European nations against a possible Soviet threat until they got on their feet economically again. Dwight Eisenhower even said that if American troops remained in Europe too long, NATO would have failed. Yet long after the European economic miracle -- amazing prosperity achieved during a robust recovery in the decade or so after the war -- and long after the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO, instead of going away, has expanded its territory and mission. The American military remains in Europe to guarantee the security of nations that have a combined GDP greater than that of the United States. Meanwhile, Russia, the successor "threat" to the Soviet Union, has a GDP equivalent to that of Spain. The overextended United States also has a staggering national debt of $23 trillion and eye-popping unfunded government mandates at all levels that amount to between $150 and $200 trillion. ..."
Bossing, bullying, and nickel-and-diming won't make for an easy divorce. Donald Trump at
NATO Summit, Brussels, in 2018
According to Politico , the American delegation to the
illustrious Munich Security Conference -- the security counterpart to the elite World Economic
Forum in Davos, Switzerland -- was apparently "dumbfounded" by the hostile reaction they
received from European speakers, including French President Emmanuel Macron and German
President Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Steinmeier even took aim at the Trump administration's
hallowed "Make America Great Again" slogan, accusing the United States of "rejecting the idea
of the international community." Steinmeier characterized Trump's position this way: "Every
country should fend for itself and put its own interests over all others 'great again' -- even
at the expense of neighbors and partners."
Ironically, Steinmeier's acerbic comments seem to conclude that if the United States becomes
uncomfortable with continuing to effectively subsidize the defense of wealthy European states,
which have long been capable of being at least the first line of defense for themselves, it is
inflicting suffering on its allies and doesn't even believe in the "international community."
Steinmeier's grumbling is akin to that of an entitled young adult still living at home after
being told by his parents to get a job.
The NATO alliance was established to protect war-devastated Western European nations
against a possible Soviet threat until they got on their feet economically again. Dwight
Eisenhower even said that if American troops remained in Europe too long, NATO would have
failed. Yet long after the European economic miracle -- amazing prosperity achieved during a
robust recovery in the decade or so after the war -- and long after the Soviet Union collapsed,
NATO, instead of going away, has expanded its territory and mission. The American military
remains in Europe to guarantee the security of nations that have a combined GDP greater than
that of the United States. Meanwhile, Russia, the successor "threat" to the Soviet Union, has a
GDP equivalent to that of Spain. The overextended United States also has a staggering national
debt of $23 trillion and eye-popping unfunded government mandates at all levels that amount to
between $150 and $200 trillion.
One might conclude from this that Trump's policy of angrily haranguing and belittling his
NATO allies into coughing up a few more dollars for their own defense is the right one. Trump
crudely understands the problem but has come up with the wrong solution. The many Eurocentric
analysts, who dominated the American foreign policy elite during the Cold War and are now
trying to hang on to relevance, keep hyping the general Russia threat by excessively demonizing
its president, Vladimir Putin, who is really just another tin-pot dictator.
A third way is still possible, one that avoids both placating the hand-wringing Eurocentric
establishment and the nickel-and-diming of NATO allies that Trump desires.
The worst fear of the Eurocentrics is that Trump will, before leaving office, withdraw from
the NATO alliance, much as he did with the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, the
international agreement on climate change, and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty. Yet this
is the proper, though radical, approach. It needs to be done immediately, so that it can't be
reversed by the next president. The problem is that Trump has been rude and obnoxious enough to
the Europeans that the divorce might very well make Britain's exit from the European Union look
like a walk in the park. The ideal would have been to have had a previously cordial
relationship with Europe, followed by a U.S. statement that the European economic miracle has
allowed them to withstand a stagnant Russia and they need to finally take primary
responsibility for their own defense.
This would have allowed the United States rebuild its dissipated power by reducing
government spending and debt and reallocating the remaining military forces to the Pacific to
hedge against a rising China. Such a change is critical, and it remains to be seen whether it
can be achieved.
Ivan Eland is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute and director of the
Independent Institute's Center on Peace & Liberty. His new book, War and the Rogue
Presidency: Restoring the Republic After Congressional Failure, was released in May
2019.
"Trump Should Get Out Of NATO Now, But Nicely" is spot on. The Obama Administration pivot to
the Pacific could have be continued in a cordial fashion but that is not the Donald way. The
US needs to make a treaty with Russia and leave Europe with the possible exception of
Ramstein AFB.
These goofy neocon statements won't buy you anything. Stop giving legitimacy to the
establishment's false narrative, it won't make the foreign policy elites accept you, you
can't oppose the elite and at the same time work within the confines of the paradigm they
created. Not only are such statements untrue, it's self defeating.
Is it really false to say that Russia is stagnant though? After all, Russia has a falling
population (population peaked in the early 1990s), a relatively low life-expectancy, an
economy that is smaller than that of Italy's in terms of nominal GDP, and a conventional
military capability that is a mere shadow of what it once was in Soviet times. Other
countries (China, the U.S. etc..) may have a low fertility rate as well, but China has a
massive population to start with, and the U.S. can attract immigrants fairly well. Note: I am
not saying that immigration is necessarily a good thing when it is used as a means of
demographic replacement to make up for a low fertility rate, but it is one way to cope with
the geopolitical and economic implications of a low birth rate, at least for a time.
Certainly, Russia is not doing too badly by Third World standards, and,to be fair, I do
think Putin has utilized a fundamentally weak geopolitical hand rather well. It's also pretty
clear that Putin played a significant role in bringing Russia back from the brink
economically and culturally following the degradation it suffered in the 1990s. For that
matter, I think his popularity is likely genuine among many people in Russia, even if he is a
dictator of sorts. Still, if you look at the fundamental, long-term economic, demographic,
and military trends, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Russia is a declining power.
Over a long enough time frame, it almost certainly is.
Given the fact that Russia has not had an above replacement fertility rate since the fall of
the USSR, and given that it's ability to attract immigrants is rather limited (how many third
world immigrants would choose Russia, over, say, Germany?), I don't see how a falling
population is not inevitable for Russia in the long term. This is especially a problem for
Russia given the vastness of its eastern regions, as well as how few people live in those
regions to begin with.
A consistent theme of Pat Buchanan's columns about Russia is that-- given the vast
population disparities involved--China is likely to start slowly colonizing Siberia at some
point, at least in an implicit, economic sort of way. I do wonder if this is a likely
outcome.
I said that it's doing well by Third World standards, not that it necessarily is itself a
Third World nation. Historically, Russia was considered a Second World country, which makes
sense.
Russia has an excellent education system, its medical services are good, it has a high
literacy rate, it is white and Christian, with conservative values, and it has few gun
massacres.
Leaving NATO is a no-brainer. The US and Russia have a common foe - the Chicoms.
The problem with disbanding NATO is that no one knows what will follow.
Would Europe go back to the intra power politics of the early 20th Century? In which case the
US will likely sucked into their next war.
Or would the EU integrate it's defense and foreign policy and create a Federal Europe? And if
they did, how long would it take Europe to be a peer competitor to the US?
How many European countries have territorial claims on each other? Few to none.
How many European countries are in competition for colonies? Few to none.
You don't need territorial issues for war, the US had no territorial issues with Iraq nor
Afghanistan in 2001, it didn't prevent the US from invading both countries.
I can easily see something like social dumping starting a cascade that takes Europe to
war. That is the main European fear about BREXIT.
I think Russia is more worried about its southern flank than its western one in the long term
especially once the US and its ambition is gone. Russia badly needs to get closer to Europe.
Germany will rule the E.U. just as they would have If Hitler had won the 2cd World war It
will be national socialist which the Muslims will like .. The remaining Jews will have to
leave or die
NATO should have been mothballed after the fall of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. But the
vested interests of the military-industrial-financial complex have kept it expanding,
antagonizing Russia in its sphere of influence, seeking out new monsters (such as the unjust
and illegal war on Serbia), and it mainly exists now to enrich arms producers and to support
bureaucrats in Brussels with sinecures in their fancy headquarters building.
As an anti-war lefty, I just love this destruction of the intelligence community and hope
Trump really does abandon NATO... right before we drag him out of White House in shackles...
or some such thing.
It's curious the complaint about debt in this post... didn't everyone just agree to
increase the defense budget last year... again?
This would have allowed the United States rebuild its dissipated power by reducing
government spending and debt and reallocating the remaining military forces to the Pacific to
hedge against a rising China.
Why must the US hedge against a rising China in the Pacific ?
How is this a realistic plan of action?
China's rise has been through voluntary economic endeavors with other nations not through
force of arms. Asian issues must be solved via Asian nations engaging in dialectical dialogue
not US government gun-boat diplomacy.
The same logic that allows for a reduced US role in NATO (ie defending Europe) clearly
shows that America's allies in the Pacific (eg Japan, S.Korea, Indonesia, etc) have more than
recovered (eg Japan world's 3rd largest economy, S.Korea 12th largest, Indonesia 16th
largest) from the devastation of WWII and the Korea War and are quite capable of defending
themselves.
To paraphrase George Washington - trade with all entangling alliances with none.
The US has been running trillion dollar yearly deficits for over a decade with an
acknowledged 23 trillion dollar debt (as of 2020) along with hundreds of trillions of dollars
in unfunded future liabilities and deteriorating national infrastructure in need of over 3
trillion dollars in upgrades.
In order to meet these pressing issues the US government needs to stop garrisoning (ie
empire) the world under the tissue paper thin veneer of providing global stability and
security (of which it can not even provide in Baltimore Md 50 miles from DC) and return it's
myopic/megalomaniacal gaze to America.
I don't think Trump is really interested in leaving NATO. US has a stable & a dependable
market in Europe. US' presence in Europe prevents China & Russia spreading their wings
there. It will also assist US in containing these major powers along side its efforts in
South China Sea & the Info-Pacific. Internationally US gets the support of 27 Countries
in all international fora. To my mind, the very reason why US continually keeps projecting
Russia as an enemy is to ensure that the European countries remain tied to US.
Even if US is unwilling to let go Europe from the alliance, it is time EU abandons US
& takes responsibility for itself. Europe has the potential to become an important &
a powerful pole in a Multipolar world.
Russia presents more of a danger today than during the height of the Cold War: then the
Kremlin had a proper buffer zone, today it has not. There is the existential threat: the
reason nations to war.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
While I agree that NATO is now irrelevant and a significant waste of US tax dollars, shifting
that expenditure to fight China might be an even bigger mistake. The US should withdraw its
military forces from the Western Pacific for the same reason we should leave NATO. Japan,
Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines should be made responsible for making their own
accommodations with China.
"... Schiff insisted that Trump must be removed now to "assure the integrity" of the 2020 election. He elaborated somewhat ambiguously that "The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff also unleashed one of the most time honored but completely lame excuses for going to war, claiming that military assistance to Ukraine that had been delayed by Trump was essential for U.S. national security. He said "As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don't have to fight Russia here." ..."
"... Schiff, a lawyer who has never had to put his life on the line for anything and whose son sports a MOSSAD t-shirt, is one of those sunshine soldiers who finds it quite acceptable if someone else does the dying. Journalist Max Blumenthal observed that "Liberals used to mock Bush supporters when they used this jingoistic line during the war on Iraq. Now they deploy it to justify an imperialist proxy war against a nuclear power." Aaron Mate at The Nation added that "For all the talk about Russia undermining faith in U.S. elections, how about Russiagaters like Schiff fear-mongering w/ hysterics like this? Let's assume Ukraine did what Trump wanted: announce a probe of Burisma. Would that delegitimize a 2020 U.S. election? This is a joke." ..."
"... On Wednesday, Schiff maintained that "Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become the de facto proving ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century will become defined by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the legitimacy of state institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The Kremlin showed boldly in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not stay in Ukraine. Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will do so again." Not surprisingly, if one substitutes the "United States" for "Russia" and "Kremlin" and changes "Ukraine" to Iran or Venezuela, the Schiff comment actually becomes much more credible. ..."
"... Donald Trump's erratic rule has certainly dismayed many of his former supporters, but the Democratic Party is offering nothing but another helping of George W. Bush/Barack Obama establishment war against the world. We Americans have had enough of that for the past nineteen years. Trump may indeed deserve to be removed based on his actions, but the argument that it is essential to do so because of Russia lurking is complete nonsense. Pretty scary that the apparent chief promoter of that point of view is someone who actually has power in the government, one Adam Schiff, head of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee. ..."
"... It is scary, but what else can Schiff say? They have no credible arguments against Trump, or for their own party. They are a bunch of lying scumbags that will kill, cheat, steal, mislead, carpet-bag and anything else unethical to achieve their sleazy goals. ..."
"... Since the US Sociopaths In Charge have totally Effed up the nation, and a significant portion of the world, they have to have SOMEBODY to blame. They certainly won't take the blame they deserve themselves. ..."
"... What the ZOG wants the ZOG gets ..."
"... It is appropriate to recall the words of Joseph Goebbels: "Give me the media, and I will make a herd of pigs from any nation," and pigs are easy to drive to the slaughterhouse. Only Russia can really resist such a situation in the world. Therefore, she is the enemy. ..."
"... The Centrist Democrats and Republicans want to paint the old school God and Country Conservatives Equality and Justice for the USA (Nationalist) into being Russian ..."
One of the more interesting aspects of the nauseating impeachment trial in the Senate was
the repeated vilification of Russia and its President Vladimir Putin.
To hate Russia has become dogma on both sides of the political aisle, in part because no
politician has really wanted to confront the lesson of the 2016 election, which was that most
Americans think that the federal government is basically incompetent and staffed by career
politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell who should return back home and get real jobs
.
Worse still, it is useless, and much like the one trick pony the only thing it can do is
steal money from the taxpayers and waste it on various types of self-gratification that only
politicians can appreciate. That means that the United States is engaged is fighting multiple
wars against make-believe enemies while the country's infrastructure rots and a host of
officially certified grievance groups control the public space.
It sure doesn't look like Kansas anymore.
The fact that opinion polls in Europe suggest that many Europeans would rather have Vladimir
Putin than their own hopelessly corrupt leaders is suggestive. One can buy a whole range of
favorable t-shirts featuring Vladimir Putin on Ebay , also suggesting that most Americans find
the official Russophobia narrative both mysterious and faintly amusing. They may not really be
into the expressed desire of the huddled masses in D.C. to go to war to bring true U.S. style
democracy to the un-enlightened.
One also must wonder if the Democrats are reading the tea leaves correctly. If they think
that a slogan like "Honest Joe Biden will keep us safe from Moscow" will be a winner in 2020
they might again be missing the bigger picture. Since the focus on Trump's decidedly erratic
behavior will inevitably die down after the impeachment trial is completed, the Democrats will
have to come up with something compelling if they really want to win the presidency and it sure
won't be the largely fictionalized Russian threat.
Nevertheless, someone should tell Congressman Adam Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence
Committee, to shut up as he is becoming an international embarrassment. His "closing arguments"
speeches last week were respectively two-and-a-half hours and ninety minutes long and were
inevitably praised by the mainstream media as "magisterial," "powerful," and "impressive." The
Washington Post 's resident Zionist extremist Jennifer Rubin
labeled it "a grand slam" while legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin
called it "dazzling." Gail Collins of the New York Times dubbed it "a
great job" and added that Schiff is now "a rock star." Daily Beast enthused that
the remarks "will go down in history " and progressive activist Ryan Knight called it "a
closing statement for the ages." Hollywood was also on board with actress Debra Messing
tweeting "I am in tears. Thank you Chairman Schiff for fighting for our country."
Actually, a better adjective would have been "scary" and not merely due to its elaboration
of the alleged high crimes and misdemeanors committed by President Trump, much of which was
undeniably true even if not necessarily impeachable. It was scary because it was a warmongers speech, full of allusions to Russia, to Moscow's
"interference" in 2016, and to the
ridiculous proposition that if Trump were to be defeated in 2020 he might not concede and
Russia could even intervene militarily in the United States in support of its puppet.
Schiff insisted that Trump must be removed now to "assure the integrity" of the 2020
election. He elaborated somewhat ambiguously that "The president's misconduct cannot be decided
at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff also unleashed one of the most time honored but completely lame excuses for
going to war, claiming that military assistance to Ukraine that had been delayed by Trump was
essential for U.S. national security. He said "As one witness put it during our impeachment
inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there,
and we don't have to fight Russia here."
Schiff, a lawyer who has never had to put his life on the line for anything and whose son
sports a MOSSAD t-shirt, is one of those sunshine soldiers who finds it quite acceptable if
someone else does the dying. Journalist Max Blumenthal observed that "Liberals used
to mock Bush supporters when they used this jingoistic line during the war on Iraq. Now they
deploy it to justify an imperialist proxy war against a nuclear power." Aaron Mate at The
Nation added that "For all the talk about
Russia undermining faith in U.S. elections, how about Russiagaters like Schiff fear-mongering
w/ hysterics like this? Let's assume Ukraine did what Trump wanted: announce a probe of
Burisma. Would that delegitimize a 2020 U.S. election? This is a joke."
Over
at Antiwar Daniel Lazare explains how the Wednesday speech was "a fear-mongering,
sword-rattling harangue that will not only raise tensions with Russia for no good reason, but
sends a chilling message to [Democratic Party] dissidents at home that if they deviate from
Russiagate orthodoxy by one iota, they'll be driven from the fold."
The orthodoxy that Lazare was writing about includes the established Nancy Pelosi/Chuck
Schumer narrative that Russia invaded "poor innocent Ukraine" in 2014, that it interfered in
the 2016 election to defeat Hillary Clinton, and that it is currently trying to smear Joe
Biden. One might add to that the growing consensus that Russia can and will interfere again in
2020 to help Trump. Absent from the narrative is the part how the U.S. intervened in Ukraine
first to remove its government and the fact that there is something very unsavory about Joe
Biden's son taking a high-paying sinecure board position from a notably corrupt Ukrainian
oligarch while his father was Vice President and allegedly directing U.S. assistance to a
Ukrainian anti-corruption effort.
On Wednesday,
Schiff maintained that "Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become
the de facto proving ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century
will become defined by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the
legitimacy of state institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The
Kremlin showed boldly in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not
stay in Ukraine. Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will
do so again." Not surprisingly, if one substitutes the "United States" for "Russia" and
"Kremlin" and changes "Ukraine" to Iran or Venezuela, the Schiff comment actually becomes much
more credible.
The compulsion on the part of the Democrats to bring down Trump to avoid having to deal with
their own failings has brought about a shift in their established foreign policy, placing the
neocons and their friends back in charge. For Schiff, who has enthusiastically supported every
failed American military effort since 9/11, today's Russia is the Soviet Union reborn, and
don't you forget it pardner! Newsweek is meanwhile reporting that the U.S. military is reading
the tea leaves and
is gearing up to fight the Russians. Per Schiff, Trump must be stopped as he is part of a
grand Russian conspiracy to overthrow everything the United States stands for. If the Kremlin
is not stopped now, it's first major step, per Schiff, will be to "remake the map of Europe by
dint of military force."
Donald Trump's erratic rule has certainly dismayed many of his former supporters, but the Democratic Party is offering
nothing but another helping of George W. Bush/Barack Obama establishment war against the world. We Americans have had enough of
that for the past nineteen years. Trump may indeed deserve to be removed based on his actions, but the argument that it is
essential to do so because of Russia lurking is complete nonsense. Pretty scary that the apparent chief promoter of that point
of view is someone who actually has power in the government, one Adam Schiff, head of the House of Representatives Intelligence
Committee.
If the USA doesn't have a bogey man to be afraid of, the USA might worry more and to
insist on fixing the problems within the Nation.
So many of our politicians are guilty of allowing un constitutional on going act like the
removal of Due Process of law for some people and the on going bailout of Global Markets with
the US Dollar. The Patriot act and FISA Courts should have been gone.
Agreed. He seems as about as close as a leader can get to genuinely liking his country and
people. It seems the ones here only give a **** about carbon, Central and South Americans,
and cutting off my kids genitalia.
It is scary, but what else can Schiff say? They have no credible arguments against Trump,
or for their own party. They are a bunch of lying scumbags that will kill, cheat, steal,
mislead, carpet-bag and anything else unethical to achieve their sleazy goals. When Trump
wins in a landslide in 2020, they will claim it's because the Russians 'fixed' the election,
and the Democratic party will break into pieces arguing about how they failed and what they
did wrong. See www.splittingpennies.com
Since the US Sociopaths In Charge have totally Effed up the nation, and a significant
portion of the world, they have to have SOMEBODY to blame. They certainly won't take the
blame they deserve themselves.
lots of words and no answer to the title question. Giraldi does not see the deep
ideological problems: Russia is not trying to diversify into a PoC country, they do not
worship gays and may be the only white people nation with sustaining birth rate. The US will
go to war there is no way to let this continue.
The smart ppl are doing a lousy job of informing the dumb ones about accepted policy like
"America Always Needs An Enemy". Smart ones understand that, and see the bigger game because
of it.
We fight the dumb ones who believe Russian boogeyman crap, instead of helping them
understand they are being misled on who the enemy really is. The dumb ones then fight back
and further entrench that brainwashing.
It is appropriate to recall the words of Joseph Goebbels: "Give me the media, and I will
make a herd of pigs from any nation," and pigs are easy to drive to the slaughterhouse. Only
Russia can really resist such a situation in the world. Therefore, she is the enemy.
The Centrist Democrats and Republicans want to paint the old school God and Country
Conservatives Equality and Justice for the USA (Nationalist) into being Russian. How dare we
expect enforcement of the Laws on the books against them. They want to be deemed Royalty with
all the Elitist Rights.
The old rally call about Russia was always Communist Russia but, they don't do that
anymore? Why ? They love their Communist China wage slaves. The Centrist love Communist labor
in the name of profits . Human rights be damned it's all about the Global Elitist to them
now.
One bonfire that refuses to die and flamed up again today - Crowdstrike and the media's total
refusal to even mention its name, which was the really critical part of the Ukrainian phone
call. Not their phony quid pro quo.
All Democrat candidates need to questioned about Crowdstrike, since it led to two failed
major Democrat-led actions against President Trump - The Mueller investigation and the
Democrat impeachment.
Following article underscores what Larry Johnson has been reporting for years:
"... Imagine if we substitute the U.S. for Russia and the country "invaded" was Canada, rather than Ukraine, the government overthrown was in Ottawa and not Kiev, and the provinces embroiled in a foreign-backed civil war have been Nova Scotia and New Brunswick rather the provinces of Eastern Ukraine? This report, written in 2016, may make it easier to understand what has been really going on in Ukraine. Clicking on the links is key to understanding the real story. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Versions of this article first appeared on ..."
The impeachment hearings and trial of Donald Trump were filled with talk of Russian
aggression against Ukraine and threats to the United States. But what would it be like if we
switched the roles of Russia and the U.S.?
Imagine if we substitute the U.S. for Russia and the country "invaded" was Canada,
rather than Ukraine, the government overthrown was in Ottawa and not Kiev, and the provinces
embroiled in a foreign-backed civil war have been Nova Scotia and New Brunswick rather the
provinces of Eastern Ukraine? This report, written in 2016, may make it easier to understand
what has been really going on in Ukraine. Clicking on the links is key to understanding the
real story.
T he United States has "invaded" Canada to support the breakaway Maritime provinces that are
resisting a Moscow-engineered violent coup d'etat against the democratically elected
government in Ottawa.
The U.S. move is to protect separatists in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia after Washington
annexed Prince Edwards Island in a quickly arranged referendum .
The Islanders voted over 90 percent in favor of joining
the United States following the Russian-backed coup. Moscow has condemned the referendum as
illega l.
Hard-liners in the U.S. want
Washington to annex all three Maritime provinces, whose fighters are defying the coup in Ottawa
after Moscow installed an unelected prime minister.
Russian-backed Canadian federal troops have
launched so-called "anti-terrorist" operations in the breakaway region to crush the
rebellion, shelling residential areas and killing hundreds of civilians.
The violent coup.
The Canadian army are joined by Russian-supported neofascist battalions that played a crucial role in the
overthrow of the Canadian government. In Halifax, the extremists have burned alive at least 40
pro-U.S. civilians who had taken refugee in a trade union building.
Proof that Russia was behind the overthrow of the elected Canadian prime minister is
contained in a
leaked conversation between Georgiy Yevgenevich Borisenko, foreign ministry chief of
Moscow's North America department, and Alexander Darchiev, the Russian ambassador to
Canada.
According to a transcript of the leaked conversation,
Borisenko discussed who the new Canadian leaders should be six weeks before the coup took
place.
Russia moved to launch the coup when Canada decided
to take a loan package from the IMF that had fewer strings attached than a loan from
Russia.
Russia's Beijing ally was reluctant to back the coup. But this seemed of little concern to
Borisenko who is heard on the tape saying, "Fuck China."
Minister handing out cookies in the square.
Weeks before the coup Borisenko was filmed visiting protestors who had camped out in
Parliament Square in Ottawa demanding the ouster of the prime minister. Borisenko is seen
giving out cakes to
the demonstrators.
The foreign ministers of Russian-allied Belarus and Cuba also marched with the protestors
through the streets of Ottawa against the government. Russian media has portrayed the
unconstitutional change of government an act of "democracy." Russian senators have met in
public with extreme right-wing Canadian coup leaders,
praising their rebellion.
Borisenko said in a speech that Russia had spent $5 billion
over the past decade to "bring democracy" to Canada.
Senator meeting far-right coup leaders.
The money was spent on training "civil society." The use of non-governmental organizations
to overthrow foreign governments that stand in the way of Russia's economic and geo-strategic
interests is well documented, especially in a 1991 Washington Post column,
"Innocence Abroad: The New World of Spyless Coups ."
The United States has thus moved to ban
Russian NGOs from operating in the country.
The coup took place as protestors violently clashed with police, breaking through barricades
and killing a number of officers. Snipers fired on the police and the crowd from a nearby
building in Parliament Square in which the Russian embassy had set up offices
just a few floors above, according to Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
Son Gets Job After Coup
Russian lawmakers
compared President Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler for allegedly sending U.S. troops into the
breakaway provinces and for annexing Prince Edward Island in an act of "American aggression."
The Maritimes have had long ties to the U.S. dating back to the American Revolution.
Russia says it has intelligence proving that U.S. tanks have crossed the Maine border into
New Brunswick, but have failed to make the evidence public. They have revealed no satellite
imagery. Russian news media only reports American-backed rebels fighting in the Maritimes, not
American troops.
Washington denies it has invaded but says some American volunteers have entered the Canadian
province to join the fight.
Russia's puppet prime minister now in charge in Ottawa has only offered as proof six American passports of
U.S. soldiers found in New Brunswick.
Son gets job on energy company board after his father's government backs violent coup.
The Maritime Canadian rebels have secured anti-aircraft weapons enabling them to shoot down
a number of Royal Canadian Air Force transport planes.
A Malaysian airlines passenger jet was also shot down over Nova Scotia killing all on board.
Russia has accused President Obama of being behind the incident, charging that the U.S.
provided the anti-aircraft weapon.
Moscow has refused to release any intelligence to support its claim, other than
statements by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Canada's economy is near collapse and is dependent on infusions of Russian aid. This comes
despite a former Russian foreign ministry official being installed as
Canada's finance minister, only receiving Canadian citizenship on her first day on the job.
Despite installing a Russian to run Canada's economy, President Putin told the U.N. General
Assembly that Russia had
"few economic interests" in the country. But Russian agribusiness companies have already
taken stakes in Albertan wheat fields. And Ilya Medvedev, son of Russian Prime Minister
Dmitri Medvedev, as well as a Lavrov family friend
joined the board of Canada's largest oil company just weeks after the coup.
Russia's ultimate aim, beginning with the imposition of sanctions on the U.S., appears to be
a color revolution in Washington to overthrow Obama and install a Russian-friendly American
president.
This is clear from numerous statements by Russian officials and academics. A former Russian
national security advisor whom Putin consults on foreign policy said the United States should be
broken into three countries.
He has also
written that Canada is the stepping stone to the United States and that if the U.S. loses
Canada it will fail to control North America.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent
forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at[email protected]and
followed on Twitter @unjoe .
mary floyd , February 15, 2020 at 13:20
The most important takeaway in this article for me was that the US should be broken into
three separate entities!
That would work well for most Americans. All in all, this is a great piece, Mr. Lauria!
Dao Gen , February 15, 2020 at 02:28
Joe, you are The Truth. The only thing you left out, no doubt for reasons of space and
time, was the immortal statement made by a leading member of the Russian Duma, who said
during a stirring and well-received speech that, “Canada is our crucial first line of
defense against the US. If Canada weren’t there to stop the Americans, we’d have
to fight them right here on our own doorstep.”
A very creative way of making the point. Still do not understand the depth of what often
appears to be heart felt hate for Russia by very powerful and smart people. Remember reading
a comment by Phil Girardi early in the Trump tour when he remarked at the depth of dislike of
Russia within the spook community. He wrote he was surprised and had, I think, been part of
that community.
Eddie S , February 15, 2020 at 14:51
RE: “…depth of dislike of Russia within the spook community”.
While I have no ‘special knowledge’ of the so-called ‘intelligence
community’, there’s a few reasons for this that come to-mind:
— Job preservation. The most obvious. The US wouldn’t need ~80% of those spooks
if there
weren’t big scary Russians/Chinese/Iranians/N.Koreans constantly plotting against
the
peaceful, benevolent US.
— Spooks believe in what is mainly a distractionary ploy by US oligarchs/plutocrats.
These
wealthy interests don’t want to lose some of their wealth to social reforms, so they
constantly
financially support scare-mongering, which some spooks unquestioningly accept.
— The profession tends to attract some of the more paranoid elements in our society,
so
they’re inclined that way by nature/personality.
robert e williamson jr , February 14, 2020 at 17:51
Well one thing for sure we would not be seeing a female anchor on CNN bemoaning the fact
the because of the coronavirus many popular kids toys might not be available here in the U.S.
for the up coming holidays (?).
Yes it did happen, hell I couldn’t make that up.
DARYL , February 14, 2020 at 15:45
…or better yet, substitute Central America for Ukraine, and Panama(canal) for
Crimea, then you have the makings of an even more salient parallel.
Realist , February 14, 2020 at 15:42
The difference is that under your scenario the world would be a smoking heap of
radioactive ashes already as the exceptional nation, unlike the ever cautious Russians, would
have immediately made bombastic threats and then launched military attacks to protect its
“security interests.” (Warring to “protect” security interests has
replaced invasion and occupation to save souls.) Things would have escalated from there to
its predestined thermonuclear climax, as they will in the real world if Uncle Sam
doesn’t get a grip on his uncontrolled aggression, demanding whatever he wants whenever
he wants it at the point of a gun. The world seems to be circling the drain whether or not
Washington is allowed to micromanage the affairs of Russia, China, Iran and every last duchy,
principality and people’s republic in addition to its own monumental mess it calls
domestic affairs. We’ve only got two political parties in this madhouse and they are
both equally bent on destroying civilisation if they can’t rule it all, which seems to
be the only point they agree on. Each party thinks it preferable to allow an obscenely rich
oligarch (what else should we call Trump or Bloomberg?) from the other side to rule rather
than a “communist” like Bernie Sanders or a “naive peacenik” like
Tulsi Gabbard to be elected president. If the space aliens land tomorrow and start recruiting
colonists to populate newly terraformed planets in other solar systems, sign me up. Yeah,
it’s become that absurd down here.
Simply imperial rot and corruption of power on all sides.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans have an exclusive on those qualities.
Mark Thomason , February 14, 2020 at 12:37
This is a useful approach. It needs added to it the language and culture element: as if
the part that wants out of the Moscow coup shares our own language and culture, while the
rest of Canada does not, and the rest of Canada had gone on a spree to suppress that language
and culture. It is hard to find a parallel in Canada to those facts, but it is what happened
in Ukraine.
It is important to understanding to put oneself in the shoes of the other guys. It was
once called walking a mile in the other guy’s moccasins, and given a Native wisdom
attribution.
At the end of this essay, you may find a song which reasonably applies to Donald Trump
directed to Democrats.
How does one say Adam Schiff without laughing? It's hard to continue typing while
contemplating the Burbank Buffoon. Yet AS is making obscene flatus-like noises about
impeachment 2.0. He and Nervous Nancy will conspire with chief strategist Gerald Nadler about
extending the charges of 1.0 to 2.0.
Second verse
Same as the first
Obstructing leaking by firing leakers. That's one of the pending charges. Leutnant Oberst
Vindman will be help up as the innocent victim of political retaliation. As I understand the
military code of conduct, it says that the underling, Herr Oberst Vindman, went outside the
chain of command and released classified information. In the military this is called
insubordination, perhaps gross insubordination in view of the classified nature of the
information.
Another charge to be filed on behalf of former Ambassador Yovanovich, is that her God-given
Female rights were brutally violated as retaliation of advising Ukrainian officials to
disregard Commander Cheeto.
There is no telling what additional non-crimes may be thrown at the feet at El Trumpo. All
too horrible to contemplate--like someone throwing feces-contaminated dope needles onto Nervous
Nancy's front lawn in Pacific Heights.
If this Shampeachment 2.0 (S2) occurs before November's election, Democrats will become as
rare as dodo birds. If such proponents of S2 persist after the general election, they better
have secure transportation to an extradition-free country.
If it gets bad enough, considering the Clinton Mafia's body count, would it be unreasonable
to expect some untimely heart attacks and suicides with red scarves? On Clintonites? Soros et
al.?
When the first shot and you don't kill the king, flee. But the DNC is going to attempt shot
number 2. Trump WILL NEVER ALLOW A SECOND IMPEACHMENT TO OCCUR, no matter how patently
worthless? Will the most powerful narcissist in the world allow the DNC / coup perpetrators to
escaping Trumpian retribution?
Those doubting the Wrath of Q be prepared to be disabused of the impression that Q is pure
fantasy. Fantasy--like GPS targeting a single small sniper drone to shoot someone from 3000
feet.
Sorry folks. I live in a swamp. I've stepped in shit with my eyes open. Many of you have
too. Some of the excrement was of my own making.
Think about the singularly most effective and complex plot the world has ever seen, called
9/11. Think of the thousands of lives purposefully snuffed in then name of power and money.
Call yourselves serfs--that's a euphemism. You--including me-- are nothing but ants. Goddam
little ants that only Janes respect. There are no ascetic Janes in the penthouses of the
elites.
But I digressed to the mysterious existence of morality in politics as a whole. Today's
topic is more confined to the Democratic nomination.
Statement of Bias: Go Tulsi. Bravo Andy. The rest of you to the elsewhere--yeah, BS too.
The Dems are determined to grasp Defeat from the jaws of Defeat. Quite a trick. Like trying
to borrow money from the Judge during a Bankruptcy trial.
I talked today with a freshman college student majoring in political science about her
thought about the Shampeachment. She hadn't been paying attention. Not that I blame her. Her
college freshman friend watched C-Span; wasn't impressed. We political aficionados know all
about this political debauchery. If AS and NN attempt S2, expect many defections from the
supporting vote.
Democrat respect has dwindled in the Independent sector. This is not to say the Repugnants
are thereby more popular. They aren't. Trump is. Trump need that NH clown to challenge him in
the Repugnant primary to prove exactly how powerful he is. Anybody notice who were in the
audience, sitting nearby during Trump's post acquittal speech. Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham.
The lamb and the lion laying together. They are both on the Trump Train. Even Richard Burr
voted Trump in the impeachment. Mittens feared both his cojones would be excised if he voted
against Trump on both counts. What a chickenheart.
But where are the Dems? Why, they are Here. Yes. Yes. And they are There. Yes. Yes. And they
are Near. Yes. Yes. But....they are Far. Whither thou goest?
I refrain from pointed comments about AOC in further comments. The Squad is the iceberg
floating away from the glacier which spawned it. Unsuitable to warm weather produced by
political combat, the Squad faction will woke themselves up to dubious futures.
Establishment versus Bernie:
Not a contest. Spineless Bernie pretzelizes during first heated combat (which the Dem Debate
Debacles were not). Won't take a second punch--the first during night 3 of the '16 DNC
convention. Fist-shy now. Open Borders? WTF? Are you so nuts? If one offered a person the
choice personal safety in their own homes and streets and free medical care for all--including
the criminal aliens that A New Path Forward proposes--what do you think 85% of the public would
choose?
Pandering.
The Left is also pushing strenuous avoidance of discussing issues in a platitude-depleted
fashion. Yeah, Bernie's giving the same speech, with suitable modification, over 40 years.
Consistency is a good thing, yeh? How about persistently beating your head with a hammer (while
you still can)? Sounds like something Sun Tzu might not recommend.
Now, speaking of Las Vegas and the Nevada Primary. The culinary workers union will not
endorse Bernie due to well-deserved or ill-deserved claims that M4A will abolish hard won union
health benefits. And don't worry, the Shadow will be there, although Buttjiggle has now
disavowed any further connection, along with David Plouffe.
Keeping the Bern off the campaign trail is going to infuriate the Woke Generation / Antifa.
When--not if--the DNC cheats Bernie out of the nomination, if such proves necessary* will
literally result in blood on the streets along with broken windows and flaming tires. Associate
with that lot, eh? Given the choice of going into a biker bar, where brawls are always on the
menu, or a discreet wine bar, which would one rather choose? Sorry, those are your only
choices.
Nancy Pelosi, impressed by Arnold Schwarzenegger's former physical prowess, tears up her
copy of the state of the union address. How decorous. How courteous. How polite. Seen around
the world. Nigel Farage must be laughing his butt off, thinking about the shallow anti-Brexit
campaigns against his were compared to our Coup. Nigel won. Trump . is. winning. Getting tired
of winning yet?
I could go on for pages more of Dem stupidity, but why bother? Stupidity surrounds us.
Betting odds: DNC 1,999,999 to Bernie 1.
Place your bets.
For all the good it will do and I am sincere about this, I will vote Tulsi in the Dem
primary.
Here is the song Dems need to heed. This is Donald Trump telling' y'all I'M NOT YOUR MAN
NATO is marketed as providing each member nation with the benefit that the other member
nations are committed to coming to its aid militarily in the event of an attack by another
nation, especially Russia .
However, Pew Research Center poll results released Sunday indicate that the majority or
plurality of people in 11 of 16 NATO countries where individuals were questioned oppose their
respective governments meeting this commitment, at least if the military adversary were
Russia.
These poll results indicate that serious thought should be given to disbanding NATO , an
organization with a primary objective that appears to be at odds with public opinion in many
NATO countries.
When asked if their respective countries' governments should use military force to defend a
NATO ally country neighboring Russia with which "Russia got into a serious military conflict,"
people living in the 16 NATO countries tended to answer in the negative.
"No" was the answer for the majority of polled individuals in eight countries -- France,
Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Turkey.
In three more NATO countries -- the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland -- a plurality
rejected military intervention.
Only in five countries -- the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,
and Lithuania -- did more people (a majority in each case) support such military intervention
than reject it.
"... It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die. ..."
"... It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS. ..."
Admittedly the news cycle in the United States seldom runs longer than twenty-four hours, but that should not serve as an excuse
when a major story that contradicts what the Trump Administration has been claiming appears and suddenly dies. The public that actually
follows the news might recall a little more than one month ago the United States assassinated a senior Iranian official named Qassem
Soleimani. Openly killing someone in the government of a country with which one is not at war is, to say the least, unusual, particularly
when the crime is carried out in yet another country with which both the perpetrator and the victim have friendly relations. The
justification provided by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking for the administration, was that Soleimani was in Iraq planning
an "imminent" mass killing of Americans, for which no additional evidence was provided at that time or since.
It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that
might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently
knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani
to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent
threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die.
The incident that started the killing cycle
that eventually included Soleimani consisted of a December 27th attack on a US base in Iraq in which four American soldiers and two
Iraqis were wounded while one US contractor, an Iraqi-born translator, was killed. The United States immediately blamed Iran, claiming
that it had been carried out by an Iranian supported Shi'ite militia called Kata'ib Hezbollah. It provided no evidence for that claim
and retaliated by striking a Kata'ib base, killing 25 Iraqis who were in the field fighting the remnants of Islamic State (IS). The
militiamen had been incorporated into the Iraqi Army and this disproportionate response led to riots outside the US Embassy in Baghdad,
which were also blamed on Iran by the US There then followed the assassinations of Soleimani and nine senior Iraqi militia officers.
Iran retaliated when it fired missiles
at American forces , injuring more than one hundred soldiers, and then mistakenly
shot down a passenger
jet , killing an additional 176 people. As a consequence due to the killing by the US of 34 Iraqis in the two incidents, the
Iraqi Parliament also
voted to expel
all American troops.
It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out
by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic
State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack
took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni
IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS.
This new development was reported in the New York Times in
an article that was
headlined "Was US Wrong About Attack That Nearly Started a War With Iran? Iraqi military and intelligence officials have raised
doubts about who fired the rockets that started a dangerous spiral of events." In spite of the sensational nature of the report it
generally was ignored in television news and in other mainstream media outlets, letting the Trump administration get away with yet
another big lie, one that could easily have led to a war with Iran.
Iraqi investigators found and identified the abandoned white Kia pickup with an improvised Katyusha rocket launcher in the vehicle's
bed that was used to stage the attack. It was discovered down a desert road within range of the K-1 joint Iraqi-American base that
was hit by at least ten missiles in December, most of which struck the American area.
There is no direct evidence tying the attack to any particular party and the improvised KIA truck is used by all sides in the
regional fighting, but the Iraqi officials point to the undisputed fact that it was the Islamic State that had carried out three
separate attacks near the base over the 10 days preceding December 27th. And there are reports that IS has been increasingly active
in Kirkuk Province during the past year, carrying out near daily attacks with improvised roadside bombs and ambushes using small
arms. There had, in fact, been reports from Iraqi intelligence that were shared with the American command warning that there might
be an IS attack on K-1 itself, which is an Iraqi air base in that is shared with US forces.
The intelligence on the attack has been shared with American investigators, who have also examined the pick-up truck. The Times
reports that the US command in Iraq continue to insist that the attack was carried out by Kata'ib based on information, including
claimed communications intercepts, that it refuses to make public. The US forces may not have shared the intelligence they have with
the Iraqis due to concerns that it would be leaked to Iran, but senior Iraqi military officers are nevertheless perplexed by the
reticence to confide in an ally.
If the Iraqi investigation of the facts around the December attack on K-1 is reliable, the Donald Trump administration's reckless
actions in Iraq in late December and early January cannot be justified. Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking
for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted
in a war that would benefit no one. To be sure, the Trump administration has lied about developments in the Middle East so many times
that it can no longer be trusted. Unfortunately, demanding any accountability from the Trump team would require a Congress that is
willing to shoulder its responsibility for truth in government backed up by
a media that is willing to take on an administration that regularly punishes anyone or any entity that dares to challenge it
Well, the 9/11 Commission lied about Israeli involvement, Israeli neocons lied America into Iraq, and Netanyahu lied about Iranian
nukes, so this latest news is just par for the course.
Pompeo had evidence of immediate catastrophic attack. That turned out to be a lie and plain BS.
Why should we believe Pompeo or White House or intelligence about the situation developing around 27-29 Dec ? Is it because it's
USA who is saying so?
[it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind
of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.]
The Jewish mafia stooge and fifth column, Trump, is a war criminal and an ASSASSIN.
Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official
to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.
Soleimani was a soldier involved in covert operations, Iran's most celebrated hero, and had been featured in the Iraq media
as the target of multiple Western assassination attempts. He did not have diplomatic status.
As it happens Iran did not declare war on America and America did not declare war on Iran. If Americans soldiers killed in
Iraq should not have been there in the first place, then the same goes for an Iranian soldier killed there too.
@04398436986 There is western assertion and western assertion only that Iran influences Iraqi administration and intelligence
. It can be a projection from a failing America . It can be also a valid possibility .
But lying is America's alter ego . It comes easily and as default explanation even when admitting truth would do a better job
.
Now let's focus on ISIS 's claims . Why is Ametica not taking it ( claim of ISIS) as truth and fact when USA has for last 19
years has jailed , bombed, attacked mentally retarded , caves and countries because somebody has pledged allegiance to Al Quida
or to ISIS!!!
It seems neither truth nor lies , but what suits a particular psychopath at a particular time – that becomes USA's report (
kind of unassigned sex – neither truth nor lies – take your pick and find the toilet to flush it down memory hole) – so Pompeo
lies to nation hoping no one in administration will ask . When administrative staff gets interested to know the truth , Pompeo
tells them to suck it up , move on and get ready to explain the next batch of reality manufactured by a regime and well trained
by philosopher Karl Rove
To what "conspiracy" are you referring? It's a well established fact that your ilk was, at the very least, aware that the 9/11
attacks would occur and celebrated them in broad daylight. No conspiracy theory needed. Mossad ordnance experts were living practically
next door to the hijackers. Well established fact.
It's also undeniable that the 9/11 Commission airbrushed Israeli involvement from their report. No conspiracy theory there,
either.
Same goes for Israeli neocons and their media mandarins using "faulty intel" to get their war in Iraq. "Clean Break"? "Rebuilding
America's Defenses"? Openly written and published. Judith Miller's lies? Also no conspiracy.
And Israel's own intelligence directors were undermining Netanyahu's lies on Iran. Not a conspiracy in sight.
contemplating the outcome of normal everyday competition, influenced by good & bad luck, is just too much truth for some
psychological makeups
That's one of the lamest attempts at deflection I've seen thus far, and I've seen quite a few here.
Those who deny the official version of 9/11 are in the majority now:
We've reached critical mass. Clearly, that's just too much truth for your psychological makeup. Were we really that worthy
of ignoring, your people wouldn't be working 24/7/365 to peddle your malarkey in fora of this variety.
I have thought that Trump's true impeachable crime was the illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat. Pence
should also be impeached for the botched coup in Venezuela. That was true embarrassment bringing that "El Presidente" that no
one recognizes to the SOTU.
USA is basically JU-S-A now, Jews own and run this country from top to bottom, side to side, and because of it, pretty much
run the world. China-Russia-Iran form their new "Axis of Evil" to be brought in line. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Covid-19
is a bioweapon, except not one created by China. Israel has been working on an ethnic based bioweapon for years. US sent 172 military
"athletes" to the Military World Games in Wuhan in October, 2019, two weeks before the first case of coronavirus appeared. Almost
too coincidental.
@Sean He wasn't there as a soldier -- he was there in a diplomatic role. (regardless of his official "status"). It
also appears he was lured there with intent to assaninate.
Your last para is not only terrible logic but ignores the point of the article. Iran likely was not responsible for the US deaths.
Even had it been responsible it would still not legitimate such a baldly criminal action.
[I]illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat
Lawful combat according to the Geneva Convention in which war is openly declared and fought between two countries each of which
have regular uniformed forces that do all the actual fighting is an extremely rare thing. It is all proxy forces, deniability
and asymmetric warfare in which one side (the stronger) is attacked by phantom combatants.
The Israeli PM publically alluded to the fact that Soleimani had almost been killed in the Mossad operation to kill
Imad Mughniyeh a decade ago. The
Iranian public knew that Soleimani had narrowly escaped death from Israeli drones, because Soleimani appeared on Iranian TV in
October and told the story. A plot kill him by at a memorial service in Iran was supposedly foiled. He came from Lebanon by way
of Syria into Iraq as if none of this had happened. Trump had sacked Bolton and failed to react to the drone attack on Saudi oil.
Iran seems to have thought that refusal to actually fight in the type of war that the international conventions were designed
to regulate is a licence to exert pressure by launch attacks without being targeted oneself. Now do they understand.
@Sean American troops invaded Iraq under false pretenses, killed thousands, and caused great destruction. Chaos and vengeful
Sunnis spilled over into Syria where the US proceeded to grovel before the terrorists we fret about. Soleimani was effective in
organizing resistance in Iraq and Syria and was in both countries with the blessing of their governments.
How you get Soleimani shouldn't be there out of that I have no idea.
@04398436986 Yet you ignore that the Neocons have lied about virtually every cause if war ever. Lied about Iraq, North Korea
and Iran nuclear info actions, about chem weapons in Syria, lied about Kosovo, lied about Libya, lied about Benghazi, lied about
Venezuela. So Whom I gonna believe, no government, but a Neocon led one least of all
It is common knowledge that ISIS is a US/Israeli creation. ISIS is the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. Thus, the US/Israel
staged the attack on the US base on 12.27.2019.
ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #2: ISIS Never Attacks Israel
It is more than highly strange and suspicious that ISIS never attacks Israel – it is another indication that ISIS is controlled
by Israel. If ISIS were a genuine and independent uprising that was not covertly orchestrated by the US and Israel, why would
they not try to attack the Zionist regime, which has attacked almost of all of its Muslim neighbors ever since its inception
in 1948? Israel has attacked Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, and of course has decimated Palestine. It has systemically tried to
divide and conquer its Arab neighbors. It continually complains of Islamic terrorism. Yet, when ISIS comes on the scene as
the bloody and barbaric king of Islamic terrorism, it finds no fault with Israel and sees no reason to target a regime which
has perpetrated massive injustice against Muslims? This stretches credibility to a snapping point.
ISIS and Israel don't attack each other – they help each other. Israel was treating ISIS soldiers and other anti-Assad rebels
in its hospitals! Mortal enemies or best of friends?
The MQ-9 pilot and sensor operator will be looking over their shoulders for a long time. They're as famous as Soleimani. Their
command chain is well known too, hide though they might far away.
And who briefed the president that terror Tuesday? The murder program isn't Air Force.
@anonymous The kind of crap Trump pulled in the assassination of Soleimani is what he should be impeached about–not the piss-ant
stuff about Hunter Biden's job in the Ukaranian gas company and his pappy's role in it.
Iraq an ally of the United States! Is it some kind of a joke? How can a master and slave be equal? We, the big dog want their
oil and the tail that wags us, Israel, want all Muslims pacified and the Congress, which is us wether we like or not, compliant
out of financial fears. Unless we curb our own greedy appetite for fossil fuels and at the same time tell an ally, which Israel
is by being equal in a sense that it can get away with murder and not a pip is raised, to limit its ambition, nothing is going
to be done to improve the situation. Until then it's an exercise in futility, at best!
Iran has NO choice but to defend itself from the savages. It has not been Iran that invaded US, but US with a plan that design
years before 9/11 invaded many countries. Remember: seven countries in five years. Soleimani was a wise man working towards peace
by creating options for Iran to defend itself. Iran is not the aggressor, but US -Israel-UK are the aggressor for centuries now.
Is this so difficult to understand. 9/11 was staged by US/Israel killing 3000 Christians to implement their criminal plan.
Soleimani, was on a peace mission, where was assassinated by Trump, an Israeli firster and a fifth column and the baby killer
Netanyahu. Is this difficult to understand by the Trump worshiper, a traitor.
Now, Khamenie is saying the same thing: "Iran should be strong in military warfare and sciences to prevent war and maintain
PEACE.
Only ignorant, arrogant, and racists don't understand this fact and refuse to understand how the victims have been pushed to
defend themselves.
The Assassin at the black house should receive the same fate in order to bring the peace.
When does Amerikastan *not* lie about anything? If an Amerikastani tells you the sun rises in the east, you're probably on Venus,
where it rises in the west.
I think this article is getting close to the truth, that this whole operation was and is an ISIS (meaning Israeli Secret Intelligence
Service) affair designed to pit America against the zionists' most formidable enemy thus far, Iran.
I'm of the opinion that Trump did not order the hit on Soleimani, but was forced to take credit for it, if he didn't want to
forfeit any chance of being reelected this year. The same ISIS (Israeli) forces that did the hit also orchestrated the "retaliation"
that Mr. Giraldi so heroically documents in this piece.
As usual, this is looking more and more like a zionist /jewish false flag attack on the Muslim world, with the real dirty-work
to be done by the American military.
It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan
that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House
apparently knew about may even have approved.
It's now obvious that the slumlord son-in-law Jared Kushner is really running the USA's ME policy.
Kushner is not only a dear friend of at-large war criminal Bibi Nuttyahoo, he also belongs to the Judaic religious cult of Chabad
Lubavitcher, whom make the war-loving Christian Evangelicals almost look sane. Chabad also prays for some kind of Armageddon to
bring forth their Messiah, just like the Evangelicals.
One can tell by Kushner's nasty comments he makes about Arabs/Persians and Palestinians in particular, that he loathes and
despises those people and has an idiotic ear to cry into in the malignant form of Zion Don, AKA President Trump.
It's been said that Kushner is also a Mossad agent or asset, which is a good guess, since that agency has been placing their
agents into the WH since at least the days of Clinton, who had Rahm Emmanuel to whisper hate into his ear.
That the Iranian General Soleimani was lured into Iraq so the WH could murder the man probably most responsible for halting
the terrorist activities of the heart-eating, head-chopping US/Israel/KSA creation ISIS brings to mind the motto of the Israeli
version of the CIA, the Mossad.
"By way of deception thou shalt make war."
Between Trump's incompetence, his vanity–and yes, his stupidity– and his appointing Swamp creatures into his cabinet and
allowing Jared to run the ME show, Trump is showing himself to be a worse choice than Hillary.
If that maniac gets another 4 years, humanity is doomed. Or at least the USA for sure will perish.
The pro-Trump TV news channel One America News Network has produced a 50 minute
documentary on Ukrainegate hoax. Half of it is however dedicated to the Maidan sniper
massacre of February 2014.
In the documentary, Caputo exposes the cover-up that led to the impeachment of President
Donald Trump and mass murder. The Democrats' crusade to kick our duly elected president out
of office didn't start with a phone call. It began with Ukrainian corruption, election
meddling and a bloody coup that cleared a path for Hunter Biden to get rich.
Tune in this weekend, Saturday and Sunday at 10PM EST / 7PM PST – only on One
America News!
The above page only contains a four minute introduction :
OAN's Jack Posobiec sat down with Michael Caputo to discuss his new special, "One America
News Investigates – The Ukraine Hoax: Impeachment, Biden Cash, Mass Murder."
I have not been able to find the original English language version online. I only found a
version dubbed in Russian via Colonel Cassad.
Note, that the video is age restricted by YouTube, meaning that you can only view it if
you have registered and logged into your Google account. Commenting on the video is disabled,
as is saving it to a playlist or downloading it through some easy to use online service.
The reason for this censorship cannot be "community guidelines". The FCC places far
stringent restrictions on what can be broadcast on television during prime time on Saturday
evenings.
Caroline Dorminey and Sumaya Malas do an excellent job of
making the case for extending New START:
One of the most critical arms control agreements, the New Strategic Reduction Arms Treaty
(New START), will disappear soon if leaders do not step up to save it. New START imposes
limits on the world's two largest nuclear arsenals, Russia and the United States, and remains
one of the last arms control agreements still in effect. Those limits expire in exactly one
year from Wednesday, and without it, both stockpiles will be unconstrained for the first time
in decades.
Democrats in Congress already express consistent support for the extension of New START,
turning the issue into a Democratic Party agenda item. But today's hyper-partisan landscape
need not dictate that arms control must become solely a Democratic priority. Especially when
the treaty in question still works, provides an important limit on Russian nuclear weapons,
and ultimately increases our national security.
Dorminey and Malas are right that there should be broad support for extending the
treaty. The treaty's ratification was frequently described as a "no-brainer" win for U.S.
national security when it was being debated ten years ago, and the treaty's extension is
likewise obviously desirable for both countries. The trouble is that the Trump administration
doesn't judge this treaty or any other international agreement on the merits, and only a few of
the Republicans that voted to ratify the treaty are still in office. Trump and his advisers
have been following the lead of anti-arms control ideologues for years. That is why the
president seized on violations of the INF Treaty as an excuse to get rid of that treaty instead
of working to resolve the dispute with Russia, and that is why he expressed his willingness to
pull out of the Open Skies Treaty. Trump has encountered no resistance from the GOP as he goes
on a treaty-killing spree, because by and large the modern Republican Party couldn't care less
about arms control.
Like these hard-liners, Trump doesn't think there is such a thing as a "win-win" agreement
with another government, and for that he reason he won't support any treaty that imposes the
same restrictions on both parties. We can see that the administration isn't serious about
extending the treaty when we look at the far-fetched demands they insist on adding to the
existing treaty. These additional demands are meant to serve as a smokescreen so that the
administration can let the treaty die, and the administration is just stalling for time until
the expiration occurs. The Russian government has said many times that it is ready and willing
to accept an extension of the treaty without any conditions, and the U.S. response has been to
let them eat static.
It would be ideal if Trump suddenly changed his position on all this and just extended the
treaty, but all signs point in the opposite direction. What we need to start thinking about is
what the next administration is going to have to do to rebuild the arms control architecture
that this administration has demolished. There will be almost no time for the next president to
extend the treaty next year, so it needs to be a top priority. If New START lapses, the U.S.
and Russia would have to negotiate a new treaty to replace it, and in the current political
climate the odds that the Senate would ratify an arms control treaty (or any treaty) are not
good. It would be much easier and wiser to keep the current treaty alive, but we need to start
preparing for the consequences of Trump's unwillingness to do that.
Russia's geographical position makes its exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) more
profitable and competitive with American and Australian supplies, according to Russia's Energy
Minister Alexander Novak. Russia ships most of its LNG (around 69 percent) to Asian markets,
where the bulk of global LNG supplies are sent. The country could also export its LNG via
traditional Russian pipeline gas European routes, due to low cost and short transportation
distance, the minister wrote, in an article for the Energy Policy journal.
"Russia's convenient geographical position between Europe and Asia allows our LNG to be
profitable at current prices and to win competition from the US and Australia," Novak said.
"If necessary, we can deliver liquefied gas to any European country, and it will be faster
and cheaper than many other suppliers."
The Northern Sea Route (NSR) could be a key transport link to connect massive Arctic energy
projects Russia is currently developing with target markets. The route, which lies in Arctic
waters and within Russia's Exclusive Economic Zone, could cut the transportation time by a
third, compared to shipments via the Suez Canal.
Russia is one of the world's leading exporters of natural gas. Last year, it produced more
than 40 billion cubic meters of LNG – a nearly 50 percent increase from 27 billion cubic
meters it had in 2018. By 2035, Novak expects the country to boost production to 120 million
tons, amounting to around a fifth of the forecasted global LNG production.
The essential facts are these. In April 1898, the United States went to war with Spain. The war's nominal purpose was to liberate
Cuba from oppressive colonial rule. The war's subsequent conduct found the United States not only invading and occupying Cuba, but
also seizing Puerto Rico, completing a deferred annexation of Hawaii, scarfing up various other small properties in the Pacific,
and, not least of all, replacing Spain as colonial masters of the Philippine Archipelago, located across the Pacific.
That the true theme of the war with Spain turned out to be not liberation but expansion should not come as a terrible surprise.
From the very founding of the first British colonies in North America, expansion has constituted an enduring theme of the American
project. Separation from the British Empire after 1776 only reinforced the urge to grow. Yet prior to 1898, that project had been
a continental one. The events of that year signaled the transition from continental to extra-continental expansion. American leaders
were no longer content to preside over a republic stretching from sea to shining sea.
In that regard, the decision to annex the Philippines stands out as especially instructive. If you try hard enough -- and some
politicians at the time did -- you can talk yourself into believing that U.S. actions in the Caribbean in 1898 represented something
other than naked European-style imperialism with all its brute force to keep the natives in line. After all, the United States did
refrain from converting Cuba into a formal colony and by 1902 had even granted Cubans a sort of ersatz independence. Moreover, both
Cuba and Puerto Rico fell within "our backyard," as did various other Caribbean republics soon to undergo U.S. military occupation.
Geographically, all were located within the American orbit.
Yet the Philippines represented an altogether different case. By no stretch of the imagination did the archipelago fall within
"our backyard." Furthermore, the Filipinos had no desire to trade Spanish rule for American rule and violently resisted occupation
by U.S. forces. The notably dirty Philippine-American War that followed from 1899 to 1902 -- a conflict almost entirely expunged
from American memory today -- resulted in something like 200,000 Filipino deaths and ended in a U.S. victory not yet memorialized
on the National Mall in Washington.
So the Philippine Archipelago had become ours. In short order, however, authorities in Washington changed their mind about the
wisdom of accepting responsibility for several thousand islands located nearly 7,000 miles from San Francisco.
The sprawling American colony turned out to be the ultimate impulse purchase. And as with most impulse purchases, enthusiasm soon
enough gave way to second thoughts and even regret. By 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt was privately referring to the Philippines
as America's "Achilles heel." The United States had paid Spain $20 million for an acquisition that didn't turn a profit and couldn't
be defended given the limited capabilities of the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy. To complicate matters further, from Tokyo's perspective,
the Philippines fell within its backyard. So far as Imperial Japan was concerned, imperial America was intruding on its turf.
Thus was the sequence of events leading to the Pacific War of 1941-1945 set in motion. I am not suggesting that Pearl Harbor was
an inevitable consequence of the United States annexing the Philippines. I am suggesting that it put two rival imperial powers on
a collision course.
One can, of course, find in the ensuing sequence of events matters worth celebrating -- great military victories at places like
Midway, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, culminating after 1945 in a period of American dominion. But the legacy of our flirtation with empire
in the Western Pacific also includes much that is lamentable -- the wars in Korea and Vietnam, for example, and now an intensifying
rivalry with China destined to lead we know not where.
If history could be reduced to a balance sheet, the U.S. purchase of the Philippines would rate as a pretty bad bargain. That
first $20 million turned out to be only a down payment.
No. Absolutely not. We would have been much better off had the US not violently dismantled the first Republic of the Philippines.
The canard that our greatest generation of Filipinos (Generation of 1898) was not fit to govern us was a product of US Assimilation
Schools designed to rid the Philippines of Filipinos- by wiring them to automatically think anything non-Filipino will always
be better (intenalized racism) and to train the primarily to leave and work abroad and blend -in as Americans (objectification)
and never stand out as self-respecting Filipinos who aspire to be the best they can be propelled by the Filipino story.
Our multiple Golden Ages only occurred prior to US invasion and colonization.
YES, the USA owes us. We are every American's 2nd original sin.
We do not owe US anything. The USA owes us a great big deal, More than any other country on earth.
THEY (USA) owes us:
1) For violently dismantling the first Republic of the Philippines at the cost of over a million martyrs from the greatest generation
of Filipinos.
2) For US Assimilation Schools denying us the intensity of our golden ages prior to their invasion as our drivers for PH civilization,
turning us into a country that trains its people to leave and assimilate in US culture and become workers for Americans and foreigners
abroad. This results in a Philippines WITHOUT Filipinos.
3) For US bombs turning Intramuros into dust- the centerpiece of the Paris of the East, with treasures, publications and art
much older that the US- without consent from any Filipino leader. And for dismantling our train system from La Union to Bicol.
4) For the US Rescission Act which denied Filipino veterans due recognition, dignity and honor- vets who fought THEIR war against
Japan on our soil.
5) For the canard that Aguinaldo, our 29-year old father and liberator of the Republic of the Philippines, is a villain and
a traitor, even inventing the heroism of Andres Bonifacio which ultimately resulted in "Toxic Nationalism" which Rizal warned
us about in the persona of Simoun in El Filibusterismo who will drive our nation to self-destruction and turn a paradise into
a desert by being automatically wired to think anything non-Filipino will and always be better.
The core of colonial mentality is the misguided belief that we cannot have been a greater country had the US not destroyed
the first Republic of the Philippines- a lie that was embedded in our minds by the US discrediting Aguinaldo and the Generation
of 1896/1898- the greatest generation of Filipinos.
It does seem to me that every country which was able and could afford to expand its territory did so. In Europe, exceptions to
that a wish were Switzerland, Slovakia, Finland, Ireland, Norway, Slovenia, Ukraine, ?Romania and Chechia.
So, US had company!
President William McKinley defends his decision to support the annexation of the Philippines in the wake of the U.S. war in that
country:
"When I next realized that the Philippines had dropped into our laps I confess I did not know what to do with them. . . And
one night late it came to me this way. . .1) That we could not give them back to Spain- that would be cowardly and dishonorable;
2) that we could not turn them over to France and Germany-our commercial rivals in the Orient-that would be bad business and discreditable;
3) that we not leave them to themselves-they are unfit for self-government-and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there
worse than Spain's wars; and 4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and
uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ
also died."
Making Christians of a country that had its first Catholic diocese 9 years before the Spanish Armada sailed for England, with
4 dioceses in place years before the English sailed for Jamestown.
Dan Carlin did an outstanding podcast on the choices America faced after acquiring the Philippines. McKinley was anti-empire,
but the industrialists in his administration hungered to thwart the British, French and Dutch empires in the Pacific by establishing
a colony all of our own.
As someone born in Latin America, we never saw the US as anything but a brutal predator, whose honeyed words were belied by their
deeds. I wonder if it began with the Philippines. There was the Mexican war first, which wrested a lot of territory from Mexico.
And then there was the invasion of Canada to bring the blessings of democracy to Canadians (it ended with the White House in flames).
I suspect that the beliefe that you are exceptional and blessed by God can lead to want to straighten up other people "for their
own good", and make a profit besides - a LOT of profit.
"... By April 2018, Gates had reached a plea deal to testify against Manafort in a criminal case that ultimately resulted in Manafort's conviction on tax and illegal lobbying charges. As the day-to-day manager of Manafort's political consulting and lobbying efforts for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, Gates handled Manafort's operations and was deeply familiar with when and how payments were made and from whom. ..."
"... Furthermore, Gates revealed that Manafort's team had confirmed with the party's former accountant that the black ledger could not be a contemporaneous document because the party's official accounting books burned in a 2014 fire during Ukraine's Maidan uprising. ..."
"... The Party of Regions accountant reached by Manafort's team told them that the black ledger was a "copy of a document that did not exist" and it "was not even [the accountant's own] handwriting," Gates told the prosecutors. ..."
One of Robert Mueller's pivotal trial witnesses told the special prosecutor's team in spring
2018 that a key piece of Russia collusion evidence found in Ukraine known as the "black ledger"
was fabricated, according to interviews and testimony.
The ledger document, which suddenly appeared in Kiev during the 2016 U.S. election, showed
alleged cash payments from Russian-backed politicians in Ukraine to ex-Trump campaign chairman
Paul Manafort.
"The ledger was completely made up," cooperating witness and Manafort business partner Rick
Gates told prosecutors and FBI agents, according to a written summary of an April 2018 special
counsel's interview.
In a brief interview with Just the News, Gates confirmed the information in the summary.
"The black ledger was a fabrication," Gates said.
"It was never real, and this fact has since been proven true."
Gates' account is backed by several Ukrainian officials who stated in interviews dating to
2018 that the ledger was of suspicious origins and could not be corroborated.
If true, Gates' account means the two key pieces of documentary evidence used by the media
and FBI to drive the now-debunked Russia collusion narrative -- the Steele dossier and the
black ledger -- were at best uncorroborated and at worst disinformation. His account also
raises the possibility that someone fabricated the document in Ukraine in an effort to restart
investigative efforts on Manafort's consulting work or to meddle in the U.S. presidential
election.
Much mystery has surrounded the black ledger, which was publicized by the New York Times and
other U.S. news outlets in the summer of 2016 and forced Manafort out as one of Trump's top
campaign officials.
After gaining wide attention as purported evidence of Russian ties to the Trump campaign,
the ledger was never introduced as evidence at Manafort's 2018 trial or significantly analyzed
in Mueller's final 2019 report, which concluded that Trump did not collude with Russia to
influence the 2016 election. No FBI 302 interview reports have been released either showing
what the FBI concluded about the ledger.
Gates' interview with the Mueller team now provides a potential clue as to why.
By April 2018, Gates had reached a plea deal to testify against Manafort in a criminal case
that ultimately resulted in Manafort's conviction on tax and illegal lobbying charges. As the
day-to-day manager of Manafort's political consulting and lobbying efforts for former Ukrainian
President Viktor Yanukovych, Gates handled Manafort's operations and was deeply familiar with
when and how payments were made and from whom.
During a debriefing with Mueller's team on April 10, 2018, Gates was asked about the August
2016 New York Times article that first alerted the public to the existence of the black ledger
and eventually led to Manafort's downfall.
"The article was completely false," Gates is quoted as telling Mueller's team in a written
summary of the interview created by some of the attendees.
"As you now know there were no cash payments. The payments were wired. The ledger was
completely made up."
When pressed as to why he was so certain, Gates explained the ledger did not match the way
Yanukovych's Party of Regions made payments to consultants like Manafort.
"It was not how the PoR [Party of Regions] did their record keeping," Gates told the
prosecution team, according to the written summary.
Furthermore, Gates revealed that Manafort's team had confirmed with the party's former
accountant that the black ledger could not be a contemporaneous document because the party's
official accounting books burned in a 2014 fire during Ukraine's Maidan uprising.
"All the real records were burned when the party headquarters was set on fire when
Yanukovych fled the country," Gates told the investigators, according to the interview
summary.
The Party of Regions accountant reached by Manafort's team told them that the black ledger
was a "copy of a document that did not exist" and it "was not even [the accountant's own]
handwriting," Gates told the prosecutors.
Gates' account to prosecutors closely matches what several Ukrainian officials have said for
more than a year.
Ukraine's Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor Nazar Kholodnytskyy told me last spring that he
believed the black ledger was not a contemporaneous document, and likely manufactured after the
fact.
"It was not to be considered a document of Manafort," Kholodnytskyy said in an
interview.
"It was not authenticated. And at that time it should not be used in any way to bring
accusations against anybody."
Likewise, one of Gates' and Manafort's Ukrainian business partners, Konstantin Kilimnik, who
is now indicted in the same case as Manafort but remain at large, wrote a senior U.S. State
Department official in summer 2016 that the black ledger did not match actual payments made to
Manafort's firm.
"I have some questions about this black cash stuff because those published records do not
make sense," Kilimnik wrote the State official in August 2016.
"The time frame doesn't match anything related to payments made to Manafort. It does not
match my records. All fees Manafort got were wires, not cash."
In December 2018, a Ukrainian court ruled that two of that country's government officials --
member of parliament Sergey Leschenko and Artem Sytnyk, the head of the National Anticorruption
Bureau of Ukraine -- illegally interfered in the 2016 U.S. election by publicizing the black
ledger evidence.
While that ruling has been overturned on a technicality, the role of Sytnyk and Leschenko in
pushing the black ledger story remains true.
In an interview last summer, Leschenko said he first received part of the black ledger when
it was sent to him anonymously in February 2016, but it made no mention of Manafort. Months
later, in August 2016, more of the ledger became public, including the alleged Manafort
payments.
Leschenko said he decided to publicize the information after confirming a few of the
transactions likely occurred or matched known payments.
But Leschenko told me he never believed the black ledger could be used as court evidence
because it couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was authentic, given its
mysterious appearance during the 2016 election.
"The black ledger is an unofficial document," Leschenko told me. "And the black ledger was
not used as official evidence in criminal investigations because you know in criminal
investigations all proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. And the black ledger is not a
sample of such proof because we don't know the nature of such document ."
In the end, the black ledger did prompt the discovery of real financial transactions and
real crimes by Manafort, which ultimately led to his conviction.
But its uncertain origins raise troubling questions about election meddling and what
constitutes real evidence worthy of starting an American investigation.
It's Time To Ask Again What Really Happened To Ukraine's Missing Gold by Tyler Durden Sat, 02/08/2020 - 19:00 0
SHARES Now that the Trump impeachment farce is finally over, vindicating the president and in
the process for the first time boosting the president's approval rating higher than where Obama
was at this time in his first term much to the embarrassment of Nancy Pelosi, whose impeachment
gambit has backfired spectacularly (just as Nancy knew it would, and is why she delayed
triggering it until a critical mass of ultra left-wing demands in Congress made it impossible
for her to ignore any longer)...
... the Democrats' great diversion from Trump's core question - did the Bidens willfully
engage in, and benefit from corruption in the Ukraine, corruption which may have been enabled
and facilitated by billions in taxpayer funds originating from the Obama administration no less
- is over.
However, while Trump has finally moved on beyond what in retrospect was a remarkable, if
failed presidential coup attempt, orchestrated by the Ukraine lobby in the US, backed by the
Atlantic Council and various other "deep-state" institutions and apparatchiks, and implemented
by Congressional democrats who are now watching the chances of the Democratic party winning the
2020 presidential election melt before their eyes, some long overdue questions surrounding the
Bidens' involvement in Ukraine - one of the world's most corrupt nations
according to the World Economic Forum - especially around the time of the 2014 presidential
coup and the months immediately following, are about to be asked , and haunt Joe Biden and his
son like a very angry and vengeful ghost, only this time there will be no Trump impeachment to
distract from revealing the shocking answers.
Needless to say, we are delighted by this outcome because as regular readers will recall,
there are many unanswered questions that emerged back in 2014, some from following the money
both in and out of Ukraine, and some from following the country's gold, much of which was put
on board a plane headed to the US in one cold, wintry night in March 2014, never to come back
again.
But before we get there, first we need to a rather lengthy detour into the history of
Ukraine corruption since the February 2014 Euromadian revolution, for the background on why
Trump had to be stopped at all costs from asking either Ukraine, or anyone else, questions that
may expose corruption involving Joe Biden in particular, and the Obama administration in
general. To do that, we need to follow some $1.8 billion in US taxpayer funds that quietly went
missing back in 2014, and most likely ended up in the offshore bank account of some Ukrainian
oligarch; conveniently PJ Media's senior editor Tyler O'Neill did just that almost two years
ago,
in March 2018 . Here's what he
said back then , together with some additions from ZH:
In the last days of the Obama administration, then-Vice President Joe Biden took a "swan
song" trip to Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt country where he had been the administration's
"point person." On the eve of this trip, the country announced it would end a criminal
investigation into an infamous company connected to the loss of $1.8 billion in aid funding --
a company whose board of directors included Biden's son Hunter.
The Biden family's dealings with this Ukrainian company involved getting one of the
country's most notorious mob bankers, Ihor Kolomoiski, off the U.S. government visa ban list.
Under Biden's leadership, $3 billion in aid went to Ukraine, and his son's company was
implicated in the disappearance of $1.8 billion of that money. Peter Schweizer revealed the
former vice president's role in his new book " Secret
Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends
."
Secretary of State John Kerry announced the U.S. support for Ukraine's nationalist
government in March 2014, a month after a mass uprising pushed pro-Russian President Viktor
Yanukovych out of office and inspired a corresponding pro-Russian uprising in the east. It was
also at this time that a
leaked recording between US assistant secretary of state Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland and
the US envoy to the Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, emerged, a clip which as the
FT said then " could also bolster [claims] that the protests that erupted against Ukraine's
President Viktor Yanukovich last November are being funded and orchestrated by the US ." In
other words, the clip confirmed that the US was masterminding the entire "Euromaidan" process
all along and deciding who should be in Ukraine's next government. In short: what happened in
Ukraine in February 2014 was another CIA-staged presidential coup. Finally, it was also the
time that Biden became the Obama administration's "point person" for the country.
On April 16, 2014, shortly after the February 2014 Ukrainian revolution which culminated
with the overthrow of democratically-elected president Yanukovich, Biden met with Devon Archer,
a former star fundraiser for John Kerry's 2004 presidential run and
business partner in Rosemont Capital with Biden's son Hunter . (Federal agents would later
arrest Archer in May 2016 for defrauding a Native American tribe.)
Less than a week later (April 22) came an announcement that Archer had joined the board of
Burisma, a secretive Ukrainian natural gas company. On May 13, Hunter Biden would also join the
company's board.
On the day before Archer's hiring, April 21, the vice president landed in Kiev for
high-level meetings with Ukrainian officials. He spearheaded the effort to invest $1 billion
from the U.S. and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) into Ukraine .
The vice president's presence helps explain a conundrum. Burisma hired his son and Archer
despite the fact that neither of them had any experience in the energy sector. Schweizer notes,
"The choice of Hunter Biden to handle transparency and corporate governance of Burisma is
curious, because Biden had little if any experience in Ukrainian law, or professional legal
counsel, period."
Furthermore, Hunter Biden "seemed undeterred by the fact that as he was joining the Burisma
board the British government's Serious Fraud Office (SFO) was seizing $23 million from [founder
Mykola] Zlochevsky's bank accounts." Furthermore, a year after Biden joined the firm,
"experienced industry observers warned investors that Burisma was still a company to be
avoided."
On the other hand, Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Out of 148
nations studied by the World Economic Forum , Ukraine ranks
143 for property rights, 130 for "irregular payments and bribes," 133 for "favoritism in
decisions of government officials," and 146 for "protection of minority shareholders'
interests."
Two major figures in this corruption feature prominently in Biden's Ukraine investment.
Zlochevsky founded Burisma in Cyprus in 2006. He served as natural resources minister under
Yanukovych, and gave himself the licenses to develop the country's abundant gas fields. He also
had a flare for lavishness, running a super-exclusive fashion boutique named after himself.
Burisma's major subsidiaries ended up sharing the same business address as the natural gas
firm controlled by Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky. He controlled the country's largest
financial institution, PrivatBank, through which the Ukrainian military and government workers
got paid. He also owned media companies and airlines. In violation of Ukraine law, he
maintained Ukrainian, Israeli, and Cypriot passports.
Kolomoisky gained a reputation for violence and brutality, along with lawlessness. Rival
oligarchs have sued him for alleged involvement in "murders and beheadings" related to a
business deal. He also allegedly used "hired rowdies armed with baseball bats, iron bars, gas
and rubber bullet pistols and chainsaws" to take over a steel plant in 2006. He built his
multibillion-dollar empire by "raiding" other companies, forcing them to merge with his own
using brute force.
For these and other reasons, the U.S. government placed Kolomoisky on its visa ban list,
prohibiting him from entering the country legally. In 2015, however, after Hunter Biden and
Devon Archer had joined Burisma's board, Kolomoisky was given admittance back into the U.S.
According to a follow-up report in 2016, "today, the oligarch mainly resides in Switzerland. He
spends much time in the United States and is getting less and less involved in the Ukrainian
affairs."
Archer and the younger Biden brought other benefits to Burisma, however. Archer represented
the company at the Louisiana Gulf Coast Oil Exposition in 2015. Biden addressed the Energy
Security for the Future conference in Monaco. The vice president's son brought much-needed
legitimacy to the shoddy gas company . Less than a month after Archer joined Burisma's board,
the company hired another Kerry lackey, David Leiter, as a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. He
successfully lobbied for more aid to the country.
And Both Biden and Kerry championed $1.8 billion in taxpayer-backed loans given to Ukraine
in September 2014 courtesy of the IMF. That money would go directly through Kolomoisky's
PrivatBank, and then it
would disappear . According to the Ukrainian anti-corruption watchdog Nashi Groshi, "This
transaction of $1.8 billion ... with the help of fake contracts was simply an asset siphoning
operation."
What is even more fascinating, is that in the chaos following the February 2014 revolution,
Ukraine appears to have embezzled money from none other than the IMF (whose biggest source of
funds is the US). As German newspaper Deutsche Wirtshafts Nachrichten reported in
August 2015 , a huge chunk of the $17 billion in bailout money the IMF granted to Ukraine
in April 2014 was discovered in a bank account in Cyprus controlled by, who else, Ukrainian
oligarch Kolomoisky . As the German publication went on to add, in April 2014, $3.2 billion was
immediately disbursed to Ukraine, and over the following five months, another $4.5 billion was
disbursed to the Ukrainian Central Bank in order to stabilize the country's financial system. "
The money should have been used to stabilize the country's ailing banks, but $1.8 billion
disappeared down murky channels, "
DWN wrote .
DWN also reported that according to the IMF, in January 2015 the equity ratio of Ukraine's
banking system had dropped to 13.8 percent, from 15.9 percent in late June 2014. By February
2015 even PrivatBank had to be saved from bankruptcy, and was given a 62 million Euro two-year
loan from the Central Bank. "So where have the IMF's billions gone?"
The racket executed by Kolomoiski's PrivatBank was first uncovered by the Ukrainian
anti-corruption initiative 'Nashi Groshi,' meaning 'our money' in Ukrainian.
According to Nashi Groshi's investigations, PrivatBank has connections to 42 Ukrainian
companies, which are owned by another 54 offshore companies based in the Caribbean, USA and
Cyprus. These companies took out loans from PrivatBank totaling $1.8 billion.
These Ukrainian companies ordered investment products from six foreign suppliers based in
the UK, the Virgin Islands and the Caribbean, and then transferred money to a branch of
PrivatBank in Cyprus, ostensibly to pay for the products.The products were then used as
collateral for the loans taken out from PrivatBank – however, the overseas suppliers
never delivered the goods, and the 42 companies took legal action in court in Dnipropetrovsk,
demanding reimbursement for payments made for the goods, and the termination of the loans from
Privatbank. The court's ruling was the same for all 42 companies; the foreign suppliers should
return the money, but the credit agreement with Privatbank remains in place.
"Basically, this was a transaction of $1.8 billion abroad, with the help of fake contracts,
the siphoning off of assets and violation of existing laws, "
explained journalist Lesya Ivanovna of Nashi Groshi.
Then in March 2015, Kolomoiski, whom some have described as the Tony Soprano of Ukraine, and
increasingly a pariah in the country that made him a billionaire was dismissed from his
position as governor of Dnipropetrovsk after a power struggle with Ukrainian President Petro
Poroshenko; the fraud was carried out while he was governor of the region in East-Central
Ukraine.
"The whole story with the court case was only necessary to make it look like the bank itself
was not involved in the fraud scheme. Officially it now looks like as if the bank has the
products, but in reality they were never delivered," said Ivanovna.
Such business practices, which earned Kolomoskyi a fortune estimated by
Forbes in March 2012 to be $3 billion , were known to investigators beyond Ukraine's
borders; Kolomoiski was once banned from entering the US due to suspicions of connections with
international organized crime but then Biden's involvement quietly lifted the visa ban.
Despite these suspicions, Kolomoiski is unlikely to face justice, as he is currently living
in exile in Switzerland , Israel and the US, after he fled Ukraine in early 2015. Not long
after Kolomoiski fled Ukraine, in December 2016, Ukraine's government
nationalize his Privatbank in order to shore up Ukrainians' savings. A Ukrainian lawmaker
called it the " greatest robbery of Ukraine's state budget of the millennium." A few months
earlier, in February 2016, the government seized Burisma founder Zlochevsky's assets and placed
him on Ukraine's wanted list. The Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office seized Burisma's gas
wells.
Which brings us to January 2017, and when Joe Biden infamous arrived for his "swan song"
visit and demanded, before the entire world, that the criminal investigation into Burisma was
dropped.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/UXA--dj2-CY
Devon Archer left the scandal-plagued company at the end of 2016, although a clueless Hunter
Biden remained on the board through October 2019 - well after his presence there sparked the
biggest political scandal since the Bill Clinton impeachment - providing "legal assistance" in
exchange for millions of dollars received from the gas giant. Archer and Biden have not been
required to disclose their compensation from Burisma, but
Bowling Green State University professor Oliver Boyd-Barrett wrote , "Potentially, the
Biden family could become billionaires."
So did Joe Biden get Burisma off the hook for $1.8 billion in lost aid funding? Did he or
his son get Kolomoisky off the visa ban list? To be sure, many questions still remain and were
all conveniently swept under the rug over the "faux outrage" over the Trump impeachment farce.
But now that the great impeachment diversion is over, these all too pressing questions can and
finally should be asked.
Incidentally, anyone who is confused by the narrative above, and how $1.8 billion in
taxpayer dollars "disappeared" in Ukraine starting in September 2014 when the money was
deposited in PrivatBank, is encouraged to watch the following video by Glenn Beck who does a
surprisingly good job at connecting the confusing dots behind what may be one of the greatest
sovereign corruption and money heist stories in history.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/dCSwqca8KXU
The good news is that there are so many loose threads in this narrative, that any real probe
will have little difficulty in getting to the bottom of where and how the $1.8 billion in US
taxpayer funding to Ukraine "disappeared" and whether Biden, both father and son, are indeed
involved.
And just to help them out, one place where any serious probe can start is with a story we
wrote in March 2014, when citing a
local media report , we shone light on a mysterious operation in which a substantial
portion of Ukraine's gold reserves were loaded onboard an unmarked plane, and flown to the US,
just weeks after the February 2014 revolution.
From the source , March 7, 2014:
Tonight, around at 2:00 am, an unregistered transport plane took off took off from
Boryspil airport.
According to Boryspil staff, prior to the plane's appearance, four trucks and two cargo
minibuses arrived at the airport all with their license plates missing. Fifteen people in
black uniforms, masks and body armor stepped out, some armed with machine guns. These people
loaded the plane with more than forty heavy boxes.
After this, several mysterious men arrived and also entered the plane. The loading was
carried out in a hurry. After unloading, the plateless cars immediately left the runway, and
the plane took off on an emergency basis.
Airport officials who saw this mysterious "special operation" immediately notified the
administration of the airport, which however strongly advised them "not to meddle in other
people's business."
Later, the editors were called by one of the senior officials of the former Ministry of
Income and Fees, who reported that, according to him, tonight on the orders of one of the
"new leaders" of Ukraine, all the gold reserves of the Ukraine were taken to the United
States.
Needless to say there was no official confirmation of any of this taking place, and in fact
our report, in which we mused if the "price of Ukraine's liberation" was the handover of
Ukraine's gold to the Fed at a time when Germany was actively seeking to repatriate its own
physical gold located at the bedrock of the NY Fed, led to the usual mainstream media
mockery.
But then everything changed in November
2014 , when in an interview on Ukraine TV, none other than the then-head of the Ukraine
Central Bank, Valeriya Gontareva (who, became head of the Ukraine central bank in June 2014
when she replaced Stepan
Kubiv and also presided over the nationalization of Kolomoiski's PrivateBank in December 2016 ), made the
stunning admission that "in the vaults of the central bank there is almost no gold left. There
is a small amount of gold bullion left, but it's just 1% of reserves."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/NUrPwhSXwVk
As Ukraina
reported at the time, this stunning revelation means that not only has Ukraine been quietly
depleting its gold throughout the year, but that the latest official number, according to which
Ukraine gold was 8 times greater than the reported 1%, was fabricated, and that the real number
is about 90% lower.
According to official statistics the NBU, the amount of gold in the vaults should be eight
times more than is actually in stock. At the beginning of this month, the volume of gold was
about $ 1 billion, or 8% of the total gold reserves. Now this is just one percent.
Assuming Gonaterva's admission was true, it would imply that the official reserve data at
the Central Bank was clearly fabricated, prompting questions about just how long ago the actual
gold "displacement" took place. Could it have been during a cold night in March when "more than
40 heavy boxes" full of gold were loaded up on the plane and flown off to an unknown
destination in the US?
To help out in this puzzle, we got some additional information from Rusila, which in Nov 2014
reported that "Ukraine's gold reserves disappeared."
According to recent data, the value of Ukraine gold should be $988.7 million. That is the
value of gold proportion of gold in gold reserves is 8%. If you believe Gontareva, it turns
out there is a mere $123.6 million in gold remaining. The figure is fantastic, considering
that the amount of gold at the end of February (when the new authorities have already taken
key positions) was $1.8 billion or 12% of the reserves.
In other words, since the beginning of the year gold reserves dropped almost 16 times.
Gold stock in February were approximately 21 tons of gold, the presence of which was once
proudly reported by Sergei Arbuzov, who led the NBU in 2010-2012. So what happened to 20.8
tons of gold?
Explaining the dramatic reduction in the context of the hryvnia devaluation through gold
sales is impossible. After all, 92% of the reserves of the National Bank is in the form of a
foreign currency that is much easier to use to maintain hryvnia levels and cover current
liabilities. Besides since March the international price of gold has plummeted. Selling gold
under such circumstances is a crime . In fact it would be more expedient to increase gold
reserves through currency conversion in precious metals.
But apparently the result is not due to someone's negligence or carelessness. The gold
reserve has been actively carted out of the country, as a result of the very vague economic
and political prospects of Ukraine. Something similar happened to the gold reserves of the
USSR - when the Gorbachev elite realized that perestroika is leading the country to the
abyss, gold simply disappeared in an unknown direction.
Oddly enough there was no official gold reduction just prior to the time when
Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland was planning Yanukovich's ouster, and as shown above, quite
the contrary: Ukraine's gold pile was increasing with every passing year... until it collapsed
in early 2014. It is a little more odd that it was during the period when Ukraine was
"supported" by its western allies that several billion dollars worth of physical gold - the
people's gold - just "vaporized."
Which brings us to the $1.8 billion question: what happened to Ukraine's gold, because if
the now former central banker's story is accurate, that's roughly the amount of gold that
quietly left the country just days after the US-backed presidential coup. And, it is also
roughly how much taxpayer-funded Ukraine aid, procured by Joe Biden
while his son was working at Burisma , is now missing.
At this point, there are certainly many pressing questions but one stands out: was the real
" quid pro quo" not one of Trump holding up payments to Kiev in exchange for a probe of Biden -
which after reading all of the above is more than warranted - but if the quo , namely US
support for regime change in Ukraine and almost two billion in now missing taxpayer funds which
ended up in an oligarch's bank and mysteriously "vaporized" but not before said oligarch hired
the son of the US vice president, wasn't the quid to some 40 tons of Ukraine leaving forever to
an unknown destination in the US.
We hope that Trump's second term will provide ample time and opportunity to answer this
critical question, and just to set off investigators on the right track, we believe that any
investigation should begin with the former central bank head, Gontareva, who he
also fled to London where she now lives in self-appointed exile and where she now
"fears for her life" after one of her homes near Kiev was badly damaged in an arson attack, and
was also injured in August when she was knocked down by a car in London. Failing that, one can
always check the flight manifests and the cargo contents of all planes that left the Ukraine
and arrived in the US on March 7, 2014 with a cargo consisting of billions of dollars in
gold...
"It's Time To Ask Again What Really Happened To Ukraine's Missing Gold"
It is also time to ask what happened to the Libyan gold.
It really seems like the criminal syndicate controlling its US government puppets is
nothing more than a modern version of the Vikings where they go into sovereign nations to
loot and pillage.
Since all of the US gold and the gold of foreign countries held in custody has been leased
out (never to return) to keep the price of gold low and that Germany wanted their gold back
they had to find gold somewhere: Ukraine's gold! No mystery here and the $1.8 billion
American tax payers money was the payment for this. Lots of corrupt Ukrainians and Americans
got their share of this. No mystery here.
Ukraines "Crowdstrike" Is the elephant in the room. Funny how Trumps transcripts mention
Crowdstrike, yet not one lawyer brought it up in the hearings.
Karl Marx was called Mordechai Levy and no one is still indignant, and Leon Trotsky was
called Leiba Bronstein and again no one is indignant, and you pester this innocent boy with
his innocent surname. Shame on you! :) ~
Now that even the dirt is sold piece by piece,loaded on cargo trains and taken out from
Ukraine, the prospect of anothe "holodomor" looks ever so promisingly close.
The missing Ukraine gold is no surprise knowing the country's reputation, but what is
still puzzling is what the hell happened to all the damn Libyan gold that was going to be
used to start a friggin' new currency?
On another Ukraine related note, just got done watching the Beck show referenced and
linked above. I normally avoid Beck but this piece by him is well worth the watch. Skip
through the short self-promo in the very beginning and you'll be fine.
I wonder if theyever recovered that gold that they failed to heist when silverstein and
the rest of the Jewish mob blew up NY.
They had the gold already in trucks. It looks like something went wrong. Since the whole
underground was a foundary for a week due to thermite, they may have never gotten it out.
umm.. there is a monument there now. This means construction. Trucks come and go.. maybe
they come empty and leave full..
And lots of labor. I can presume those were all jewish bankers doing the digging and
pretending to be blue collars.
"This transaction of $1.8 billion ... with the help of fake contracts was simply an
asset siphoning operation."
Here is the main problem with USA law compared to God law. If a contract is made by
fraudulent representations, the contract is actually said to voidable but not invalid. To
have some grievance, you would have to take the contract to court to get get it voided, but
in the meantime it is a valid contract. Therefore, fraudulent misrepresentation can be a big
cash cow if you are able to keep your defrauded counter party ignorant of the fraud terms in
which he is involved. When I went to Exide in late 2018, shortly after the beginning of
October, I asked for the copies of all the agreements into which me or my person had been
subjected. I went to their office, and I demanded the termination of all agreements, and the
copies of all agreements. The HR manager, Mr Gay, refused to give me the documents, and then
he called the cops on me to have them take me away without any of the things I asked for. The
cops issued me a CT against ever returning to Exide, and I went to jail on a municipal
warrant taken out against me after I spat in my roommate's face due to him usuing sexual
torture electrodes each afternoon when he would come home. He snickered at me maliciously in
the hall when I confronted him about it, and then I spat in his face shortly thereafter in
the kitchen. I would to smash their heads with hammers who hypnotize and drug me and enter my
apartment in the night to do evil things. Then the next day after I got arrested trying to
get copies of the docs relevant to my concurrent and direct allegations of criminal
fraudulent misrepresentation against Exide, such that Exide had misrepresented the terms of
the hiring package to me in the summer of 2016. I think it's because I am trying to kill the
CIA, or the FBI, or both likely, they said in the summer of 2016, "Let's get him to to says
he's actually joining us instead of trying to kill us, so that way it will be harder for him
to kill us when we make everyone else think we are willing collaborators. I think when they
told me at Exide that I would help them in the SQL part of their IT department, and they were
a just-out-of-bankruptcy manufacturer and seller of electrical batteries, and they gave me a
huge pile of hiring paperwork that I signed in good faith without ever looking at, what they
had actually given me was a fraud contract with terms totally unrelated to what I had
discussed with the hiring manager, likely Chief Justice John Roberts in a Steve Collins mask.
So, the problem with USA law is that Exide has a valid contract as long as they can get away
with refusing to give me the papers, then also issuing a criminal trespass notice so that I
could never try again to get the papers. Then then next day, or perhaps the same day, Jamal
"Cash O.G." Khashoggi went to get his "divorce papers" from the Saudi Embassy, and he "got
killed" for doing it. The stock market crashed that day, and there was a problem in the
Mueller investigation that got "quickly resolved." What was quickly resolved was that under
USA law a fraud contract is voidable but not invalid. So... I think the "anti-Trump insurance
policy" of summer 2016 was the conspiracy of fraudulent misrepresentation at Exide. Compared
to God law, the only part of the contract which is valid is the the part we discussed and
shook hands on. It was said that in ancient Israel after two men would agree on terms of
business, one man would give his sandal to the other to signify that they were agreeing to
exactly what was discussed and nothing else.
The plane touched down Tel Aviv for aviation fuel and refreshments. The secretive cargo
was offloaded and a manifest notation indicates an additional 17 dancing Israelis flew on to
Andrew's airforce base.
Why do I believe that the unmarked US jet that was overnight in Little Rock a few months
back is connected to this? Probably because Biden is still a 2nd tier player and not a chief
benefactor.
Since they lost China and everything else is going wrong, I wonder if they will try a
temporarily gold backed currency again next time. They will do whatever it takes to own a
reserve currency. It is the demon's lifeblood.
Maidan and the coup attempt in Venezuela, was also accompanied by robbery. After Trump and
his disenfranchised vassals declared the clown Guaido - President, the Bank of England froze
all the gold assets of Venezuela.
BTW Vindman quit his job so why was it bad for Trump to remove him early? Games
lol, Joe demands a standing ovation for Lt. Col. Vindman, a security state apparatchik
who was offended that Trump didn't read from the talking points he prepared. Beyond
parody
Not at all. But, Vindman should take a lesson from Frank "Five Angels" Pentangelli. If you go
for the king, you had best be successful. Otherwise, it will not end up well... for you!
He told his opinion. It wasn't facts! Vindman was just upset that Trump didn't take his
advice on Ukraine and became vindictive! Such a small petulant thing to do. That's why he got
fired!
He did nothing wrong by testifying.
He violated the UCMJ by talking to the whistleblower.
He discussed classified information with someone (the whistle blower) who was not authorized
to know that information.
That is a clear violation of the UCMJ.
Were he a civilian he was just a leaker. Since he is in the military, it doesn't get much
worse.
Loose lips sink ships.
He is very lucky he is not facing a court marshall
Hm....
Michael Flynn is also a "decorated veteran", but that has not stopped the left from attacking
him.
Also, did you have a problem with the draft dodging Bill Clinton being the commander in
chief? When did Joe Biden serve? Barack Obama
Anyone who worships the bureaucracy over the U.S. Constitution is not a real American. I will
come to the defense of a duly elected president, no matter the party, over a stinking
bureaucrat who is trying to overturn the previous election and determine the next.
It would be interesting to see how much the Vindman brothers engaged in any leaks to the
media during the course of their work at the White House.
It appears the Lt. Col. was colluding with the so called whistle blower
Because he's an anti-Trumper who was using his position to undermine the President. Vindman
was upset that HIS view of things was not on the same page as the President, and that the
President did not do what he wanted.
If Obama had a guy working in his White House who was actively working to undermine him, I
doubt if the left would have been whining if the guy/gal was re-assigned to a job outside of
that White Hosue.
Vindman is a spy for the left, and can't be trusted.
Did Vindman act like a LtC? He sure as hell didn't follow the chain of command did he? If
that's the case he should be court martialed. And by the way, who ASSIGNED this partisan
dirtbag, anyway?
According to CNN and testimony by Tim Morrison, Vindman didn't consult him. Morrison is
Vindman's direct supervisor. Are you trying to tell me that CNN has their reporting wrong
I didn't know Vindman controlled foreign policy. Tell me, where in Article Two does it say
NSC advisers dictate foreign policy. These bureaucracies have become rogue entities
completely subverting our constitution and its federalist principles
There was nothing illegal of what he did. He is the commander in chief and responsible for
foreign policy. He is also responsible for ferreting out corruption and there is no doubt the
Biden's are corrupt.
Say what you will about people that live their conscience. This will NOT bode well for Trump
with the military. I live at Joint Base Lewis-McChord and I see more disdain for Trump every
day.
There are plenty of dirtbags who lived by their conscience, the Jacobins of the French
Revolution and the Bolsheviks are a good example of that. And I'm not buying your assertion
that the military has disdain for President Trump. I've had plenty of experience with
liberals lies
NSC Russia expert freshly appointed Andrew Peek, who was walked out like Vindman,
with him only freshly appointed after Fiona Hill and the Tim Morrioson resigned.
There is a big problems with "experts" in NSC -- often they represent interests of the
particular agency, or a think tank, not that of the country.
Look at former NSC staffer Fiona Hill. She can be called "threat inflation"
specialist.
NSC tries to usurp the role of the State Department and overly militarize the USA
foreign policy, while having much lower class specialists. It is a kind of CIA backdoor
into defining the USA foreign policy.
I would advocate creating "shadow NSC" by the party who is in opposition, so that it
can somehow provide countervailing opinions. But with both parties being now war parties,
this is no that effective.
Cutting NSC staff to the bones, so that such second rate personalities like Fiona Hill
and Vindman are automatically excluded might also help a little bit.
One common explanation is that the NSC mission creep results from the NSC staff
growing too large and the easy solution is to limit the size of the staff. I am
sympathetic to that feeling because we don't want it to
be too large and we don't want it to be usurping things that the State Department or
the Agency should do.
His "closing arguments" speeches last week were respectively two-and-a-half hours and ninety
minutes long and were inevitably praised by the mainstream media as "magisterial," "powerful,"
and "impressive."
Academic historians reject anything smacking of inevitably . Instead they emphasize the
contingency of events as manifested through the inherent agency of human beings and the
countless decisions they make. On the merits, such scholars are basically correct. That said,
there was something – if not inevitable – highly probable, almost (forgive me)
deterministic about the two cataclysmic world wars of the 20th century. Both, in retrospect,
were driven, in large part, by collective – particularly Western – nations'
adherence to a series of geopolitical philosophies.
The first war – which killed perhaps nine million soldiers in the sodden trench lines
(among other long forgotten places) of Europe – began, in part, due to the continental,
and especially maritime, competition between Imperial Great Britain, and a new, rising, and
highly populous, land power, Imperial Germany. Both had pretensions to global leadership;
Britain's old and long-standing, Germany's recent and aspirational – tinged with a sense
of long-denied deservedness. Political and military leaders on both sides – along with
other European (and the Japanese) nations – then pledged philosophical fealty to the
theories
of an American Navy man, Alfred Thayer Mahan. To simplify, Mahan's core postulation –
published from a series of lectures as The Influence of Sea Power Upon History – was that
geopolitical power in the next (20th) century would be inherently maritime. The countries that
maintained large, modern navies, held strategic coaling stations, and expanded their coastal,
formal empires, would dominate trade, develop the strongest economies, and, hence, were apt to
global paramountcy. Conversely, traditional land power – mass armies prepared to march
across vast land masses – would become increasingly irrelevant.
Mahan's inherently flawed, or at least exaggerated, conclusions – and his own clear
institutional (U.S. Navy) bias – aside, key players in two of the major powers of Europe
seemed to buy the philosophy hook-line-and-sinker. So, when Wilhelmine Germany took the
strategic decision to rapidly expand its own colonial fiefdoms (before the last patches of
brown-people-inhabited land were swallowed up) and, thereby necessarily embarked on a crash
naval buildup to challenge the British Empire's maritime supremacy, the stage was set for a
massive war. And, with most major European rivals – hopelessly hypnotized by nationalism
– locked in a wildly byzantine, bipolar alliance system, all that was needed to turn the
conflict global was a spark: enter the assassin Gavrilo Princip, a pistol, Austrian Archduke
Franz Ferdinand, and it was game
on .
The Second World War – which
caused between 50-60 million deaths – was, of course, an outgrowth of the first. It's
causes were multifaceted and complicated. Nonetheless, particularly in its European theater,
it, too, was driven by a geopolitical theorist and his hypotheses. This time the culprit was a
Briton, Halford John Mackinder. In contrast with Mahan, Mackinder postulated a land-based,
continental power theory. As such, he argued that the "pivot" of global
preeminence lay in the control of Eurasia – the "World Island" – specifically
Central Asia and Eastern Europe. These resource rich lands held veritable buried treasure for
the hegemon, and, since they lay on historical trade routes, were strategically positioned.
Should an emergent, ambitious, and increasingly populated, power – say, Nazi Germany
– need additional territory (what Hitler called " Lebensraum ") for
its race, and resources (especially oil) for its budding war machine, then it needed to seize
the strategic "heartland" of the World Island. In practice, that meant the Nazis theoretically
should, and did, shift their gaze (and planned invasion) from their outmoded Mahanian rival
across the English Channel, eastward to the Ukraine, Caucasus (with its ample oil reserves),
and Central Asia. Seeing as all three regions were then – and to lesser extent, still
– dominated by Russia, the then Soviet Union, the unprecedentedly bloody existential war
on Europe's Eastern Front appears ever more certain and explainable.
Germany lost both those wars: the first badly, the second, disastrously. Then, in a sense,
the proceeding 45-year Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union – the only two big
winners in the Second World War – may be seen as an extension or sequel to
Mackinder-driven rivalry. The problem is that after the end of – at least the first
– Cold War, Western, especially American, strategists severely
miscalculated . In their misguided triumphalism, US geopolitical theorists both provoked a
weak (but not forever so) Russia by expanding the NATO alliance far eastward, but posited
premature (and naive) theories that assumed global finance, free (American-skewed) trade, and
digital dominance were all that mattered in a "Post" Cold War world.
No one better defined this magical thinking more than the still – after having been
wrong about just about every US foreign policy decision of the last two decades –
prominent New York Times columnist , Thomas Friedman. In article after article,
and books with such catchy titles as The World is Flat , and The Lexus and the Olive Tree ,
Friedman argued, essentially, that old realist geopolitics were dead, and all that really
mattered for US hegemony was the proliferation of McDonald's franchises worldwide.
Friedman was wrong; he always is (Exhibit A: the 2003 Iraq War). Today, with a surprisingly
– at least with his prominent base – popular president, Donald J. Trump, impeached
in the House and
just acquitted by the Senate for alleged crimes misleadingly summed up as "Ukraine-gate," a
look at the
real issues at hand in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, demonstrate that, for better or
(probably) worse, the ghost of Mackinder still haunts the scene. For today, I'd argue, the
proxy battle over Ukraine between the U.S. and its allied-coup-empowered government –
which includes some neo-nazi political
and military elements – and Russian-backed separatists in the country's east, reflects a
return to the battle for Eurasian resource and geographic predominance.
Neither Russia nor the United States is wholly innocent in fueling and escalating the
ongoing Ukrainian Civil War. The difference is, that in post-Russiagate farce, chronically
(especially among mainstream Democrat) alleged Russia-threat-obsessed America, reports of
Moscow's ostensible guilt literally saturate the media space. The reporting from Washington?
Not so much.
The truth is that a generation of prominent "liberal" American, born-again Russia-hawks
– Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, the whole DNC
apparatus , and the MSNBC corporate media crowd –
wielded State Department, NGO, and
economic pressure to help catalyze a pro-Western coup in Ukraine during and after 2014.
Their opportunism seemed, to them, simple, and relatively cost-free, at the time, but has
turned implacably messy in the ensuing years.
In the process, the Democrats haven't done themselves any political favors, further sullying
what's left of their reputation by – in some
cases – colluding with Ukrainians to undermine key Trump officials; and consorting
with nefarious
far-right nationalist local bigots (who may have conspired to kill protesters in the
Maidan "massacre," as a means to instigate further Western support for the coup). What's more,
while much of the conspiratorial Trump-team spin on direct, or illegal, Biden family
criminality has proven false, neither Joe nor son Hunter, are exactly "clean." The Democratic
establishment, Biden specifically, may, according to an excellent recent Guardian editorial
, have a serious "corruption problem" – no least of which involves explaining exactly why
a then sitting vice president's son, who had no serious diplomatic or energy sector experience,
was paid $50,000 a month to serve on the board of a Ukrainian gas company .
Fear not, the "Never-Trump" Republicans, and establishment Democrats seemingly intent on
drumming up a new – presumably politically profitable – Cold War have already
explanation. They've dug up the long ago discredited, but still publicly palatable,
justification that the US must be prepared to fight Russia "over there," before it has no
choice but to battle them "over here" (though its long been unclear where "here" is , or how ,
exactly, that fantasy comes to pass). First, there's the distance factor: though several
thousands of miles away from the East Coast of North America, Ukraine is in Russia's
near-abroad. After all, it was long – across many different generational
political/imperial structures – part of the Soviet Union or other Russian empires. A
large subsection of the populace, especially in the East, speaks, and considers itself, in
part, culturally, Russian.
Furthermore, the Russian threat, in 2020, is highly exaggerated. Putin is not Stalin. The
Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union; and, hell, even the Soviet (non-nuclear) military
threat and geopolitical ambitions were embellished throughout Cold War "Classic." A simple
comparative "
tale-of-the-tape " illustrates as much. Economically and demographically, Russia is
demonstrably an empirically declining power –
its economy, in fact, about the size of
Spain's.
Nor is the defense of an imposed, pro-Western, Ukrainian proxy state a vital American
national security interest worth bleeding, or risking nuclear war, over. As MIT's Barry Posen
has argued ,
"Vital interests affect the safety, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and power position of
the United States," and, "If, in the worst case, all Ukraine were to 'fall' to Russia, it would
have little impact on the security of the United States." Furthermore, as retired US Army
colonel, and president of the restraint-based Quincy Institute, Andrew Bacevich,
has advised , the best policy, if discomfiting, is to "tacitly acknowledge[e] the existence
of a Russian sphere of influence." After all, Washington would expect, actually demand, the
same acquiescence of Moscow in Mexico, Canada, or, for that matter, the entire Americas.
Unfortunately, no such restrained prudence is likely, so long as the bipartisan American
national security state continues to subscribe to some vague version of the Mackinder theory.
Quietly, except among wonky regional experts and investigative reporters on the scene, the US
has, before, but especially since the "opportunity" of the 9/11 attacks, entered full-tilt into
a competition with Russia and China for physical, economic, and resource dominance from Central
Asia to the borderlands of Eastern Europe. That's why, as a student at the Army's Command and
General Staff College in 2016-17, all us officers focused almost exclusively on planning
fictitious, but highly realistic, combat missions in the Caucasus region. It also partly
explains why the US military, after 18+ years, remains ensconced in potentially $3 trillion
resource-rich Afghanistan, which, not coincidentally, is America's one serious physical
foothold in land-locked Central Asia.
Anecdotally, but instructively, I remember well my four brief stops at the once ubiquitous
US Air Force way-station into Afghanistan – Manas Airbase – in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.
Off-base "liberty" – even for permanent party airmen – was rare, in part, because
the Russian military had a mirror base just across the city. What's more, the previous, earlier
stopover spot for Afghanistan – Uzbekistan – kicked out the US
military in 2005, in part, due to Russian political and economic pressure to do so.
Central Asia and East Europe are also contested spaces regarding the control of competing
– Western vs. Russian vs. Chinese – oil and natural gas
pipeline routes and trade corridors. Remember, that China's massive " One Belt
– One Road " infrastructure investment program is mostly self-serving, if sometimes
mutually beneficial . The plan means to link Chinese manufacturing to the vast consumerist
European market mainly through transportation, pipeline, diplomatic, and military connections
running through
where? You guessed it: Central Asia, the Caucasus, and on through Eastern Europe.
Like it or not, America isn't poised to win this battle, and its feeble efforts to do so in
these remarkably distant locales smacks of global hegemonic ambitions and foolhardy, mostly
risk, nearly no reward, behavior. Russia has a solid army in close proximity, a hefty nuclear
arsenal, as well as physical and historical connections to the Eurasian Heartland; China has an
even better, more balanced, military, enough nukes, and boasts a far more powerful,
spendthrift-capable, economy. As for the US, though still militarily and (for now) economically
powerful, it lacks proximity, faces difficult logistical / expeditionary challenges, and has
lost much legitimacy and squandered oodles of good will with the regional countries being vied
for. Odds are, that while war may not be inevitable, Washington's weak hand and probable
failure, nearly is.
Let us table, for the purposes of this article, questions regarding any environmental
effects of the great powers' quest for, extraction, and use of many of these regional
resources. My central points are two-fold:
first, that Ukraine – which represents an early stage in Washington's rededication
to chauvinist, Mackinder geostrategy – as a proxy state for war with Russia is not an
advisable or vital interest;
second, that Uncle Sam's larger quest to compete with the big two (Eur)Asian powers is
likely to fail and symptomatic of imperial confusion and desperation.
As the U.S. enters an increasingly bipolar phase of world affairs, powerful national
security leaders fear its diminishing power. Washington's is, like it or not, an empire in
decline; and, as we know from history, such entities behave badly on the downslope of hegemony.
Call me cynical, but I'm apt to believe that the United States, as perhaps the most powerful
imperial body of all time, is apt, and set, to act poorest of all.
The proxy fight in Ukraine, battle for Central Asia in general – to say nothing of
related American aggression and provocations in Iran and the Persian Gulf – could be the
World War III catalyst that the Evangelical militarist nuts, Vice President Pence and Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo, unwilling to wait on Jesus Christ's eschatological timeline, have long
waited for . These characters seemingly possess the heretical temerity to believe man
– white American men, to be exact – can and should incite or stimulate Armageddon
and the Rapture.
If they're proved "right" or have their way – and the Mikes just might – then
nuclear cataclysm will have defied the Vegas odds and beat the house on the expected human
extinction
timeline. Only contra to the bloody prophecy set forth in the New Testament book of
Revelations, it won't be Jesus wielding his vengeful sword on the back of a white horse, but
– tragic and absurdly – the perfect Antichrist stooge, pressing the red button, who
does the apocalyptic deed .
* * *
Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and regular contributor to Antiwar.com . His work has appeared in the LA Times, The Nation,
Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Truthdig, Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat
tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma
mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,
Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . His forthcoming book,
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War , is available for preorder on Amazon.
Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet . Check out his professional website for contact info, scheduling speeches,
and/or access to the full corpus of his writing and media appearances.
"it won't be Jesus wielding his vengeful sword on the back of a white horse, but –
tragic and absurdly – the perfect Antichrist stooge, pressing the red button, who does
the apocalyptic deed .'
The World is full of people who would like to be the one who pushes that button, no matter
what happens!
There is an hint of Samson Option, which basically says; If I can't have it all, then none
shall have anything! Don't blame anyone it is just the nature of man, probably both sides
believe in this! Who will wiling submit to slavery?
Europe will become free when the last armed American occupier leaves the European
continent. This axiom is also valid for Japan, South Korea and other countries.
Space and the moon is the latest theory for how to acheive empire and defend yourself from
empire.
Well defended soverignty that is helpful and useful to other sovereign trading partners in
a diverse mutipolar world of sovereigns, not so much as yet. Switzerland is kind of that and
Russia looks like they're working on it.
China aspires to empire and America aspires not to lose theirs and is taking instructions
from Israel on how to do that.
Melchizedek gave Abraham these seven laws of how to get along. Empire ambitious nations
have trouble with numbers 3, 4 and 5.
93:4.7 (1017.9) 1. You shall not serve any God but the Most High Creator of heaven and
earth.
93:4.8 (1017.10) 2. You shall not doubt that faith is the only requirement for eternal
salvation.
93:4.9 (1017.11) 3. You shall not bear false witness.
93:4.10 (1017.12) 4. You shall not kill.
93:4.11 (1017.13) 5. You shall not steal.
93:4.12 (1018.1) 6. You shall not commit adultery.
93:4.13 (1018.2) 7. You shall not show disrespect for your parents and elders.
When China and Russia abandon the dollar, all that's left for the Empire is Canada and
South America, and they've never been able to stop themselves making a mess of everywhere
south of the fence.
Pretty good article and summation of what America has become and what to expect. America
has sure lost a lot of ground since the 1990's. It's really hard to see America winning at
anything these days.
When the "strategists" were penning their hegemonic theories, they woefully failed to
peruse history properly, especially that of human nature put on existential defense..
Either they were not human, or stunted development humans for were they properly developed
humans, they'd have understood eventual reaction to unprovoked aggression..
Such responses often tend to be totally destructive, especially after long suffering from
aggression..
Now, regarding the BRI/OBOR, we've been saying to the West, if they think it's not good
enough, what inputs, devoid of coercion, rapine, aggression, or deceit, they'd suggest to
improve it..
And it was crickets for a while, until Germany woke up, and decided with Europe that
they'd contribute trade diplomacy..
We're still waiting for that of America under the current Admin, and all we observe is
bullying, coercion, and reality denial..
Until a Bernard Sanders seized the initiative, that with a continously finessed Green New
Deal, the United States of America will lead in the environmental aspect of global trade and
commerce, which the EU has also committed to doing as well..
So then Major, perhaps the time has finally arrived for America to eschew aggression and
imperialism, in favor of the erstwhile business of America.. Trade and Commerce..
So for those who desire swamp drained, and a fresh start for America, you might wanna go
chat with, and support Bernard Sanders, the future, and Us..
Then dump the swamp critters and their current admin enabler..
But as in all things, we can only show you the way.. Traveling on it however, is your
sovereign prerogative..
The author still tends to think that it is all because of missteps, mistakes, ignorance,
incompetence, stupidity....
If you step back from the fray.....and don't get caught up in red/blue team nonsense, it
becomes apparent that there is a theme/strategy that is being played out. It appears to be
conducted in evolutionary phases with Wars allowing larger and more overt advances in their
agenda. Simply put order out of chaos.
We are now about to be manipulated into another major evolutionary phase to advance the
globalist agenda. All the conditions are set for their next major order out of
chaos...scheme. It is pretty obvious that Nationalism/Populism will be the scapegoat for the
cause of the chaos to come. The US will take center stage as an example that you cannot trust
a single country (uni-polar world) not to abuse its power....and history has shown a
multi-polar situation leads to major wars...creating chaos around the world.
Their answer will be global governance and their dream of a global feudalistic utopia will
be well on its way to being realized. Hold on, we are about to enter a global "great leap
forward"...
The unexpected alliance between Turkey and Libya is a geopolitical earthquake that changes
the balance of power in the eastern Mediterranean and across the Middle East.
Turkey's audacious move has enraged its rivals in the region and cleared the way for a
dramatic escalation in the 9 year-long Libyan civil war. It has also forced leaders in Europe
and Washington to decide how they will counter Turkey's plan to defend the U.N-recognized
Government of National Accord (GNA) , and to extend its maritime borders from Europe to Africa
basically creating "a water corridor through the eastern Mediterranean linking the coasts of
Turkey and Libya."
Leaders in Ankara believe that the agreement "is a major coup in energy geopolitics" that
helps defend Turkey's "sovereign rights against the gatekeepers of the regional status quo."
But Turkey's rivals strongly disagree. They see the deal as a naked power grab that undermines
their ability to transport natural gas from the East Mediterranean to Europe without crossing
Turkish waters. In any event, the Turkey-Libya agreement has set the stage for a broader
conflict that will unavoidably involve Egypt, Israel, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Europe, Russia and the
United States. All parties appear to have abandoned diplomatic channels altogether and are,
instead, preparing for war.
On November 27, Turkey and Libya signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that commits
Turkey to providing military assistance to Libya's Government of National Accord (GNA). The MoU
also redraws Turkey's maritime boundaries in a way that dramatically impacts the transport of
gas from the East Mediterranean to Europe. Israel is particularly worried that this new deal
will undermine its plans for a 1,900-kilometer EastMed pipeline connecting the Leviathan gas
field, off the coast of Israel, to the EU. YNET News summarized Israel's concerns in an
ominously titled article: "Turkey's maneuver could block Israel's access to the sea". Here's an
excerpt:
"Two of Israel's wars (1956 Sinai campaign and 1967 Six-Day War) broke out over navigation
rights. Israel must take note of a new reality taking hold in the Mediterranean. It must
regard Turkey's actions as a substantial strategic threat and consider what it may do to
respond to it
This EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zones) designation essentially carved up much of the
energy-rich Eastern Mediterranean between Turkey and Libya, prompting a wave of international
condemnations first and foremost from Greece, Egypt, and Cyprus, who may be directly or
indirectly affected ..Turkey's disregard for the economic waters of Greece, Cyprus, and
Egypt.
Ankara is in effect annexing those areas pending an appeal to international tribunals,
which can take many years to resolve. In practical terms, Turkey created a sea border the
width of the entire Mediterranean ." ( "Turkey's maneuver could block Israel's access
to the sea" , ynet news )
The analysis from America's premier Foreign Policy magazine was no less foreboding. Check it
out:
"Turkey is meshing together two Mediterranean crises in a desperate bid to reshape the
region in its own favor, with potentially nasty implications both for the ongoing civil war
in Libya and future energy development in the eastern Mediterranean.
This month, Turkey's unusual outreach to the internationally recognized government of
Libya has resulted in a formal agreement for Ankara to provide military support, including
arms and possibly troops, in its bid to hold off an offensive from Russian-backed rebels in
the eastern part of the country. The military agreement came just weeks after Turkey and that
same Government of National Accord reached an unusual agreement to essentially carve up much
of the energy-rich eastern Mediterranean between them -- threatening to cut out Greece and
Cyprus from the coming bonanza ." ("Newly Aggressive Turkey Forges Alliance With Libya",
Foreign Policy )
While these new developments are likely to intensify the fighting on the ground in Libya,
they also portend a deepening of divisions within the region itself where new coalitions are
forming and battle-lines are being drawn. On the one side is the Turkey-Libya Axis, while on
the other is Greece, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, France, Germany, UK and probably the
United States although the Trump administration has not yet clarified its position. In any
event, the war between Libya's internationally-recognized government and Haftar's Libyan
National Army (LNA) is just a small part of a much larger struggle over vital hydrocarbons in a
strategically-located area of the Mediterranean. Here's a clip from an article at War On The
Rocks that helps to underscore the stakes involved:
"The discovery of significant deposits of natural gas in the Eastern Mediterranean
beginning in 2009 was a game-changer that upended regional geopolitics. It prompted new and
unexpected alliances between Israel, Greece, Cyprus, and Egypt to maximize their chances of
energy self-sufficiency. The bulk of the gas lies in Egypt's Zohr field, the Leviathan and
Tamar fields in Israeli waters, and the Aphrodite near the island of Cyprus. With recoverable
natural gas reserves in the region estimated at upward of 120 trillion cubic feet, the
strategic implications could not be bigge r. This is about the same amount as the proven gas
in the whole of Iraq, the 12th largest reserve globally .(Israel's gas field) Leviathan is
estimated to hold 22 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, and a potential half a
million barrels of oil." ("Hydrocarbon Diplomacy: Turkey's Gambit Might Yet Pay a Peace
Dividend", warontherocks.com)
Turkey's ambitious gambit makes it more likely that its rivals will increase their support
for the Libyan warlord, Haftar, who is, by-most-accounts, a CIA asset that was sent to Libya
in 2014 to topple the government in Tripoli and unify the country under a US puppet. Haftar's
forces currently control more than 70% of the Libyan territory while almost 60% of the
population is under the control of the GNA led by Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj. According
to Turkish news: "More than half of Haftar's troops are mercenaries from Russia and Sudan,
who are mainly paid by the Gulf states."
In April, 2019, Haftar launched an offensive on the government in Tripoli but was easily
repelled. In recent days, however, Haftar has resumed his attacks on the city of Misrata and on
the Tripoli airport in clear violation of the Berlin ceasefire agreement. He has also received
shipments of weapons from the UAE despite an arms embargo that was unanimously approved two
weeks ago at the same Berlin Conference. We expect that support for Haftar will continue to
grow in the months ahead as Berlin, Paris and particularly Washington settle on a plan for
reinforcing proxies to prosecute the ground war and for blunting Turkey's power projection in
the Mediterranean.
The Turkey-Libya agreement is a clumsy attempt to impose Turkey's preferred maritime
boundaries on the other countries bordering the Mediterranean. Naturally, Washington will not
allow this unilateral assertion of power to go unchallenged.
And while Washington's strategy has not yet been announced, that merely indicates that the
foreign policy establishment was caught off-guard by Turkey's November 27 announcement . It
does not mean that Washington will accept the status quo. To the contrary, US war-planners are
undoubtedly putting the finishing touches on a new strategy aimed at achieving their objectives
in Libya while at the same time dealing a stinging blow to a NATO ally that has grown closer to
Russia, caused endless headaches in Syria, and is now disrupting Washington's plans for
controlling vital resources in the East Mediterranean.
Washington sees Turkey's assertive foreign policy as a sign of "defiance" which requires a
iron-fisted response. But any attack on Turkey or Turkish interests will only intensify the bad
blood between Ankara and Washington, it will only put more pressure on the threadbare NATO
alliance, and it will only push Turkish president Erdogan further into Moscow's corner. Indeed,
the Trump team should realize that an overreaction on their part could trigger a fateful
realignment that could reshape the region while hastening the emergence of a new order.
Allow me a moment to thank -- and this may be a bit of a surprise -- Adam Schiff. Were it
not for his crack investigation skills, @realDonaldTrump might have had a
tougher time unearthing who all needed to be fired. Thanks, Adam! 🤣
#FullOfSchiff
Update (6:55 p.m.): Today's Trump admin casualties continue to stack up, after it was reported
that Ambassador Gordon Sondland was fired Friday afternoon.
" I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United
States Ambassador to the European Union," Sondland said in a Friday statement, expressing
gratitude to Trump for having "given me the opportunity to serve."
Sondland testified in Trump's impeachment inquiry that there was no quid pro quo when
President Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky to investigate the Bidens while
withholding US military aid (unbeknownst to Zelensky at the time). Sondland later flipped his
story, claiming that he told a top Ukrainian official that a meeting with President Trump may be
contingent upon its new administration committing to investigations Trump wanted, according to
the New York Times .
Sondland's departure comes one week after anti-Trump impeachment witness and former US
ambassador to Ukraine announced her retirement from the State Department . Her departure follows
her removal as Ambassador at the request of Ukraine.
* * *
Anti-Trump impeachment witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his twin brother have been fired
and escorted out of the White House by security, according to his Alexander Vindman's
attorney.
News -- Lt. Col. Vindman was just escorted out of the White House by security and told his
services were no longer needed.
Vindman, a Ukraine specialist who sat on the National Security Counsel who was accused of
being
coached by House Intel Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), was present on a July 25 phone
call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky, when the US president
asked that Ukraine investigate former VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as claims of
pro-Clinton meddling in the 2016 US election.
He was also notably counseling Ukraine on how to counter President Trump's foreign policy
according to the
New York Times , which led some to go as far as accuse him of being a double agent .
The now-former White House employee, who admitted to
violating the chain of command when he reported his concerns over the call, had been rumored
to be on the chopping block for much of Friday.
"He followed orders, he obeyed his oath, and he served his country... And for that, the most
powerful man in the world - buoyed by the silent, the pliable, and the complicit - has decided to
exact revenge," said his attorney, David Pressman.
LTC Vindman escorted from WH, per his lawyer David Pressman: "He followed orders, he obeyed
his oath, and he served his country... And for that, the most powerful man in the world -
buoyed by the silent, the pliable, and the complicit - has decided to exact revenge."
pic.twitter.com/u0CAB13iln
I can't wait for the next 4+ years of Trump.... The only ones left will be Jarred and
friends and those rejoicing right now will be wondering how we allowed an administration to
eliminate and assassinate those that went up against the establishment.....err the takeover of
Israel.
So the Ukinazies got served. They wanted to go dem style and got served. Or severed if you
will from the gubbie titty they were breastfeeding on. Ask Nancy. Maybe she needs her lawn
mowed. Fuckers.
Update (6:55 p.m.): Today's Trump admin casualties continue to stack up, after it
was reported that Ambassador Gordon Sondland was fired Friday afternoon.
I wonder how many non-disclosure agreements he had to sign ?
If Vindman "followed orders" he wouldn't have tried to undermine the President's foreign
policy, nor violated the chain of command. Vindman is putting his, the Democrats, and Ukraine's
interests all before the US's interests.
Mitt Romney's decision to convict President Trump on the impeachment charge of abuse of
power was " motivated by bitterness and jealousy ," according to former Romney spokesman Rick
Gorka, who added that President Trump has "accomplished what he [Mitt] has failed to do
multiple times."
These are the same people that hated Mitt in 2012 and they will hate him again when they
are done with him. It is sad to see that Mitt has not learned the lessons from 2012. Now he
has betrayed his Party and millions of voters.
"These are the same people that hated Mitt in 2012 and they will hate him again when they
are done with him," Gorka added. "
It is sad to see that Mitt has not learned the lessons from 2012. Now he has betrayed his
Party and millions of voters."
While that's a good theory, at least a few people have been passing around this Federalist article from September, 2019 which notes that Romney adviser Cofer
Black worked with Hunter Biden on the board of Ukrainian energy giant Burisma .
According to web archives, top Mitt Romney adviser Joseph Cofer Black, who publicly goes
by "Cofer Black," joined Burisma's board of directors while Hunter Biden was also serving on
the board.
According to The New Yorker , Hunter joined Burisma's board in April of 2014 and
remained on it until he declined to renew his position this past May. Meanwhile, according to
Burisma's website, Black was appointed in February of 2017 and continues to serve on its
board. The timelines would indicate that Black and Biden worked together at Burisma, and
indeed, web archives
from late 2017 show Black and Biden listed simultaneously on the board. -
The Federalist
This picture may or may not sum up Romney's utter contempt for Donald Trump:
At least the good thing about Mitt Romney, he has a mind of his own. Can't say that about
the rest of the Republicans who go around marching in lock step to the party's tune, like
mechanical robots. (Talk about Communism)!!!!!!
Wait until you find out what else he did. This was the believable part. A democrat cut off
Romney's balls after the first debate with Obama. The dirt must be pretty vile, my guess is
that Trump has the dirt 2.
You just know when you look at Mittens he as a total dweeb and never got laid in high
school or probably college either. The girls he lusted after were actually ******* their
brains out with the bad boys--like Trump. There was a time when I almost--almost felt sorry
for guys like him because they just didn't 'get it". Mittens probably recoiled in terror the
first time he heard Queen's "Tie your mother down".
So, Mittens grew up and got even. Fucked over lots of blue collar middle class and their
supervisors. He hates Trump because he knows it was a guy like Trump that fucked all of his
girl friends behind his back. Trump reminded him of his cuckedness on the debate stage one
night. He did the same thing to JEB.
He has also betrayed his country and his oath to uphold the constitution, to the extent
that Trump was trying to have Biden investigated for his crimes.
It must always be remembered that Trump's impeachment was about Trump's alleged attempt to
have Biden investigated for crimes that Biden actually committed. If Trump really attempted
to do so, then he was doing his job as president.
Trump was accused of doing his job. Biden committed a crime, and then bragged about
it.
He split his vote at least... as for his vindictive side, well: We all know that exists!
His Utah voters will decide this as it's not up to us! Time Wounds All Heels! Poor Joe Biden
and Poor Mitt... 1 loss for Mitt, 2? 3? for Joe? God being a LOSER must really SUCK! Mitt:
Play for the Team or Switch Sides! Straddling the fence is not for Men... it's for Boys!
ROMNEY NEEDS TO RESIGN AS SENATOR FROM UTAH. if he had any integrity at all, that's what
he'd do as he surely doesn't represent the State of Utah. Only represents his bruised little
ego and he's a schmuck. Beta Male.
Resign? Are you kidding? These guys are brazen, in-your-face dishonest these days. Up
until Slick Willie's cigar shenigans, pols would resign for the good of the nation usually,
not any more.
My gawd, romney is the clear example of the bully next door who is just SO ticked off,
that his first cousin somehow won a brand new bike from entering a drawing at the county
fair, and then proceeds to call the cops on the cousin ratting him out that he never licensed
the bike with the city; Cousin then gets his bike impounded by the cops.....Just jealous as
all get out that HE didn't win the presidency but trump did. People of Utah had better wake
the hell up and dump this RINO asap. Shame on orrin hatch for recommending him in the first
place!!!!!!
Yeah, I had a sister like this. I bought a custom ordered 2000 Ford Ranger and she came to
visit me. She couldn't stand that I had a new truck (even though she knew I had lived without
any vehicle for years while I went to univ and rode public transit).
I would ride the bus to visit her for holidays or family stuff and she complained about me
calling to have her pick me up at the bus stop closest to her place (less than 2 miles). I
was expected to spend money topping off her gas tank for the honor of her picking me up along
with buying groceries and pot (for her to smoke).
I am glad to say I have never asked anyone to top off my gas tank, ever. Low class
move.
I don't understand being jealous over anything. It's material crap.
When he went to dinner with Trump that time that Trump was allegedly considering him for
Secretary of State, Trump made Romney eat frogs legs. Trump has a great sense of humor.
Really great.
Frog legs for the ******* frog that Romney is.........
Mitt says he's prepared to pay a dear cost for his betrayal of both his constituents, the
President and the party. So the bigger question is, why the **** is he in public office? He's
a billionaire, he doesn't need money. His family is prosperous and secure. He doesn't
represent the people of Utah or their wishes? He is hated and despised by both Republicans
and Democrats and the media establishment on both sides. He really needs to do some solid
introspective self examination. There is no place for his contemptable brand of high cuckery
in today's GOP. He is best served crossing the aisle to the Antiwhite party where such
nonsense is standard.
They really are two sides of the same **** coin. One inherited wealth, the other married
it. One lied about his service, the other lied to his voters. Both corrupt as hell grifters
that would do the world a favor by simply living like Howard Hughes in a dark hotel room.
The Romneys came over from England as Mormons in the 1860's. Not one Romney male, to
include now Mittens 5 sons, has ever served in the military. Big patriots they are.
A couple of generations did flee to Mexico to keep multiple wives.
Mittens dad, George was a big, squish liberal Republican. Govenor of Michigan and always
ready to raise taxes. George hated Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
Mittens was a total squish and wimp like his father as Govenor of Massachusetts, raising
every fee, license, permit he could, and of course his signature abortion, Romneycare,
precursor to Obamacare.
Mittens ran against Ted Kennedy for Kennedys Senate seat, and had a chance against a
obvious un well, fat, drunk, pre brain cancer Ted, but Mittens was such a daddy's boy wimp,
the old pickled drunk biytch slapped little Mittens like the woose he was. Later fat Candy
Crowley would do the same.
Mittens has always been a wimpy, goody-two shoes wimp and resents Alpha dog males like
Trump.
I am nearing my finals, soon the University of Hedge will award me my PHD. I must however
include your comments in my discussions with ALL THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS and the public at
large! up voted! U Next!
Haven't used that Ignore User button much. Just seems counter to free exchange. But you're
my exception. Got you pegged as a twisted INCEL type. Amirite?
On occasion I have down voted myself because the critics seemed so pathetic, and voting so
meaningful that, what the heck, help a poor short bus window licker out.
It has been a bad few days for the establishment, really bad.
In a 51-49 vote, the Senate refused to call witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald
Trump and agreed to end the trial Wednesday, with a near-certain majority vote to acquit the
president of all charges.
As weekend polls show socialist Bernie Sanders surging into the lead for the nomination in
the states of Iowa, New Hampshire and California, the sense of panic among Democratic Party
elites is palpable.
Former Secretary of State and Joe Biden surrogate John Kerry was overheard Sunday at a Des
Moines hotel talking of the "possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party --
down whole."
Tuesday, Trump takes his nationally televised victory lap in the U.S. Capitol with his State
of the Union address, as triumphant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and a humiliated Speaker
Nancy Pelosi sit silently side-by-side behind him.
Democrats may declare the Trump impeachment a victory for righteousness, but the anger and
outrage, the moans and groans now coming off the editorial and op-ed pages and cable TV suggest
the media know otherwise.
History, we are told, will vindicate what Pelosi and the Democrats did and stain forever the
Republican Party for voting to acquit.
Perhaps, but only if some future Howard Zinn is writing the history.
Reality: The impeachment of Trump was an attempted -- and failed -- coup that not a single
Republican supported, only Democrats in the House and their Senate caucus. The impeachment of
Trump was an exercise in pure partisanship and itself an abuse of power.
What was the heart of the Democrats' case to remove Trump?
Trump failed to invite Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to the White House, and held
up military aid to Kyiv for several months, to get Zelenskiy to hold a press conference to
announce that Kyiv was looking into how Hunter Biden got on the board of a corrupt energy
company at a retainer of $83,000 a month while his father was the chief international monitor
of corruption in Ukraine.
The specific indictment: Trump's suspension of military aid imperiled "our national
security" by denying arms to an "ally" who was fighting the Russians over there, so we don't
have to fight them over here.
And what was the outcome of it all?
Zelenskiy got his meeting with the president. He got the military aid in September. He did
not hold the press conference requested. He did not announce an investigation of the
Bidens.
No harm, no foul.
How did President Obama handle Ukraine?
After Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea and intervened to protect pro-Russian secessionists in
the Donbass, Obama's White House restricted U.S. lethal military aid to Kyiv and provided
blankets and meals ready to eat.
What punishment did House and Senate Democrats and anti-Trump media demand for the pause in
sending weapons for Ukraine?
Capital punishment, a political death penalty.
Democrats demanded that a Republican Senate overturn the election of 2016, make Trump the
first president ever impeached and removed, and then ensure that the American people could
never vote for him again.
Nancy Pelosi's House and the Democratic minority in the Senate were demanding that a
Republican Senate do their dirty work and keep Trump off the ballot in 2020, lest he win a
second term.
For four years, elements of the liberal establishment -- in the media, "deep state" and
major institutions -- have sought to destroy Trump. First, they aimed to smear him and prevent
his election, and then to overturn it as having been orchestrated by the Kremlin, and then to
impeach and remove him, and then to block him from running again.
The damage they have inflicted upon our country's institutions is serious.
U.S. intelligence agencies are being investigated by U.S. Attorney John Durham for their
role in instigating an investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign. The FBI has been
discredited by exposure of a conspiracy of top-level agents to spy on Trump's campaign.
The media, by endlessly echoing unproven claims that Trump was a stooge of the Kremlin,
discredited themselves to a degree unknown since the "Yellow Press" prostituted itself to get
us into war with Spain. Media claims to be unbiased pursuers of truth have suffered, not only
from Trump's attacks, but from their own biased and bigoted coverage and commentary.
Always at least a dribble of Beltway, uniparty propaganda that Russia is "our" enemy ruled by
a dictator, etc: "After Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea .." Can this columnist not acknowledge
that the people of Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine after Uncle Sam helped stage a coup
and handpicked its new figurehead? He is still on record espousing the claim that Russia
"hacked" the 2016 U.S. election.
Anyone who believes that people above the level of sacrificial flunky "being investigated
by U.S. Attorney John Durham for their role in instigating an investigation of a U.S.
presidential campaign" will be charged with a felony is dreaming.
Mr. Buchanan's jobs as Stagehand Right in the Washington puppet show are to whitewash the
imperialism and to lead enough Red sheep to vote in the next Most Important Election
Ever.
Ooh, lookie lookie, Trump is being impeached! Cheer the noble Democrats striking a blow
for freedom and virtue! Or boo the corrupt Democrats for putting on this farce! Take your
pick.
But whatever you do, don't pay any attention to the ongoing third-world invasion on our
southern border, or the trillions we are wasting on pointless winless foreign wars, or the
tens of trillions (that's not a mis-print) we are wasting bailing out and subsidizing Wall
Street and financial engineering, don't pay any attention to the fact that most of our drugs
are now made in Communist China with very little quality control, and yet prices for these
same drugs in the US are skyrocketing. And don't get me started on the growing industry of
"Surprise Medical Billing." I could go on but you get the idea.
Yes, impeachment was a bad joke. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Mr. Buchanan continues in his refusal to mention that the Maidan Revolution in the Ukraine
was a color revolution backed by the Obama-era State Department, the CIA and various
Soros-affiliated NGOs. But he dutifully invokes the Russian annexation of Crimea while never
mentioning the fact that it followed a referendum on the issue which was supported by the
vast majority in Crimea.
"Reality: The impeachment of Trump was an attempted -- and failed -- coup that not a single
Republican supported, only Democrats in the House and their Senate caucus. The impeachment of
Trump was an exercise in pure partisanship and itself an abuse of power."
Reality–Mr. Buchanan is still smarting from his boss Nixon getting busted, and will
stoop to new lows to exonerate him and others on the same trajectory. Of course, impeachment
is not a coup, and the Democrats made a strong case. It is other than surprising in an
election year where Trump threatened to burn any Republican Senator to the ground that they
are "united".
It is laughable that there was this "perfect call", yet he stonewalled any and all efforts
to enable witnesses to come forward. Why not have the Bidens, Guiliani, Parnas, Mulvaney, and
everyone associated to this scandal be allowed to speak their minds in the Senate? What is
the GOP so afraid of?
Several questions remain:
Why did Trump task Giuliani, in a personal capacity, to press Ukraine on the Bidens rather
than Trump asking the Department of Justice to investigate? Why were several key
administration officials "in the dark" about the activities of Giuliani?
Why did one Trump lawyer say to Senators that the House never authorized a resolution
(when it did) for subpoenas of Trump officials, when that same lawyer stated in 2019 that
resolution was unnecessary since they would testify on their own behalf?
White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney admitted to a quid pro quo and then walked it
back. Could he testify as to explain why? Why not allow other Trump officials to testify as
witnesses to exonerate Trump?
Trump stated he is concerned about adult children benefiting from their father's name? Why
did he give his children a place in his administration?
Trump's lawyers argued that in order to convict him, the Senate must find him guilty
"beyond a reasonable doubt". Except that has never been the standard ever used in past
impeachment trial. Why would they make this claim?
Time for a senate investigation into Joe Biden's blatant corruption and abuse of power in the
Burisma matter. There has already been a shitload of evidence gathered by Ukraine prosecutors
and a French journalist and it all points to Joe actually being guilty of everything the Dems
charged Trump with. Subpoena all of it plus sworn testimony from Joe and Hunter themselves
(though they will both have to take the Fifth to avoid self-incrimination).
@Truth3
You'd think at 82 and presumably secure financially Pat would let 'er rip once in a while,
but he had bigger stones three decades ago when he had a mainstream career in middle age to
protect. I met him a couple of times in the '80s, and the pugnacious brawler image he liked
to project -- back then, at least -- is not what comes across in person. He was a little
reserved and diffident (maybe it was the company). Nothing wrong with that, of course, but
you didn't sense a zest for engaging and confronting.
All the coup members should be arrested and tried for treason. Including those working at the
corporate news networks who cheered this on.
Also, the Democratic party will cease to be a viable national party by 2030. (ok, it
really should be 2032, because that will be the first presidential election they will not be
viable, but I'll stick with 2030).
Why? Simple: a political party based on a coalition solely devoted to hating the other
side won't work. Political parties, unlike wartime militaries, need a constructive agenda to
unite behind. Meaning the party must want to do certain things when in power that everyone in
the party agrees on, not merely to trample on their political opponents
Ironically, that's why Bernie's going so well: he's got a constructive agenda. Yes,
socialism is evil, but all the other candidates merely say the same flavor of "defeating
Trump is paramount." Socialism is at least something to implement beyond recriminations
against whitey.
@Corvinus
lmao. Our personal paid media-matters troll, Corvinus, is desperately trying to spin his
conspiracy theory hoax again. Go, Corvinus, go, earn Mr. Soros's paycheck you maginificent
lying bastard!
@Anonymous
"Subpoena all of it plus sworn testimony from Joe and Hunter themselves (though they will
both have to take the Fifth to avoid self-incrimination)."
Then charge them with Obstruction Of Congress. Isn't that what you're supposed to do when
someone exercises their rights?
@gsjackson
Remember this is the guy that was attacked on stage by Jewish thug-wannabees the day he
announced his Presidential Campaign and he bounced them off the stage solo.
He knows the Elephant with the hooked nose well enough is he still afraid of Mossad?
It makes me wonder. Even though Jews are over-represented in elite institutions, the great
majority of Deep State is still made up of goyim. Then, why are they all so servile to Jewish
agendas and Jewish wishes? Do goyim lack a mind of their own? If Jews say 'gay marriage',
deep state goyim run to fetch the stick. When Jews 'more Wars for Israel', deep state goyim
roll over. If Jews say, 'bail out Wall Street', deep state goyim just go along. If Jews say,
"fuc* the first and second amendments", deep state goyim nod along. Look at cuck goyim in
Virginia grabbing guns to serve their Jewish masters. If Jews say 'let's get Trump', deep
state goyim bark and bite.
It could be that deep state goyim just happen to share the same ideas and values as the
Jews. Or it could be their minds were molded by Jewish-run media and academia. Or they're
just afraid of Jewish power that, via media, blackmail, and bought off politicians, can
destroy anyone. Indeed, the sheer chutzpah of all those Jews coming out of the woodwork to
unseat an elected president.
Jewish attitude is "Powers Is Ours. All you goyim are just guests at the table."
Jews are captains of the ship. Deep State goyim must man the engines with no sense of
direction or destiny of their own.
@Corvinus
Trump is scump, and yes, he was sniffing at Hunter for political reasons. But there is no
smoking gun that he violated any law. It's all speculation.
Still, Trump did something that was unethical even though he was probing into corruption.
He did it for political reasons. After all, if Trump is concerned about corruption, he should
begin with US defense budgets.
But Dems are also full of shit. They began with the agenda, "Let's impeach Trump" and
grasped for ANYTHING to carry it out. It didn't begin with the possible violation on Trump's
part but with the desire to get Trump somehow someway. Impeach Trump was the apriori agenda
from the day he was elected.
Besides, if Trump should really be removed, it's for the murder of hero Soleimani. And
Obama should have been impeached for his war crimes. But nope. It's some fantasy about Russia
Collusion or some triviality about Hunter, another scumbag. Jewish Power pushes American
Politicians to do evil things around the world and expresses OUTRAGE only when Jews don't get
what they want.
You pretend to be a proggy, but you're just Hasbara. It's so obvious. Give it up.
@Priss
Factor Henry Ford was the last WASP to resist jew banking and finance. 100 years ago, Ole
Henry bought a newspaper dedicated to attacking the jew, and he disseminated the Elders of
Zio through all his dealerships. He also tried to prevent the jew's favorite project at the
time ..WW1. The jew stomped Ole Henry double plus good and got their war. The WASP
establishment took careful note of Ford's humiliation, and took in the jew as a junior
partner in running and looting the country. 100 years later, the jew is running government,
media, and finance ..with the WASP as a very junior partner, mostly playing the role of
useful idiot providing the cannon fodder and taxes for jew wars.
@Truth3
You and other "blame da jooz" lurkers at Unz clearly haven't spent much time around
non-Jewish White leftists as Pat obviously has. There is no great conspiracy he is trying to
avoid.
I went to a college where every single professor was doing their best to indoctrinate the
students and 90% of them were Anglo or Nordic.
For every Jewish leftist lawyer you can point at in DC there are a thousand non-Jewish
White lawyers behind the scenes.
Liberalism is a sickness that would still exist even if you got rid of the Jews. Have a
look at Deutschland if you doubt this.
Here is the kicker: The non-Jewish leftists know they are lying. It isn't some brainwash
job by the Jewz. Liberal professors and media commentators know they are lying. They think it
is all justified. In their minds we are the problem and lies or gulags are just fine if the
end is the same.
The worst leftist of all time was not Jewish and in fact sent a lot of Jews packing. His
name was Stalin, maybe you have heard of him.
@Truth3
But that get-out is a bit easy. It's like ghetto denizens complaining about "the man".
Yes, philosophical high ground, media high ground, rent-a-mob management ground and
self-unaware ability to act decisively and shamelessly has been taken. Now what? Order up a
box of Red Bull?
The sad fact is that there are REAL reasons for getting Trump's ass dragged off into the
sunset, but they involve wars and hits for you-know-who, so nobody is ever going to mention
those.
Pat Buchanan describes all the steps of a corrupt political system to remove a sitting US
President from office with bogus charges, and their handlers in the media played the
loudspeakers and an inaffable role. This gang bears the responsibility that all the major
institutions are untrustworthy. CNN leads the lying press crowd. I was not surprised hearing
that the Iowa caucus did produce any results yet. As it seems, the "right" person didn't come
out first; Joe Biden. The corrupt Democratic Party starts already at the beginning of the
primaries by rigging the election. The Dems are still suffering from the defeat of the Queen
of Darkness, Hillary Clinton, and their corrupt entourage. The Democratic Parts seems
incapable to clean out this Augean stable. The last telling example has been the charade of
impeachment. As long no Heads will roll, the Democratic Party will remain in the political
quagmire, and corruption will prevail.
What Sanders is doing is revolutionary, in the sense that he is raising enough money to run a
national campaign, and winning, without taking corporate money.
American politics is controlled by a two-party cartel, and candidates have to join the
cartel and take the corporate money to get elected, resulting in policies like high
immigration that make sense to the Chamber of Commerce but not to many voters. Sure, you can
pander to voters and then do the bidding of the Chamber, but a candidate that does more than
pander is a stronger candidate.
You could have a real populist right if you had a candidate who could generate campaign
funding solely from grass roots contributions and refused to take corporate money. Granted
this is not the culture of the GOP, but the reality is that the program of the American
cartels is deeply unpopular with huge swaths of the American people, and the future belongs
to the group that can effectively carry out a hostile take-over of the organization and then,
not having to obey the corporate donors, puts in place a political program that actually
accomplishes the agenda: something like mandatory everify rather than say stupid symbolic
fights about a "wall" that never gets built, or maybe conduct a foreign policy that does not
have to have pre-approval from Sheldon Adelson.
It makes me wonder. Even though Jews are over-represented in elite institutions, the
great majority of Deep State is still made up of goyim. Then, why are they all so servile
to Jewish agendas and Jewish wishes?
Jews have lots of wealth and control the narrative. Plus the average Jew is smarter than
the average goyim.
Do goyim lack a mind of their own?
In many cases yes.
It could be that deep state goyim just happen to share the same ideas and values as the
Jews. Or it could be their minds were molded by Jewish-run media and academia.
The latter is the case.
Jews are captains of the ship. Deep State goyim must man the engines with no sense of
direction or destiny of their own.
This has happened many times in history the out come not so good for Jews.
Henry Ford was the last WASP to resist jew banking and finance.
And Henry Ford actually produced something of value. As opposed to most rich Jews who
produce financial products , which are detrimental to most goyim, but very lucrative
to Jews.
@John
Johnson"The worst leftist of all time was not Jewish and in fact sent a lot of Jews
packing. His name was Stalin, maybe you have heard of him."
No the worst leftist of all time was the creator of it all, Karl Marx, who absolutely was
Jewish. Jews like to use goy cat's paws like Stalin, Roosevelt and Bush to do their dirty
work but never forget who's behind it all.
@Johnny
SmogginsNo the worst leftist of all time was the creator of it all, Karl Marx, who
absolutely was Jewish. Jews like to use goy cat's paws like Stalin, Roosevelt and Bush to do
their dirty work but never forget who's behind it all.
Marx was half-Jewish and White egalitarian marauding predates Marxism. Napoleon and
Lincoln both believed in war for equality.
Did the Jews force Stalin to send millions to the Gulag? Was pol pot also forced by the
Jews to kill his own people? Pretty amazing that Jews were able to manipulate even Asian
leftists when there were zero Jews in those countries.
The corollary of blaming Jews for everything is that non-Jewish leftists are never
responsible for their own actions. This is amusing since behind closed doors leftist leaders
will admit certain politically incorrect truths which shows they are not Goy-drones. But
according to the Unz Blamin' Jews club they are just victims of manipulation. Poor wittle
victims that are consciously lying and would send us all to gulags if they could.
Can this columnist not acknowledge that the people of Crimea voted to secede from
Ukraine
Whose Side Is God on Now?
April 4, 2014 by Patrick J. Buchanan
In his Kremlin defense of Russia's annexation of Crimea, Vladimir Putin, even before he began
listing the battles where Russian blood had been shed on Crimean soil, spoke of an older
deeper bond.
Crimea, said Putin, "is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was
baptized. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the
culture, civilization and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and
Belarus."
Indicting the "Bolsheviks" who gave away Crimea to Ukraine, Putin declared, "May God
judge them."
Putin is entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly City of today and command post of
the counter-reformation against the new paganism.
Putin is plugging into some of the modern world's most powerful currents.
Not only in his defiance of what much of the world sees as America's arrogant drive for
global hegemony. Not only in his tribal defense of lost Russians left behind when the USSR
disintegrated.
He is also tapping into the worldwide revulsion of and resistance to the sewage of a
hedonistic secular and social revolution coming out of the West.
It seems to me, that in a sense, Buchanan is declaring that Putin is 'planting Russia's
flag' as the new moral center of the dying ((murdered)) Western world, with Moscow as the "
the Third Rome".
As the West descends into the moral 'sewer', Putin's Russia is returning to the ideals of
Christian virtues and traditional values.
"But the war to be waged with the West is not with rockets. It is a cultural, social,
moral war where Russia's role, in Putin's words, is to "prevent movement backward and
downward, into chaotic darkness and a return to a primitive state."
Would that be the "chaotic darkness" and "primitive state" of mankind, before the Light
came into the world?"
In other words, Patrick Buchanan knows very well indeed who the villains are vis-a-vis
Crimea, and Russia, vs. the ((Globohomo)). And he's willing to say so, eloquently, when it
suits him to do so.
But even so, there was that vomit reflex moment when I read "writes WCF's Allan
Carlson, "Russia is defending Judeo-Christian values . "
So Pat does pepper his articles with paeans to the Globohomo vernacular of the day, I
suppose for reasons of appealing to the masses, such as they are. But if you've been reading
Pat for as long as I have, you know he's well aware of the subtle nuances behind claims of
'annexing Crimea', but this column is all about the obvious corruption on display with the
impeachment farce, and how the Democrats all gush when Obama does something corrupt, but howl
and screech when it's 'done' by Trump.
So in that context, he's simply using Crimea as an example of Democrat hypocrisy. Like
trying to impeach Trump for endeavoring to uncover the rat-hole of uber-corruption between
Obama/Hillary/Biden/Nuland – and the former regime in Ukraine.
IOW, what Trump did, (what he was actually impeached for) was the "off the reservation"
attempt to expose their uber-corruption. That he trusted the current ((regime)) in Ukraine,
and in his own deepstate, was his monumental error.
Then, there's this:
The NSC and State Department have been exposed as employing individuals with an
exaggerated view of their role in the origination and the execution of foreign policy.
Disloyalty and animosity toward the chief executive appear to permeate the upper echelons
of the "deep state."
The arrogance on display from all those diplomats, with sanctimonious outrage, at a
president that actually thinks *he's* in charge of foreign policy! 'Who does he think he
is?!, to decide when Ukraine gets their belligerent weapons to use on Putin's/Hitler's
aggressive Russia?! These decisions are all made wayyyy above that asshole's pay grade, and
we need to put him in his place!'
Not in our lifetime have the institutions of government and the establishment been held
in lower regard.
Almost all now concede we have become an us vs. them nation.
Liberal Jews, who hate Trump's guts with the searing heat of a thousand exploding suns,
vs. war mongering neocon Jews, who also hate Trump, but see in him a very pliant and useful
idiot.
@ Priss
Or they're just afraid of Jewish power that, via media, blackmail, and bought off
politicians, can destroy anyone.
Bingo
If you're a goyim in the administration, and you mumble something about how much the wars
are costing, either in untold trillions or in political capital, the dagger-eyed glowering
would be immediate from every Jew in the room. 'So, we have a little wannabe Himmler here.
He'll soon fine out what happens to Adolf wannabes, when he gets his arse handed to him, and
he's out on the streets'. Make him the first on your list.'
Everyone with two synapses to rub together, knows that all these wars are Jewish
supremacist wars of conquest. Duh. Even the war on Yemen, is a proxy war against Iran. So the
moment anyone tries to rein in the belligerence, he's going to have Hymie to pay. And that is
what this really is all about. Trump's holding back weapons from Ukraine, is seen as counter
productive to the ((greater agenda)), and so they pile on. And if the president of the United
States, can be keelhauled for a year, and impeached, for daring to obstruct the Eternal Wars
for Israel*, then how well will some lesser veck fare if he too thinks the wars are not the
greatest thing since sliced bread?
The Jews are uniform and connected on certain subjects. The Eternal Wars are one of them.
I know some liberal Jews. To this day, they seem to worship Obama, and loath Trump with
obvious distain, (clear hatred), but when it comes to the wars, they're kosher.
That's why there's perfect conformity from both isles in DC, on the need to continue the
wars. That's why both Fox news and ABCNNBCBS.. et al, are all perfectly aligned on that
particular issue. Which is why Tulsi has been 'Ron Pauled'. When it's something all Jews are
all aligned on ** , then it's unwritten, and woe be to any wrong-minded goyim, who's brave
enough to step over that particular line.
*Obama got a pass on a lot of things, because the liberal Jews gushed when he walked into
the room. Trump gets no such leeway.
** .. in reality, since first entering Congress in 1991, Sanders has compiled a lengthy
record of support for war and defense of the predatory interests of American
imperialism."
Sanders' record demonstrates what he considers "necessary wars." It also includes the NATO
air war against Serbia in 1999, launched on the pretext of stopping the imminent ethnic
cleansing of Kosovars.
In 2001, Sanders joined in a near-unanimous vote in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan.
Today -- now that the nearly twenty-year-long war is widely unpopular -- Sanders conveniently
declares that his earlier vote was a "mistake." But he has continued to endorse US wars in
the Middle East, including the US proxy war in Syria.
Sanders has also supported Israel's repeated assaults on Gaza, imperialist war crimes made
possible with the support of the United States. In a 2014 town hall meeting, Sanders shouted
down an antiwar protester who challenged his support for Israel even as it was committing
egregious crimes against the Palestinian population.
Moreover, Sanders has publicly voiced support for the use of assassinations and
"extraordinary rendition" in the so-called "war on terror." In 2015, when asked whether
anti-terrorism policies under a Sanders administration would include drones and special
forces, Sanders replied that he supported "all that and more."
I'm amazed Pat even posts here when half of you guys couldn't analyze the contents of a
turkey sandwich without some screed about Jews.
Jews are depicted as some monolithic bloc and yet Israel would undoubtedly take Trump over
Sanders.
So the first Jewish president would be rejected by the world wide Jewish conspiracy? Some
conspiracy.
As a reminder the presidential candidate that actually wanted government troops to kick in
doors and take guns was an Irish Texan. But I'm sure that's somehow the fault of Jews even
though the Jewish candidate has been a moderate on guns.
In the fifth paragraph, Pat writes: "Tuesday, Trump takes his nationally televised victory
lap in the US Capitol with his SOTU address, as Mitch McConnell and a humiliated Speaker
Nancy Pelosi sit silently side-by-side behind him."
I'll forgive Pat the senior moment, as he surely knows that VP Pence, not Mitch McConnell,
will be sitting next to our senile Speaker.
@Rurik
"In other words, Patrick Buchanan knows very well indeed who the villains are vis-a-vis
Crimea, and Russia, vs. the ((Globohomo)). And he's willing to say so, eloquently, when it
suits him to do so.
[I]f you've been reading Pat for as long as I have, you know he's well aware of the subtle
nuances behind claims of 'annexing Crimea', "
Please. Just run "Crimea" in the search engine against Mr. Buchanan's columns. -- >
11/22/2019: " .. 2014, when Vladimir Putin's Russia seized Crimea .." What's subtle or
nuanced about "seized"? Do I need to show you some of his other Beltway bits, like his
standing assertion that Russia "hacked" the 2016 US election?
I repeat: Mr. Buchanan's jobs as Stagehand Right in the Washington puppet show are to
whitewash the imperialism and to lead enough Red sheep (like you?) to vote in the next Most
Important Election Ever.
Refute it, or admit it. Neither should require another 1,300 words.
Jews are depicted as some monolithic bloc and yet Israel would undoubtedly take Trump
over Sanders.
in the comment right above this one, I just wrote
"Liberal Jews, who hate Trump's guts with the searing heat of a thousand exploding
suns, vs. war mongering neocon Jews, who also hate Trump, but see in him a very pliant and
useful idiot."
Jews don't control everything. But when it comes to N. America's foreign policy, you'd
have to be a huge knucklehead not to know of AIPAC, CFR, and PNAC, and all the other Jewish
supremacist institutions herding our congress-critters like so many sheep, to their Eternal
Wars for Israel.
Or ,
..you can explain how its in the American people's interest to spend seven+ trillion, (all
of it borrowed at interest) to slaughter, main and displace millions of innocent people, who
just happen to be inconvenient to Israel's imperial ambitions. While simultaneously getting
tens of thousands of young American soldiers dead, maimed or so soul-shattered they're
committing suicide at some 20 a day?
Or, would you really have us all believe, that Saddam did 9/11, and that he and Gadhafi
had WMD, because they "hate our freedom", and so we have to "fight them over there, so we
don't have to fight them over here"
?
@John
Johnson But for the Jews who controlled the Communist party in the Soviet Union grooming
and promoting him, Stalin would've been a minor tyrant terrorizing the peasantry in the
Georgian countryside. Unfortunately for them, their pet got out of control and started to
bite the hand that fed him. The corollary to this is Jews in the US promoting "civil rights"
and then having some of their negro pets (like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) turn on them.
Remind us friend, where the idea for Marxism came to Asians from? The answer of course is
from the Jew Marx with financing provided by Jacob Schiff and other wealthy Jews. Perhaps Pol
Pot may have found some other outlet for his murderous instincts but as has been the case in
so many instances around the world, it was Jewish Marxism that not only lit the fuse, but set
it up to begin with.
Don't get me wrong, do gooder Christian types are nearly as much to blame for the mess
we're in as the Jews. The difference is that while Christians are naive, gullible and stupid,
their motivations are essentially good even if the outcome is bad. With Jews, the motivation
behind what they do is pure malice.
You seem new here. Welcome. Do some more reading and exploring and then comment more.
You're not the first newbie to wander in from Breitbart ready to defend Israel and the Jews
without first having educated himself, and you won't be the last.
Do I need to show you some of his other Beltway bits, like his standing assertion that
Russia "hacked" the 2016 US election?
from my little screed
"So Pat does pepper his articles with paeans to the Globohomo vernacular of the day, I
suppose for reasons of appealing to the masses, such as they are."
Mr. Buchanan's jobs as Stagehand Right in the Washington puppet show are to whitewash
the imperialism and to lead enough Red sheep (like you?) to vote in the next Most Important
Election Ever.
Refute it, or admit it.
I admit it!
HAHAHAAAAHAAA!!!
I'm actually a Trump supporter because, that's right! I'm a racist!!!
HAHAHAAAHAAAA!
That's why we're all pretending that the Dems are actuyally way worse than Trump when it
comes to the Eternal Wars, because we all secretly love Trump, because he called Mexicans
'bad hombres!! And he said Obama wasn't born here, and we all love that kind of
RACISM!
HAHAHAAAAA!!!!
When ever he mocks Maxine Waters, we all laugh at how racist we all are, and that's why
Pat and the Deplorables and all of us closet racists are going to pull the lever for
Trump!
Because we're racists!! And we don't even worship Obama!! the One!!!
HAHAHAAAHAAAA!!!!
White supremacy, baby!!!
HAHAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!
You're going to get four more years of Orange clown racism! He grabs fulsomely offered
gold-digger's pussies like crazy, and we don't even care!!!
We even like, that he likes women, and isn't even gay!!
HAHAHAAAA
I was just talking to a buddy of mine, and we were lamenting some of Trump's more
egregious disappointments, (assassinating world leaders, tossing Bibi's salad, etc..). But
there was one thing about which we could agree, as bad as Trump is, (and he's a disaster), we
are very much going to enjoy the show, as Hillary and Madow and Maxine and all the other
white-male-castrating hags and losers and SJW POS, will be soul-raped on election day.
That, might go a long way towards mollifying Trump's disastrous presidency.
Sometimes I watch those videos of the reaction to the 2016 election, and the tears, and
howls of existential angst, from Hillary supporters, and boy oh boy are those memories
great.
@RurikJews don't control everything. But when it comes to N. America's foreign policy, you'd
have to be a huge knucklehead not to know of AIPAC, CFR, and PNAC
Zomg Jewish lobbies. You can actually be against aid to Israel while not taking the view
that Jews control every single war and leftist action. Not everything has to be about the
Jews.
Or, would you really have us all believe, that Saddam did 9/11, and that he and Gadhafi
had WMD, because they "hate our freedom", and so we have to "fight them over there, so we
don't have to fight them over here"
What would make you think that I believe Saddam did 9/11? I have said nothing of the
sort.
It's actually possible to be against foreign wars and also against blaming the Jews for
everything. Anglo leaders have started foreign wars without the influence of Jews. If that
angry Austrian didn't start a needless war with Poland we wouldn't be in the mess we are in
today. Then he went and made his great dunderheaded move of attacking Russia before defeating
Britain. Did the Jews make him do it while they were in boxcars? The Romans started all kinds
of needless foreign wars without Jewish influence. But if a US president does it then MUST BE
the Jews. Nevermind that GWB talked about wanting to get even with Saddam or that Cheney had
all sorts of war industry connections. Just blame Jews, it's the Unz way. Thank you Mr.
Jewish Unz for providing this forum.
Disagree w/ Buchanan's key premise: the coup leaders, as Rick Wiles identified them, the Jew
Coup, got everything they wanted and still have tethers in place to force more from Trump, in
the fullness of time.
-- Give us Golan or we'll unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Give us Jewish capital in Jerusalem or we will unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Convey gas rights in Golan to Cheney, other Jewish and American interests or we'll
unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Kill Soleimani or we'll unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Give us full sovereignty and political cover to take all of ersatz Israel, Palestinians
be damned, or we'll unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Ensure that Syria remains fragmented and without financing to rebuild or we'll unleash
"six ways til Sunday"
--
By the way: those of you familiar with gematria or Kabbalah -- remember Schiff's "parody" of
the Trump phone call? Among its other weird references that, I suspect, were not without
esoteric meaning, Schiff repeated the number seven. Does that mean anything?
IMHO, the outcome -- 'acquittal' in the Senate -- is just as pre-ordained by Schiff-Nadler
– Engel – Schumer, as was the No vote on witnesses: Dems are just as dirty as
GOP; they'd have been pissing in their Guccis if Republicans had voted to call more witnesses
who might have implicated Democrats in corruption.
AGREE that Pelosi has been humiliated: nothing Jew Coupers like better than using, then
humiliating a Catholic; that she is Italian (Roman) is cream cheese on the bagels.
@Johnny
SmogginsBut for the Jews who controlled the Communist party in the Soviet Union
grooming and promoting him, Stalin would've been a minor tyrant terrorizing the peasantry in
the Georgian countryside.
Where does Lenin fall into this revisionist history? He had nothing to do with the rise of
Stalin? Why didn't the Jews rally around Trotsky, an actual Jew?
Anyways the Jews dominated the NKVD, not the central party. They executed anyone including
Jews. Their top leaders were eventually executed by Stalin to cover up his crimes. Their
hegemony in the NKVD was eventually broken but the "Jewish USSR" myth remained for
decades.
Remind us friend, where the idea for Marxism came to Asians from? The answer of course
is from the Jew Marx with financing provided by Jacob Schiff and other wealthy Jews.
This is exactly the irrational thinking that I am talking about. If some Asian dictator
kills a million people you actually blame a half-Jew's Communist book even though said book
never called for killing a million people. Total removal of responsibility. You are giving a
free pass to any blood thirsty leftist.
Don't get me wrong, do gooder Christian types are nearly as much to blame for the mess
we're in as the Jews. The difference is that while Christians are naive, gullible and stupid,
their motivations are essentially good even if the outcome is bad.
This shows you don't even understand leftiest leadership in the US or EU. They are mostly
secular, not Christian. They are not manipulated children. They know exactly what they are
doing and fully intend to
transform the US into Brazil.
Whites like Edwards and Beto are not the pawns of some Jewish indoctrination project. They
know full well that they are lying to the public. Nothing on this website would surprise
them. You could tell them all about Jewish lobbies or Jews in the NKVD and they wouldn't
care. Leftists have an egalitarian vision and don't care about what you have to say.
@John
Johnson Can we agree that a person needn't actually be a believer himself to carry the
ideals that the religion espoused?
Marx may have never worn a yarmulke or even believed in God but that doesn't mean that his
actions, perhaps unconsciously, weren't rooted in Jewish ideals. And every single SJW, even
the most stridently atheist, is animated by Christian ideals about making the world a better
place.
Bottom line – Whites are in the sorry state we're in because of both Jews and
Christians but Jews were, and are, motivated by a poisonous hatred of Whites. We'll have to
deal with dumb Christians and SJWs on our own, we don't need Jews with all their money, power
and hate helping them.
You're right though; Before we can tackle the Jewish problem we have to clean our own
house first.
Actually the Establishment is doing fine: the government employs more people, spends more
money, and exerts more influence than ever, while big tech censors legitimate
opposition/dissent.
It's the American people who are screwed by being chained to this freak show by the
coercive tax system, especially when it's obvious voting makes no difference.
"Already, the odds of a modern 30-50-year-old dying from suicide, alcohol, or drugs in
America are 10 times as high as the odds an 18-35-year-old in 1960 had of dying in
Vietnam." https://t.co/RrudZ1cvwX
@Corvinus
Maybe you should contact Gordon Duff over at VT. He'd probably hire you in a New York minute.
It seems that you don't even have the decency to admit that the Impeachment was nothing but a
Deep State orchestrated circus or more accurately farce actually unbelievably promoting the
NeoNazi State of Ukraine as our "ally" who were fighting the evil Rooskies on our behalf.
Number one. Why would it be in the interest of the American people to get involved in a
proxy war with Russia? A nation that happens to have more nukes and a more effective and
deadlier method of delivering them than we do. According to military analysts we are at least
two decades behind them.
Next even if Russia was a valid target. They are not attacking Russia they are attacking
Dombass, dumb ass which happens to be a breakaway region of Ukraine.
Two. Talk about being low life sniffling scum they embrace John Bolton the epitome of
Neocon subversion as an "ally". Just shows how low the establishment demoncrats have sank
proving that they have no moral compass whatsoever and like the CIA the ends justify the
means.
What you and the DemonCrats have shown is that you aren't any better than Trumpenstein but
probably in many ways far worse.
@Corvinus
Hey Corvinus,
The Democrats swung and missed. It was a Hail Mary effort that was bound to fail but their
blind hatred of Trump would not allow them to see the inevitable outcome. The Democrats
simply can't accept that their annotated one (Hillary) was just not Presidential timber, but
many voting Americans could see it. You lost in 2016 and you will lose the Presidency in
2020, almost certainly. If you lose the house too that will simply be the icing on the cake.
Democrats will then be relegated to the sidelines and will be able to do nothing but squall
impotently from the dark spaces they all inhabit. I await your lamenting and gnashing of
teeth after Nov.
The Democratic party may be done for a decade because of this. Their continued actions
have damaged themselves and strengthened Trump but their denial does not allow them to see
it.
Democrats are like the tranny males they claim to espouse. When they look in the mirror
the reflection they see is that of a beautiful girl. But in reality all they are is just a
bunch of dicks.
@Johnny
SmogginsAnd every single SJW, even the most stridently atheist, is animated by
Christian ideals about making the world a better place.
Bottom line – Whites are in the sorry state we're in because of both Jews and
Christians but Jews were, and are, motivated by a poisonous hatred of Whites. We'll have to
deal with dumb Christians and SJWs on our own, we don't need Jews with all their money, power
and hate helping them.
I don't actually believe this is the case and I'm not trying to be argumentative.
If Christianity is the underlying problem then European countries with greater declines in
Christianity should see less support for liberalism. Children raised in secular households
should be less like to be liberal.
This hasn't happened and in fact the opposite is true. Sweden is very secular and very
leftist. Children raised in secular homes are far more likely to be liberal. The data is
clear on this.
We aren't dealing with Christianity or some pseudo form. We are dealing with a new
egalitarian religion called liberalism. The leaders are secular are fully conscious of what
they are doing. If anything Christianity in the right form can provide a layer of
inoculation.
So no I don't think blaming Jews or Christians is valid or helpful.
@Corvinus
Hey. Some Democrat candidates got what they wanted. Old Joe Biden barely survived Iowa, which
was not unintended collateral damage, but rather very intended and targeted. I can imagine
Elizabeth Warren's fingerprints all over this one.
We will see in November exactly who was too clever by half.
@John
Johnson "This hasn't happened and in fact the opposite is true. Sweden is very secular
and very leftist" Sweden is not as 'leftist' as often portrayed. In the last election the
Social Democrats fell to their lowest vote share in over 100 years. They were reduced to only
100 seats in the Riksdag (less than a 1/3)& formed a minority coalition govt. with the
Greens & Commies comprising only 144 seats. The centrist Alliance coalition picked up 143
seats & the rising stars – the right-wing Sweden Democrats, rose to 62 seats. The
coalition was slightly revamped after an early vote of no-confidence but the Social Democrats
are waning & the centrist & right-wing Parties are gaining. The most recent polls in
the country show the Sweden Democrats actually running ahead of the Social Democrats now,
making it the most popular Party in the country at this time. Most of those "Johnson's"
aren't very leftist anymore. But this still doesn't detract from the fact that Christianity
is NOT the problem. After all, our greatest living pundit, Pat Buchanan, is Christian &
he's no raving, leftist loony.
Like a coup really matters when Trump has turned into either Jeb Bush or Lindsey Grahamnesty
without the lisp and the drawl. Trump has become orange Jebulus. He's not the Donald Trump I
voted for in 2016. The Potomoc fever bug finally bit him.
At Trump's State of the Zionist Union speech (SOTZU) he received raucous applause and
shouts of "four more years" from the Republican side of the chamber. Most of these people
used to oppose him but now that Trump has sold out to the deep state (if he ever really
opposed it in the first place), especially on foreign policy, they love him and have accepted
him as one of their own.
@SolontoCroesus
Not to worry, Pelosi got her revenge last night when she churlishly tore up her copy of
Trump's SOTU address right after he was done speaking. What a classless little tramp that
woman is.
Is it not true, though, that the three biggest Jewish plotters in Congress (Schiff,
Nadler, and Schumer) have been equally humiliated?
Hillary Clinton, Nany Pelosi and her likes have poisoned deaply the democratic party without
any chance of cure soon.
Revenge for their humiliation has been the engine behind the Muller trial and the impeachment
circus.
They failed dramatically and now the DNC is not only more humiliated but it has lost the
little credibility it still had.
Only an old fashioned democrat leader can bring back confidence in the democratic ideology
that has been lost by Hillary and Cie. It seems too late for this to happen and Trump will be
back . As it is expected that the economy in the US may enter into a recession in the second
term, why taking away from him the humiliation he will face?
@swampedSweden Democrats actually running ahead of the Social Democrats now, making it the most
popular Party in the country at this time. Most of those "Johnson's" aren't very leftist
anymore. But this still doesn't detract from the fact that Christianity is NOT the
problem.
They have around 20% of the vote which is significant but the majority still buys into
mainstream leftist BS.
After all, our greatest living pundit, Pat Buchanan, is Christian & he's no raving,
leftist loony.
Good point and quite ironic that we have someone here blaming Christians when PB is a
stalworth against the left. Some of the strongest anti-left parties in Europe are in Eastern
Europe where support for the church is strong. The belief that secularism undermines
liberalism simply doesn't match the data. If anything it seems that secular Whites double
down on liberalism because they don't have a religion.
It is Feb 5th and teh US Senate has absolve the President, thus ending 4yrs of endless
Conspiracies, coups and impeachments. Trump has emerge victorious and single handedly destroy
the DEMs party , this in spite of the Fake news establishment, the deepstate and people
within his own innercircle. Trump with the support of the American Deplorables have defeated
the DEM/LEFT/Antifa continues attacks. BUT it seems that the GOP does NOT understand, realize
the golden historical unprecendentes opportunity to REnake the party, rolled back the Great
BLUE wave that never was. The GOP is poised to recover the House, turn the Blue states RED
again. IF the GOP does NOT keep this momentum going, if they break their inner discipline, or
the GOP makes the ILL mistake to sabotage Trump the GOP will go back to playing second fiddle
to the DEMs and will probably lose their best chance to REmake, REimagine, REorganize,
REdefine REunite the GOP and the Conervative movement in America Trumpism is on the March..
@Crazy
Horse "It seems that you don't even have the decency to admit that the Impeachment was
nothing but a Deep State orchestrated circus or more accurately farce actually unbelievably
promoting the NeoNazi State of Ukraine as our "ally" who were fighting the evil Rooskies on
our behalf."
Why are you spreading Fake News?
"Why would it be in the interest of the American people to get involved in a proxy war
with Russia?"
I never directly nor indirectly made any comment about this situation. Pray tell, are you
a Russian troll?
"Talk about being low life sniffling scum they embrace John Bolton the epitome of Neocon
subversion as an "ally"."
Why not let him, the Bidens, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Guiliani, and Parnas have the opportunity
to speak before the Senate if it was the "perfect call"? What does Trump have to hide?
Furthermore, do you support any president digging up dirt on a political rival while in
office by way of a proxy?
Actually, democracy swung and missed. But there are over two dozen investigations taking
place relating to Trump and his associates, and more information will be coming about the
Ukraine fiasco.
"The Democrats simply can't accept that their annotated one (Hillary) was just not
Presidential timber, but many voting Americans could see it."
Actually, she won the popular vote. But I do agree that she was, along with Trump, not
"presidential timber".
"You lost in 2016 and you will lose the Presidency in 2020 "
I didn't run. Moreover, I'm an educated white married man who makes his own decisions
about politics, race, and culture. You?
What this impeachment hoax so rawly exposes is that the politicians who brought on the
impeachment and voted in favor of it (and that includes Romney) think very little, in fact,
nothing about what Joe Biden and his son did. They think it was perfectly OK. What that
should tell everyone is that they too would do (if they haven't already) the same thing given
the opportunity as Congressmen, Senators, a Vice President, or President. They would fill
their pockets and the pockets of their families given the same opportunity. People should
reflect on that next time these people run for office.
@Corvinus
Russian troll? My question is are you a moron? You don't have to answer because the question
is rhetorical.
Seems anyone who disagrees with dipshits like you must be "agents of Putin Inc". McCarthy
would be sooo proud of brain dead assholes like you and to answer your question. NO!
@Virgile
They lost whatever credibility they had by rigging the primary and accusing anyone that
disagreed with the Queen of the Damned that they must be a Russian Troll or Agent. Corvinus
perfectly epitomizes this idiocy.
@Corvinus
"Won" the popular vote is a consolation prize in a presidential election. Besides that's
questionable due to the fact she "won" 1) in states that used Soros owned Smartmatic Voting
Machines 2) reported votes that far exceeded the number eligible voters registered. For
instance LA County reported that 145% of eligible voters "voted" in the last general
election.
"includes Romney) think very little, in fact, nothing about what Joe Biden and his
son did."
Anastasia, it's not disputed that Romney has a least one close associate who worked with
Hunter, but actually in the Ukraine, at Burisma; but I don't believe that's Romney's angle
here.
I think Romney is setting up to run 3rd party for President. Of course the objective will
not be to become the next president: it will be to take out Trump, and make possible a
Bloomberg victory. I would guess Romney will hold off announcement as long as possible to
ensure maximum chaos. Doesn't even need to make all the state ballots to achieve
"victory".
"... About the Dem Party: It is a [neo[Liberal Cult, deeply flawed psycho-socially as any cult is. They are at the terminal phase, ready to take down their own people into the abyss. Suicidal. Physically ready to bleed out millions of people in civil war. ..."
"... Involved in all this corruption were players within the CIA, State Dept, NSC, FBI and all the other Intel agencies needed to cover the crimes. The Clinton-Obama administration had scores of corrupt officials and associates (the Podestas, for instance). It was necessary to create a firewall once Trump won the nomination. As so, they attacked his campaign manager, his national security adviser, his family, himself, using all the means of FISA, wire tapping done by NSA and CIA and Mi6 and probably Mossad. ..."
About the Dem Party: It is a [neo[Liberal Cult, deeply flawed psycho-socially as any cult
is. They are at the terminal phase, ready to take down their own people into the abyss.
Suicidal. Physically ready to bleed out millions of people in civil war.
Layered under the globalism, and progressive extremism is a many-generational fanatic
Russophobia.
And this is where the nexus of Ukraine comes into play with the corrupt elites of the
Party. They have sucked off the $5billion + "invested" in programming the Ukie hatred of
Russia. This has led to the need to cover up their corruption which the Trump Presidency
would eventually expose.
So, they projected onto Trump and his associates all their crimes in Ukraine.
Involved in all this corruption were players within the CIA, State Dept, NSC, FBI and
all the other Intel agencies needed to cover the crimes. The Clinton-Obama administration had
scores of corrupt officials and associates (the Podestas, for instance). It was necessary to
create a firewall once Trump won the nomination. As so, they attacked his campaign manager,
his national security adviser, his family, himself, using all the means of FISA, wire tapping
done by NSA and CIA and Mi6 and probably Mossad.
The rest has played out, all futile attempts to coup the Presidency.
The Dems now will "kill off" one another, a political savaging in a desperate attempt to
get the White House.
As a Cult they will do what cults always do. The ideology, layered deep with fanaticism,
demands death as its ritual, but, unable to get Trump, it will turn on one another.
After they lose again in November, they will unleash their street thugs, Antifa, to
terrorize the winners. Meanwhile for the purists of the Liberal Cult there will be many real
suicides. So, bloodshed and death will become reality.
Feb 6, 2020
46Democrats impeached Trump for withholding arms to Neo-NazisKit Knightly Max Parry
Please note flags of the Azov Battalion, centre, NATO left, and Nazi, right. As this
article was going to press, it was formally confirmed – as was long expected – that
the Senate had found Donald Trump not guilty of both abuse of power and obstruction of
congress. – Ed
On December 18th, Donald Trump became the third U.S. president in history to be impeached by
the House of Representatives. The second to be indicted before completing a first term, the
45th commander-in-chief must now survive a Senate trial before seeking reelection later this
year.
As many nonpartisan analysts predicted, the charges appear to have only improved his chances
with the electorate as
his approval rating saw an uptick after the articles were approved on grounds of
"obstruction of Congress and abuse of power."
After dragging the country through three years of Russiagate which never panned out, the
Democrats appear to be scoring yet another own goal. Even a near brush with war against Iran
does not seem to have impacted Trump's favorability, which could have been seen as a reversal
of his campaign pledges to end America's forever wars that were arguably a significant factor
in his unlikely victory.
It was Trump's rhetoric as a peace candidate suggesting rapprochement with Russia which made
him a target of the political establishment and intelligence community, who subsequently blamed
his shocking win on still-unproven allegations of election interference by the Kremlin.
Since he took office, Trump has done nearly everything short of declaring war on Moscow to
appease the bipartisan anti-Russia consensus in Washington but to no avail. One such step was
the decision to provide military aid to Ukraine amid its ongoing war in the eastern Donbass
region against Russian-speaking separatists, a move the Obama administration decided against
because of Kiev's rampant corruption.
Trump's predecessor tapped his Vice President, Joe Biden, to head up an anti-corruption
drive in Ukraine who instead used the opportunity to personally enrich his family by landing
his son, Hunter, a job on the executive board of the country's largest private gas company,
Burisma Holdings.
Biden led the U.S. role in the 2014 coup d'etat in Ukraine which overthrew the
democratically-elected government of Viktor Yanukovych after he turned down a European Union
Association Agreement for an economic bail-out from Russia that was the flashpoint for the
subsequent Donbass war.
Contrary to the Trump-Russia 'collusion' narrative, one figure who tried to lobby Yanukovych
into signing the pro-austerity treaty was none other than Paul Manafort, the future Trump
campaign manager indicted during the Russia probe for failing to register as a foreign agent
while consulting for the deposed Ukrainian president.
Manafort's influence went against Russian interests in favor of the EU and was years before
Trump was ever a candidate, but this did not stop the Democrats from later misconstruing it as
evidence he was a backchannel to the Kremlin. Meanwhile, Biden's hand in the junta was revealed
in
an infamous leaked phone call between Victoria Nuland, Obama's Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs, and Geoffrey Pyatt, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine.
Nuland, who is the wife of leading neoconservative figure Robert Kagan, also spilled the beans that the U.S.
invested as much as $5 billion dollars on regime change in Kiev when we were led to believe the
Maidan was a spontaneous, popular revolt.
Shortly after the putsch, Hunter Biden joined the board of directors at Burisma despite
having no experience in Ukraine or the energy sector.
The embattled fracking company was founded by a notorious oligarch and corrupt minister from
the Yanukovych era, Mykola Zlochevsky, yet who unlike the former did not have to flee to Russia
and curiously escaped prosecution in a money laundering case under the new Western-friendly
regime -- did he obtain immunity with Hunter Biden's appointment?
When the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin, reportedly began to investigate the
energy firm, the elder Biden did not just blackmail the post-Maidan government of Petro
Poroshenko into sacking him by threatening to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees but openly
bragged about it on
camera:
Incredibly, Poroshenko would replace Shokin with a former Minister of Internal Affairs,
Yuriy Lutsenko, who had previously been imprisoned for embezzlement and corruption himself.
It is still a matter of debate whether the top prosecutor was even actually looking into the
activities of Burisma, but what is not in dispute -- except to corporate media -- is the
criminal nature of Biden's conduct who clearly allowed his family to profiteer off U.S.
meddling in the country.
After he became a 2020 presidential candidate and frontrunner for the Democratic nomination,
the subject of Biden's past wrongdoing was broached by Trump last July during a phone call with
current Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky.
The controversial exchange occurred just a day after former FBI director Robert Mueller
delivered his anticlimactic testimony before congress where the lead investigator in the Russia
investigation did not appear familiar with the details of his own inquiry.
The call transcript
shows that Trump asked the newly elected Zelensky if he would assist U.S. Attorney General
William Barr in determining whether there was truth to the rumors that the infamous Democratic
National Committee (DNC) computer server given by the FBI to CrowdStrike Holdings was located
in Ukraine.
CrowdStrike was one of the cybersecurity firms hired by the DNC which questionably
determined it was Russian intelligence which perpetrated alleged cyber attacks during the 2016
election. In other words, Trump wanted to find out if it was actually Kiev which "meddled" and
framed the Kremlin.
While he did not offer Zelensky compensation, it is true Trump asked for the favor shortly
after mentioning the javelin missiles being provided to Ukraine in the military assistance.
However, Biden's extortion and the firing of Shokin is only raised later in the conversation
and whether or not either matter was contingent upon the military aid is dubious and implicit
at best.
At the time of the correspondence, Zelensky and his government were unaware that the nearly
$400 million in aid had been withheld and did not learn of it's freezing until a month later,
making any alleged 'quid pro quo' doubtful.
The ambiguity of the conversation has not prevented Democrats from surmising that the
security aid was suspended on the condition that Zelensky cooperate with Trump's requests.
While the exploits were arguably unethical, for the content of the exchange to be considered
sufficient grounds for impeachment would set a very low bar and virtually ensure any future
president can be indicted on a technicality for politicized reasons.
In the meantime, the focus has shifted to Trump's firing of former U.S. Ambassador to
Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, because if threatening to withhold foreign aid alone qualifies,
Biden is not only guilty of the same crime but more explicitly. Forget that from a procedural
standpoint, without the required constitutional majority in the GOP-controlled Senate, the
chances of removing Trump are dead in the water anyway.
This can only mean the trial is really meant to be a smokescreen for Biden's own
palm-greasing in Ukraine while legally requiring his biggest primary rival, Senator Bernie
Sanders, to spend time away from the campaign trail in attendance.
Some of the 'aid' held up to Ukraine
Not only has the legitimate question of whether the former Vice President and his son should
also be probed been dismissed by mainstream media as a "conspiracy theory," but completely lost
in the political theater of the proceedings is if Washington ought to be providing defense
assistance and fueling a proxy war with Russia to begin with.
The Russiagate hoax successfully transformed the entirety of the Democratic Party into new
cold warriors and its Ukrainegate sequel has only continued that hawkish trajectory.
To make matters worse, Western media coverage of the scandal has omitted that many of the
militias fighting with the Ukrainian army in Donbass are far-right, neo-Nazi groups previously
instrumental in transforming the 2014 Maidan protests into violence.
One of the three main political parties which formed the opposition to Yanukovych was the
ultra-nationalist Svoboda party whose leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, personally met with Biden in 2014
despite having been
barred from entering the U.S. for his anti-semitism just a year prior.
Svoboda and its militant offshoots like the Azov regiment fighting in Donbass are the
self-proclaimed ideological progeny of the fascist collaborators led by the Ukrainian
nationalist, Stepan Bandera, who sided with Nazi Germany during its invasion of the Soviet
Union in 1941.
In the Cold War, the CIA provided covert assistance to the post-war remnants of Bandera's
faction as it waged a failed insurgency in the 1950s.
In post-Soviet Ukraine, a disturbing campaign of historical revisionism has rewritten
Bandera's fifth column as nationalist heroes who fought solely for Ukrainian independence.
This is not reflected in the historical record which shows they not only participated in the
Third Reich's war crimes but shared their racist ideology, as admitted in the CIA's
own declassified documents :
Altogether, during the 5 weeks of its existence the Bandera
"state" destroyed over 5,000 Ukrainians, 15,000 Jews, and several thousand Poles. The
"Ukrainian State" Of Stepan Bandera ended its short but ignominious existence in August 1941,
when it was announced in Lvov that Western Ukraine had been incorporated as the "District of
Galicia" in the "General Governorship" (occupied Poland). And then a "new order," Hitler style
began to be introduced in the Ukraine.
This in short, the story of Bandera's "one-day holiday," which his followers, relying on
people's forgetfulness, now try to present as a glorious and heroic page in the history of the
Ukrainian liberation movement. In reality, it would be best, especially for the supporters of a
free Ukraine, to erase from the history of their .. movement this infamous Hitlerite, fascist
episode, which brought nothing. but shame and sorrow to the Ukraine.
Despite provisions in the aid barring weapons from going to the Azov detachment, the U.S.
military has continued to
provide them with arms and training. We are already witnessing blowback for this decision
in the
case of Jarrett William Smith , an ex-Army soldier arrested by the FBI for planning to
assassinate former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke and plotting terrorist
attacks against major news networks.
Smith had made plans to travel to Ukraine to fight with the Azov battalion and had
previously volunteered in the Donbass war in 2017 with another Ukrainian neo-fascist
paramilitary, the Right Sector.
Smith reportedly
sought help in making contact with Azov from another AWOL soldier, Craig Lang, currently
under house arrest in Ukraine and wanted for extradition to the U.S. for killing a Florida
couple.
Lang, who is considered a hero in the country for serving as a private mercenary with Right
Sector, also spent time with Georgian Legion
, a unit formed by ethnic Georgians conscripted on the Ukrainian side in the War in Donbass
whose members are believed to have perpetrated the 'false flag' sniper attacks on the Maidan
that was blamed on the government of Yanukovych.
Coincidentally, just as Americans are following the impeachment, trending on the internet
streaming service Netflix is a new documentary by a pair of Israeli filmmakers that touches
upon U.S. harboring of a Ukrainian Nazi called The Devil Next Door .
The series recaps the fascinating case of John Demjanjuk, a retired autoworker and
Ukrainian-born immigrant living in Cleveland, Ohio, who is suddenly accused of being a
notoriously sadistic Nazi guard at Treblinka concentration camp in eastern Poland during World
War II known as "Ivan the Terrible" and is extradited to Israel in 1986 to face charges of war
crimes and crimes against humanity.
After impassioned but inconsistent eyewitness testimony by camp survivors, he was mistakenly
found guilty of being the mysterious guard by an Israeli court and sentenced to death until his
conviction was overturned under appeal in 1993.
Years later, Demjanjuk is identified as a different prison guard at another camp in Sobibor
and re-convicted, this time more convincingly by a German court.
He maintained until his death in 2012 that he was again a victim of mistaken identity and
during the war was a POW himself after serving in the Red Army until his capture by the Germans
who then "forced" him to work as a guard at Trawniki, but never Sobibor.
However,
newly discovered photos of Demjanjuk at the death camp were just released which contradict
his denials and increase the likelihood he was a willing defector.
The documentary sheds light on how Demjanjuk was able to gain safe harbor
in the U.S. because of amendments to the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 which restricted
immigration of those persecuted by the Nazis while giving preferential treatment to Polish and
Ukrainian nationals who hid under new aliases in refugee camps while fleeing the Soviets.
U.S. immigration services were only able to detect the entry of formal members of the Nazi
regime while their local collaborators like Demjanjuk often snuck through unnoticed.
The show also speaks briefly of the U.S. embrace of many "former" Nazis such as Wernher von
Braun and the thousands of other German scientists recruited in Operation Paperclip who
were employed by the U.S. government during the Cold War in order to gain an advantage over
Moscow in the space race.
However, the series neglects to mention the CIA's support for Stepan Bandera's Organization
of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), much less their descendants in Kiev today who are renaming
city streets after SS veterans and tearing down Soviet statues to replace them with effigies of
fascist quislings.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely viewers will make any connection between the show and the
current political scandal gripping Washington.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/J8h16g1cVak
Netflix did receive objections over The Devil Next Door from the Polish government
and its right-wing populist Prime Minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, who accused the streaming giant
of "rewriting history" in its production by using a map of the country's post-1945 borders
while implying that Poland shared culpability for Nazi war crimes that occurred in its
territory.
Much of western Ukraine became eastern Poland overnight with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and
the German occupation, one of the reasons why a native of northwestern Ukraine like Demjanjuk
ended up in the neighboring country.
Like the Banderites doctoring history in Kiev, Polish nationalists are seeking to revise the
historical record of the many Poles who collaborated with the Germans in the slaughter of their
fellow compatriots as well.
This historical negationism continued in Poland's recent row with Russia over the 75th
anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz in which Morawiecki despicably made a false
equivalency between the USSR and Nazi Germany with a disturbing reinterpretation encouraged by
the U.S. who seek to take credit for the Soviet accomplishment of freeing the concentration
camp in 1945.
Nothing is sacred to the Atlanticists who are willing to politicize anything in the name of
their geostrategy of encircling Moscow and ultimate goal of conquering Eurasia.
That the Democrats are not impeaching Trump for an actual unconstitutional offense like the
diverting of military funds to his border wall without congressional approval is revealing of
its true motivations. Trump only crossed a line when he went after another member of the
political establishment and fleetingly halted the U.S. war machine in its aggression toward
Moscow.
It is reminiscent of what some have argued were the real reasons for the impeachment of
Richard Nixon that resulted from the Watergate scandal. Similarly, Nixon was forced to resign
in 1974 after he targeted other members of the elite in the wire-tapping and break-in of the
DNC headquarters, not his use of the CIA to violate its own charter for domestic espionage on
American citizens active in the anti-war movement.
Like Trump's rhetoric toward Moscow, Nixon had also broken with foreign policy orthodoxies
both in his unprecedented restoration of diplomacy with China and détente with the
Soviet Union negotiating arms control.
The dangerous consequences of the campaign against Trump for deviating from the anti-Russia
foreign policy dogma can be seen in the unparalleled recent
NATO war games and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists pushing the hand of the
Doomsday Clock forward to just 100 seconds to midnight , its closest-ever
approach which even exceeds that of the beginning of the Cold War in the early 1950s.
Trump would never have armed Ukraine to begin with if not for the constant pressure of the
Russia investigation and the need to not appear soft on Moscow.
It is clear that the impeachment is nothing more than an inter-war between different
factions of the elite and not only has it reduced the American people to onlookers, it may get
us all killed in a nuclear holocaust in the process.
For an excellent in-depth investigation of the roots of the crisis, Revealing Ukraine, the
anticipated follow-up to the 2016 documentary Ukraine on Fire directed by Igor Lopatonok and
produced by Oliver Stone, is highly recommended.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial
backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only
means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Connect with
Subscribe newest oldest most voted Notify of
I don't agree with Max about everything he asserts here. I also find some of his statements
to be unnecessarily tentative. The objective of those launching the impeachment hoax was
simply to smear Trump – to the general public. No smearing is needed among progressives
paying attention.
Antonym ,
The US Democratic Party is theoretically a democratic political party for average American
citizens.
It has become a crack / coke party for US deep state manipulation. Even quick easy money
naive rich from Californian IT companies and Texas oil pumpers are being taken for a ride.
Tim Jenkins ,
" the lead investigator in the Russia investigation did not appear familiar with the
details of his own inquiry."
The ghost of journalism past, wailed.
Sums it up, no different from the WTC7 investigation & the then FBI Boss Bob Mueller,
who got the job 2 days before the controlled demolition, same ole' story Melancholy Mule
Mueller . . . Trump cannot make things clearer to the world's politicians, other than
stamping "guilty & complicit" on Mueller's forehead and lest anybody forget that Trump
specialises still, in steel frame architecture & function, just ask yourself why Mueller
has not said a word about his old corrupted FBI best buddy Comey, (guilty of Treason) or WTC7
Physics, either absobleedin'lutelyobvious Trump would tweet, "MIT ..Mueller, 'innit',
"thickly, und dass mit Mitt Romney, arrrgh du, Scheisse, Mueller is German name und Romney
may be a derivative of Rommel surely?"
Arrest Murdoch, Mueller, Mifsud, Merkel, Milliband, May & Macron, after Bolton, Blair
& Bush, just for starters but we gotta' get to guys like Comey, Cheney & Corbyn ?
🙂 please, must I further alliterate: heads must roll for professional incompetence,
amongst judges, too Laws were broken, massively!
Arrrrgh but not: just silence Julian Assange instead, simples. Whatever you decide, Don't
arrest Killary, please, I couldn't handle the public hanging, a military solution will
suffice and I'm sure there are many worthy & justified candidates who would opt 'in' for
the 'Hit', ex-vets naturally: History will show, Mainstream Journalism died thanks to HRC
😉
Today, re-writing history is the name of the game of thrones, drones & malicious tones,
for digestive spirits addicted to capitalistic narcissism, serving no purpose.
Not even learning . . .
Great article, Max 🙂
Frank Speaker ,
Excellent article.
What puzzles me is why Trump / his AG aren't prosecuting Biden.
wardropper ,
Perhaps they're letting it simmer for a while first, so that all the details will have sunk
in by the time we're ready for the meal
Jack_Garbo ,
You still believe Trump's running the show? The clown is following orders, stumbling over the
big two-syllable words, and too often exposing his puerile predilection for tantrums. But he
makes no decisions worthy of the name.
The Impeachment charade was to distract the drooling public and was handled artfully by the
Dems, since their abject failure had to look sincere. Trouble is, little Master Petulance
took it seriously (didn't he get the memo? Oh, he doesn't read ) and fought back all nasty.
The rulers ares simply stringing out the game till elections, but their child emperor is
impatient. Was he the best clown in the circus after all?
Charlotte Russe ,
It's quite obvious, popular opposition on issues of social justice were suppressed and
diverted by the Dems exclusively attacking Trump on whether he's sufficiently militarily
aggressive towards Russia.
And this is why, the Wall Street Journal can flagrantly gloat and mockingly say Trump's
impeachment may have cinched his victory in 2020.
The "security state attack" against Trump was all a big joke. In other words, Trump's
"disposal" was not really important. The Idiot was no real threat to the affluent–they
had nothing on the line. The 10% enjoy excellent healthcare, terrific housing, and high
quality childcare. Their children are attending top private schools and will not worry about
student debt. The older bunch in this well-heeled crowd will never look at a meager social
security check as their only owner source of income and worry about paying utility bills,
buying food, or filling a prescription which literally keeps them alive. They'll never have
to think about finding enough cash for an unexpected emergency to fix a broken car, a busted
furnace, or a leaking roof.
The comfortably well-to-do couldn't care less if three years were squandered humiliating
themselves promoting a Russian invasion, while the working-class looked at this fiasco like a
deer in the headlights worrying about paying the monthly mortgage or the rent.
The scorn towards the working-class by the Democratic Party leadership is directly
reflected in an impeachment trial which attacks Trump for temporarily blocking $390 million
in military aid to Ukraine. The working-class are quite happy Trump temporarily blocked
military aid to Ukraine. In fact, they wish the Buffoon would permanently block all military
aid to every foreign country where US tax dollars are continually being squandered. The
working-poor had enough of these military misadventures. They want their tax dollars to
provide healthcare, affordable housing, quality childcare, clean drinking water, and a
livable minimum wage.
Trump the shameless lying street fighter, knows all of this and he'll exploit it fully as
he marches through the rust-belt victoriously proclaiming judicial vindication over the
feckless feeble Dems. From day one the antidote ridding the world of this orange bullshitter
was apparent– attack the Idiot from the Left–
specifically point out every lie, but most importantly prove how his policies, legislation,
and Executives Orders are screwing over the working-class. However, to do all that the
Democratic Party would need to be a genuine "opposition political party" and not a private
organization representing Wall Street, the big banks, and the surveillance state.
Capricornia Man ,
Absolutely correct, Charlotte! The Democrats' relentless pursuit of the Russiagate and
Ukrainegate nonsense was intended to distract people from the fact that they would sooner do
almost anything than fight Trump's pro-corporate policies.
If the Dems put forward another war-and-Wall Street candidate who offers nothing to the
working class, then Trump is assured of another four years in office –
unfortunately.
Antonym ,
Trump just wanted to make business deals with anybody, be they Russia or China or Z.
US Deep state needs an Enemy to justify their monster budgets and full spectrum
domination, but only an enemy that does not upset their Lower Manhattan branch, so China was
out being too good for US investors, but Russia or Iran are perfect. A repeat of what
happened after WWII and the fall of the Berlin Wall.
9/11 "Global Terrorism" is now a bit passe.
In its search for an Enemy it became the Enemy / Devil.
Louis N. Proyect ,
This article elides important elements, namely that Zelensky is a Jew and that he is regarded
as pro-Russian by Ukrainian nationalists. With so many on the left trying to paint all
Ukrainians as neo-Nazis, there's the inconvenient fact of Ukraine being the only country in
all of Europe to elect a Jew as head of state.
He was elected largely on the basis for fighting corruption and for ending the war with
the secessionists. He was not only undermined by Trump. Putin took advantage of his dovish
politics as this article points out:
Mr. Zelensky, under mounting pressure at home from nationalists who accuse him of
capitulating to Russia, arrived in Paris with limited room to maneuver and far fewer
military or political resources to call on than Mr. Putin. His previous gestures of good
will, notably the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the front line, have won no
reciprocal steps by Russia or the rebels it supports in the regions of Donetsk and
Luhansk.
His position was further weakened by the absence of strong support from the United
States, something that Ukraine had previously relied on as it struggles to hold its own on
the battlefield against Russian troops -- which the Kremlin has insisted are not serving
soldiers but merely Russians "on vacation" -- as well as armed separatists supported by
Moscow.
NY Times, December 9, 2019
Max Parry ,
By your logic on Ukraine electing a Jew, when Obama was elected here it meant America had
less of a racism problem, which is absurd. The left, which certainly does not include you,
does NOT paint all Ukrainians as neo-Nazis and has made it quite clear the resurgence in
nationalism is in the Western part of the country and is being normalized by the oligarchic
parties.
paul ,
There is an alliance of convenience between Jewish oligarchs like Kolomoisky and Nazi thugs
like the Azov battalion, with the latter playing the part of useful idiots/ cannon fodder.
Rather like Tommy Robinson and his £10,000 a month Zionist stipend. Incidentally, it is
not correct that only Ukraine has had a Jewish president – the same applies to Austria
and the Baltics.
Ukraine is a real tragedy. Since independence in 1991, it has lost nearly half its
population, down from 52 to 30 million, if you take the loss of Crimea/ Donbas/ 1.5 million
refugees/ millions of economic migrants scratching a living abroad picking cabbages or
working as prostitutes into account. It was previously the most prosperous and highly
developed part of the Soviet Union, with advanced industries and a highly educated and
skilled work force. All this is now gone, the result of years of uncontrolled non stop
looting by the Kolomoiskys. The average standard of living in Ukraine is now significantly
lower than that of Egypt.
Washington will ally itself with any group of thugs to achieve its ends in its regime
change projects, Ukrainian Nazis or an alphabet soup of Islamist head choppers and throat
slitters. America constantly plays the part of the comic villain Hedley Lamar in Blazing
Saddles, recruiting an army of villains to achieve his ends. There are no depths Uncle Shmuel
will not plumb. The Nazi thugs who staged the Maidan Coup were on the US embassy payroll,
given $25 a day and provided with free booze, free drugs and free prostitutes.
Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries on earth. $50 billion of western taxpayers'
money has been poured into the country to prop up the Kiev Regime. There is nothing to show
for this. It has flowed out of the country into the private bank accounts of the oligarchs,
politicians and US dual/ triple national carpetbaggers, who have descended on the country
like the Nulands, the Vindmans, the Ioanovitches. Almost without exception, these are rabid
professional Russia hater Jews, though the Bidens could also wet their beaks. There was
enough to go round.
Clinton, the most corrupt politician in US history, was supposed to have won the election
to keep this gravy train rolling, and the "Ukrainians" actively meddled in the 2016 election
to bring about the desired result. When Trump won, these characters reacted with all the fury
of a dog that has had its bone taken away.
Baron ,
@ paul.
Short, but spot on, paul, from the first to the last word.
A friend goes to Ukraine regularly to recruit people, he claims corruption's unbelievable,
often he has to pay to park a car on a street with unrestricted parking, one doesn't, the
tyres get slashed; old people barely surviving on pitiful pensions, a 1000 hrivnas pension is
considered good, some pensioners get less (100 hrivnas = £3 approx; the chain Lidl
operates in the country, its prices similar to the UK prices, the pensioners cannot afford
them), in villages domestic animals live together with families, tyres are used for heating,
as are empty plastic bottles stuffed with paper, old textile.
A true tragedy so close to the prosperous Western Europe, and nobody cares, certainly not
the poodles of the MSM. Criminal this.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Ukraine is the future as envisaged by the global overlords. A sort of Petri Dish in which to
breed the enforcer thugs that will be needed to consolidate oligarch rule as the whole farce
crumbles.
lundiel ,
As Anders Breivik said in his manifesto, "my enemies enemy is my friend ..we can deal with
the Jews later".
Tim Jenkins ,
LouisP. (no idea what the fuck the new added 'N' is all about, like new year for peeing
ourselves laughing over a 'NONSE' or what? ) 'woteva', did you get a pay rise with a
new year agenda, LOUIS, Louis, louise, stop prostitution, I say, especially your kind !
You honky mofo and may I add a pretty second rate honky mofo @that
When will you stop quoting the NYT and finally comprehend that they are complicit,
in every sense, arrrrgh 'Ja' die 'N' is for New Young Turk NYT Louis, now I get it . . .
FFS, Louis, have you had a brain scan recently ?
Max Parry ,
The N is for NATO
nottheonly1 ,
It might be helpful to remind people that the terms 'Democrats' and 'Republicans' are merely
the acronyms for 'head' or 'tale'. 'Up' and 'Down'. 'Left' and 'Right'. 'Trump' and 'Pelosi'.
All are:
Two Sides – One Coin
But who could blame the masses for focusing on who is not allowed to exist based on their
delusion. It is this deep sitting delusion that has created the present day 'western'
society. This deepsitting and hardwired belief, that everything, or anyone that does not
conform to their delusions is immediately doused with vile hate. The people in the picture
above are only the tiniest tip of the Nazi-Iceberg that will sink a Humanity called
'Titanic'.
Since it no longer actually matters what the truth really is, or what really is the truth,
one can certainly write whatever one feels like. Like if you say that Adolf Hitler (the
person, the people in the picture above have sworn posthum allegiance into death) was a
product of american fascists and not the product of the German population of that day –
then you are anti-semitic.
The people in the image above are not anti-semitic. They are for a world without gay
people (they don't use the term 'people'), in which there are only boys and girls, women and
men and nothing else. The women are were they belong – into the kitchen – and the
men watch 'Die Wochenschau' drink beer and go out to bash the heads of 'things' they don't
like.
All the ham theater of the U.S. regime aside, americans should take a good look at Ukraine
as a template of what is coming to them too, now.
To make that clear: There are Americans and there are americans. Americans are those who
were present before the first europeans arrived and a very, very few contemporary minds.
americans in low caps are the same low conscious human equivalents.
That should do it for now. The sad part though is, that the folks in question will not be
reformed. They have the backing of the orthodox church. You remember? 'A love story: religion
and fascism'?
No wonder the Jimmy Dore show is so popular.
I dare him to come up with a 24/7 political satire news channel. Quite the redundancy.
Harry Stotle ,
'It is clear that the impeachment is nothing more than an inter-war between different
factions of the elite and not only has it reduced the American people to onlookers, it may
get us all killed in a nuclear holocaust in the process.' – this is the take-home
message.
The MSM maintains a charade that we live in a democracy and can exercise something called
political choice – we can't, the deep state and lobby groups get on with making
decisions that serve only their interests while damaging many others, especially
overseas.
It never ceases to amaze me how more people can't see it, or how easy it is to channel
public rage toward selected targets.
Cosmopolitans liberals generally focus on identity politics (how dare he say or think
that) while the less culturally engaged are taught to hate and fear Russians, Iranians and of
course North Korea without ever understanding why – needless to say both groups are
oblivious to the crimes committed by western leaders that have led to millions of deaths
while contributing to the biggest refugee crises since WWII.
The likes of the BBC and Guardian pretend that all of this is normal and can always be
counted on to back the intelligence community whenever further blood-shed is required.
Only in a system this rotten can public figures like Trump, Hillary, Obama, or nearer to
home Johnson, IDS, Priti Patel, thrive.
Tim Jenkins ,
"It never ceases to amaze me how more people can't see it, or how easy it is to channel
public rage toward selected targets."
Consider yourself quoted: but, what about the North Iranians, Harry? If they unite with
Northern Koreans & Northern Russians to boot, think about it
The North KIRaneans could access evil 😉 shiver me timbers
Harry Stotle ,
When I think of the west's reaction to 'the axis of evil' (and yes, I admit I have
substituted Russia for Iraq, but such targets are pretty fluid on the neocon kill list) I
think of the 'little Albert' experiment.
This seminal experiment found that it all it took was 6 pairings to condition the subject
(in this instance the hapless baby Albert).
In the case of western societies, especially the USA it is more like 60 or 600 pairings
associating various targets, such as Assad with negative or evil traits.
For reasons not even they (the public) understand they find themselves automatically
hating counties or politicians that have been selected for them by the MSM (on behalf of
their handlers in the intelligence or military community).
Evidence or rational thinking seems to play almost no part in the 2-minute hate.
"Shortly after the putsch, Hunter Biden joined the board of directors at Burisma despite
having no experience in Ukraine or the energy sector."
It was a lot more than that, which should raise eyebrows or have you reaching for a kidney
basin.
Divorce proceedings don't usually bring to light the most flattering assessments, but his
ex-wife did note his gambling and sex addictions and his habitual residence in the front rows
of topless bars, strip clubs and suggested his lap did double duty as a dance floor.
While he was in a sexual relationship with his dead brothers wife, he was sued for
paternity by a Louisiana stripper. He completely denied having sex with her but DNA proved
her claim, notwithstanding her public humiliation by having to admit she had sex with the man
known as "cunter". He was shown the door by the Navy, days after joining it, when his urine
tested positive for coke, a test he knew would be done, but he was still unable to forgo the
coke for even a few days in advance.
In the NYT, it was claimed that Burisma hired Biden to gain the respectability he would
engender. How valuable is that Hunter-borne respectability? A million a year.
Now let's get down to the real issue. The new bribery aka THE SHAM CONTRACT.
Pioneered or honed to a fine art in our times by the notorious larger than life scumbags
Hillary Clinton and Tony Blair, it consists of being paid for a non-service, or one
masquerading as a service, grotesquely disproportionate to its value. Formerly known as a
bribe.
So Hillary gives a speech to Goldman Sachs. No matter that the audience is not listening,
texting their insider trading orders, or simply bored stiff. GS gives her $250k.Tony Blair ,
now worth well over 75 million quid substantially on the back of "lectures" to American
neocons. But who is to know if the lectures were any good or if it was just a payoff to the "
Middle East Peace Envoy" for sending young men off to die in Iraq etc.
So it is with "Hunter", being paid a million dollars a year to be on the board of Burisma
when his cv seems to warrant a different board (water board?). If you wish to offload your
breakfast, read the former president of Poland extol Hunter's board activities.
So Trump wanted to know what "Hunter " was doing for the million/year. Hell, inquiring
minds want to know. I want to know. But you can bet your Maltese bippy that his advice on lap
dancing or whatever it was, might not have been worth a million/ year. And Trump's curiosity
led to governmental (emphasis on the mental) paralysis so the Democratic Party having made
fools of themselves over Russiagate, could make scurrilous accusations in prime time. Some of
which are surely true, but wasting time and resources with an all-consuming hysterical smoke
and mirrors operation aimed at hiding what?
paul ,
No, you're quite wrong, Biden Junior had to work hard for those millions.
Hunter had to smile a lot and have his photograph taken, and read a couple of speeches that
were written for him.
Tim Jenkins ,
brilliant synopsis G.C. Top Cat Comment 🙂
So, were I refer to the CBT 's actions, ("Cunter" Bribe Tribe), in future we would be on
the same the page, I figure: the hunters & gatherers know no limits and it's high time
law was applied, coz' laws exist . . .
hard to believe, in justice, today !
Antonym ,
Count down for resident jokers blaming this or US Neo-Ukraine support on "the Zionists":
3,2,1 .
lundiel ,
Trump aside, I still can't get my head around the total silence on the Bidens.
Antonym ,
Biden in a clog in the CIA's foreign policy, which needs enemies to stay flush in money
hence
MSM silence.
The "department of Homeland security" after 9/11 was their coup d'etat of the US; it should
translate as "Ministry of Deep State truth & security".
TFS ,
Surely Democrats could Impeach Donald for the following:
1.
Iraq voted for America to leave its country
America refused to do so, whilst admitting to stealing their oil.
This is in contravention of International Law.
Impeach That.
2.
America just outline the deal of the century, peace plan for Israel/Palestine.
It's in contravention of International Law
Impeach That.
Why are the Dems, those notorious sticklers for the rule of law, so silent?
nottheonly1 ,
They are of the same coin, whose 'other' side they are supposedly opposing.
Yeah the whole "impeachment" circus pulled up its stakes and Trump was acquitted. The
Democrats remind me of Wile E Coyote.It used to be that the Democrats were called the Evil
Party and the Republicans Stupid but it seems the roles have reversed or maybe one is more
stupid than evil.
Here's hoping that the clown car drives itself into the Potomac which would be the
American Dream for some.
nottheonly1 ,
You are aware of the fact, that Wile E. Coyote was also a Rocket Scientist, correct? Only the
bias of the producers prevented him from ever succeeding with his brilliant attempts to
gather food.
The democrats are no match for Wile E. Coyote.
Jen ,
Wile E Coyote did insist on using Acme Corporation products. In those halcyon days of Bugs
Bunny cartoons, Acme Corporation was the Boeing Corporation of its time with Acme products
liable to fail, peter out, backfire or explode at the most inconvenient time. Why that rocket
scientist didn't try the competition's products in his hunter-gatherer lifestyle forever
remains a mystery.
sharon marlowe ,
Thanks, Off Guardian:)
I generally like this article, but there is what I see as a myth about Trump vs the
Establishment:
"It was Trump's rhetoric as a peace candidate suggesting rapprochement with Russia which
made him a target of the political establishment and intelligence community "
Trump could not be looked at as a "peace candidate" by anyone but his weirdo crazy fans
when he was running for President. He could only be looked at as a liar-conman. That he
wanted to make money off Russia, and therefore would not be as likely to call for a no-fly
zone in Syria as Hillary, doesn't remotely come close to being for peace. It appears to me
that Trump and Netanyahu were united, and Netanyahu had support from many russian-israelis in
the Israel regime. Putin has expressed a real kinship with the russian-israelis(which could
be why Putin doesn't stop the israelis from bombing Syria whenever they wish?). Perhaps that
is where one can find "russian collusion"–the russians though, are citizens of
Israel;)
So, just that problem with the article. The myth that Trump posed as a peace candidate
shouldn't turn into revisionism, like how people today claim that Obama ran on stopping the
wars.
Max Parry ,
Actually there was an academic study released which indicates voters in key battleground
states saw him as the peace candidate relative to Hillary Clinton.
Max – that is the key point I'd say – that "relative" to Hillary 'the rot'
Clinton, Attila the Hun could be legitimately seen as a "peace candidate." As completely
odious and amoral as the Orange One is, clearly before "Russiagate" magically erupted and
then morphed again quite magically into impeachment, Trump had simply not appropriately
'rattled the saber' toward Russia as required by America's deep state and MSM institutional
structures.
I dare say that many of us on the left in the U.S. (those long outside the two party
structures) saw HRC as arguably the most clearly militarily dangerous of these two corrupt
oligarchs when it came to the rather important – foreign policy front. For some reason
many seen to have trouble tracking this bit of nuance.
SharonM ,
Hello, Max Parry. That was a very good article you wrote, thank you:)
There are assumptions in that study. Often they cite "sacrifice" made by the U.S. military
for U.S. "security". None of that goes on and hasn't gone on this entire century. The U.S.
military is used as an invading force, not as defenders of their country. I don't think the
people who sign up to be mercenaries for hegemony can claim ignorance for much longer and
still be believed. American voters can vote for peace by voting for antiwar parties. It makes
no sense to claim that american voters want peace while voting for the two major war parties.
The americans who truly want peace vote for ant-war parties, or they're not voters. The war
party voters just don't give a shit about war, or worse, they really like war.
Max Parry ,
I certainly wouldn't argue for the authenticity of Trump's campaign rhetoric since he
reversed nearly all of it as president, just like Obama. And many forget even George W. Bush
made some anti-interventionist statements in the debates against Al Gore in 2000.
SharonM ,
Yes. Trump was nowhere close to being considered a peace candidate. It is common for the two
war parties to criticize each other's wars, but both parties are pro-war..and so are their
voters..and their volunteer mercenaries.
alsdkfj ,
Ah, more propaganda for the fascist Trump I see. What else is new for Off Guardian?
What, Trump wouldn't sell arms to Neo-Nazis?
You're kidding me right?
Off Guardian loves their fascist racist misogynist epic jerk Trump.
The farce runs deep in this one. Obviously you didn't read the article either because you are
illiterate or your brain has been sucked by a giant Arachnid.
George Cornell ,
Not really. There isn't and wasn't much value difference between Trump and the warmongering,
murderous, unprincipled neocon candidate harridan known as Hillary. It might seem that way as
anyone trying to enable some semblance of balance is immediately attacked by the Democratic
party's stormtroopers and internet battalions.
lundiel ,
It's all gone straight over your head. Read George Cornell's comment above, then read Harry
Stotle's and come back with an argument as to why Biden should be the democrat candidate and
Trump should be impeached.
I doubt if any here share Trump's politics, or admire him, but we can all see a stitch-up
when it's as plain as this one.
Max Parry ,
He did sell them arms. He was impeached when he momentarily stopped. Are you illiterate?
Tim Jenkins ,
If you like, I could teach you how to troll & shill, project & transfer, to a much
higher standard, with far more intrigue and far far less obvious . . . tell your bosses.
Do you mind if I ask what your boss & you get, collectively, paid and if you respect
him?
And,for that matter, yourself (lol 🙂 )
Coz', by my standards, I'd fire the pair of you and do a much better job in the process,
& much cheaper, Alone . . . so, I figure, applications to M.O.D.@77thBrigadeLYS,
lonely young souls,
the younger the better, just kids.
No Men Required for propaganda purposes.
That's all
Over & Out.
This book sheds some light into the story of how Administrative assistants to Present became
independent heavily influenced by CIA body controlling the USA foreign policy and to a large
extent controlling the President. Recent revolt of NSC (Aka Ukrainegate) shows that the servant
became the master
The books contains some interesting information about forming NSC by Truman --- the father of
the US National Security State. And bureaucratic turf war the preceded it. It wwas actually
Eisenhower who created forma position of a "special assistant to the president for national
security affairs"
The author also cover a little bit disastrous decision to launch a "surge" (ironically by the
female chickenhawk Meghan O'Sullivan), -- which attests neocon nature of current NSC and level of
indoctrination of staffers in "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine quite clearly. That's why a
faction of NSC launched a coup d'état against Trump in t he form of Ukrainegate and
probably was instrumental in Russiagate as well.
Notable quotes:
"... Starting in the 1960s, the NSC dethroned the State Department in providing analysis, intelligence, and even some diplomacy to the diplomat in chief. In the years after September 11th, the staff also began to take greater responsibility, especially for planning, from the military and the rest of the Pentagon. Both departments have struggled and often failed to reclaim lost ground and influence in Washington. ..."
"... Yet war is a hard thing to try to manage from the Executive Office Building. Thousands of miles from the frontlines and far from harm, the NSC make recommendations based on what they come to know from intelligence reports, news sources, phone calls, video-teleconferences, and visits to the front. Even with advice based only on this limited and limiting view, the NSC staff has transformed how the United States fights its wars. ..."
"... Although presidents bear the ultimate responsibilities for these decisions, the NSC staff played an essential, and increasing, role in the thinking behind each bold move. In conflict after conflict, a more powerful NSC staff has fundamentally altered the American way of war. It is now far less informed by the perspective of the military and the view from the frontlines. It is less patient for progress and more dependent on the clocks in the Executive Office Building and Washington than those in theater. It is far more combative, less able to accept defeat, and more willing to risk a change of course. ..."
"... The NSC common law's kept the peace in Washington for years after Iran-Contra. The restrictions against outright advocacy and outsized operational responsibilities were accepted by those at the White House as well as in the agencies during Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet as many in Washington believed the world grew more interconnected and the national security stakes increased, especially after September 11th, a more powerful NSC has given staffers the opportunity to bend, and occasionally break, the common laws, as they have been expected to and allowed to take on more responsibilities for developing strategies and new r ideas from those in the bureaucracy and military. ..."
"... ...Meanwhile, others, including the anonymous author of the infamous September 2018 New York Times opinion piece, believe government officials who comprise a "steady state" amid Trump's chaotic presidency are "unsung heroes" resisting his worst instincts and overreaches. 13 Thus, it is no surprise that more and more Americans are concerned: a 2018 poll found that 74 percent of Americans feel a group of officials arc able to control government policy without accountability. ..."
"... it is no wonder some Americans have taken to assuming the worst of their public servants. ..."
"... Each member of the NSC staff needs to remember that their growing, unaccountable power has helped give evidence to the worries about a deep state. Although no one in Washington gives up influence voluntarily, the staff, even its warriors, need to remember it is not just what they fight for but whether a fight is necessary at all. ..."
"... ... Too many in Washington, including at the Executive Office Building, have forgotten that public service is a privilege that bestows on them great responsibility. Although the NSC has long justified its actions in the name of national security, the means with which its members have pursued that objective have made for a more aggressive American way of war, a more fractious Washington, and more conspiracies about government. ..."
"... The question is for what and for whom they will fight in the years and wars ahead. ..."
The men and women walking the hushed corridors of the Executive Office Building do not look
like warriors. Most are middle-aged professionals with penchants for dark business suits and
prestigious graduate degrees, who have spent their lives serving their country in windowless
offices, on far-off battle-fields, or at embassies abroad. Before arriving at the NSC, many
joined the military or the nation's diplomatic corps, some dedicated themselves to teaching and
writing about national security, and others spent their days working for the types of
politicians who become presidents. By the time they joined the staff, each had shown the pluck
-- and the good fortune -- required to end up staffing a president.
When each NSC staffer first walks up the steps to the Executive Office Building, he or she
joins an institution like no other in government. Compared to the Pentagon and other
bureaucracies, the staff is small, hierarchically flat with only a few titles like directors
and senior directors reporting to the national security advisor and his or her deputies.
Compared to all those at the agencies, even most cabinet secretaries, the staff are also given
unparalleled access to the president and the discussions about the biggest decisions in
national security.
Yet despite their access, the NSC staff was created as a political, legal, and bureaucratic
afterthought. The National Security Council was established both
to better coordinate foreign policy after World War II and as part of a deal to create what
became known as the Defense Department. Since the army and navy only agreed to be unified under
a single department and a civilian cabinet secretary if each still had a seat at the table
where decisions about war were expected to be made, establishing the National Security Council
was critical to ensuring passage of the National Security Act of 1947. The law, as well as its
amendments two years later, unified the armed forces while also establishing the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as well as the CIA.
... ... ...
Fans of television's the West Wing would be forgiven for expecting that once in the Oval
Office, all a staffer needs to do to change policy is to deliver a well-timed whisper in the
president's car or a rousing speech in his company. It is not that such dramatic moments never
occur, but real change in government requires not just speaking up but the grinding policy work
required to have something new to say.
A staffer, alone or with NSC and agency colleagues, must develop an idea until feasible and
defend it from opposition driven by personal pique, bureaucratic jealousy, or substantive
disagreement, and often all three.
Granted none of these fights are over particularly new ideas, as few proposals in war are
truly novel. If anything, the staffs history is a reminder of how little new there is under the
guise of national security. Alter all, escalations, ultimatums, and counterinsurgency are only
innovative in the context of the latest conflicts. The NSC staff is usually proposing old
ideas, some as old as war itself like a surge of troops, to new circumstances and a critical
moment.
Yet even an old idea can have real power in the right hands at the right time, so it is
worth considering how much more influence the NSC brings to its fights today.
... ... ...
A larger staff can do even more thanks to technology. With the establishment of the
Situation Room in 1961 and its subsequent upgrades, as well as the widespread adoption of email
in the 1980s, the classified email system during the 2000s, and desktop video teleconferencing
systems in the 2010s, White House technology upgrades have been justified because the president
deserves the latest and the fastest. These same advances give each member of the staff global
reach, including to war zones half a world away, from the safety of the Executive Office
Building.
The NSC has also grown more powerful along with the presidency it serves. The White House,
even in the hands of an inexperienced and disorganized president like Trump, drives the
government's agenda, the news media's coverage, and the American public's attention. The NSC
staff can, if skilled enough, leverage the office's influence for their own ideas and purposes.
Presidents have also explicitly empowered the staff in big ways -- like putting them in the
middle of the policymaking process -- and small -- like granting them ranks that put them on
the same level as other agency officials.
Recent staffers have also had the president's ear nearly every day, and sometimes more
often, while secretaries of state and defense rarely have that much face time in the Oval
Office. Each has a department with tens of thousands (and in the Pentagon's case millions) of
employees to manage. Most significantly, both also answer not just to the president but to
Congress, which has oversight authority for their departments and an expectation for regular
updates. There are few more consequential power differences between the NSC and the departments
than to whom each must answer.
Even more, the NSC staff get to work and fight in anonymity. Members of Congress,
journalists, and historians are usually too busy keeping track of the National Security Council
principals to focus on the guys and gals behind the national security advisors, who are
themselves behind the president. Few in Washington, and fewer still across the country, know
the names of the staff advising the president let alone what they arc saying in their memos and
moments with him.
Today, there arc too many unnamed NSC staffers for anyone's good, including their own. Even
with the recent congressional limit on policy staffers, the NSC is too big to be thoroughly
managed or effective. National security advisors and their deputies are so busy during their
days that it is hard to keep up with all their own emails, calls, and reading, let alone ensure
each member of the staff is doing their own work or doing it well. The common law and a de
tacto honor system has also struggled to keep staff in check as they try to handle every issue
from war to women's rights and every to-do list item from drafting talking points to doing
secret diplomacy.
Although many factors contribute to the NSC's success, history suggests they do best with
the right-size job. The answer to better national security policy and process is not a bigger
staff but smaller writs. The NSC should focus on fewer issues, and then only on the smaller
stuff, like what the president needs for calls and meetings, and the big, what some call grand
strategic, questions about the nation's interests, ambitions, and capacities that should be
asked and answered before any major decision.
... ... ...
Along the way, the staff has taken on greater responsibilities from agencies like the
departments of state and defense as each has grown more bureaucratic and sclerotic.
Starting in the 1960s, the NSC dethroned the State Department in providing analysis,
intelligence, and even some diplomacy to the diplomat in chief. In the years after September
11th, the staff also began to take greater responsibility, especially for planning, from the
military and the rest of the Pentagon. Both departments have struggled and often failed to
reclaim lost ground and influence in Washington.
As a result, today the NSC has, regretfully, become the strategic engine of the government's
national security policymaking. The staff, along with the national security advisor, determine
which issues -- large and small -- require attention, develop the plans for most of them, and
try to manage day-to-day the implementation of each strategy. That is too sweeping a remit for
a couple hundred unaccountable staffers sitting at the Executive Office Building thousands of
miles from war zones and foreign capitals. Such immense responsibility also docs not make the
best use of talent in government, leaving the military and the nation's diplomats fighting with
the White House over policies while trying to execute plans they have less and less ownership
over.
... ... ...
Although protocol still requires members of the NSC to sit on the backbench in National
Security Council meetings, the staff s voice and advice can carry as much weight as those of
the principals sitting at the table, just as the staff has taken on more of each department's
responsibilities, the NSC arc expected to be advisors to the president, even on military
strategy. With that charge, the staff has taken to spending more time and effort developing
their own policy ideas -- and fighting for them.
Yet war is a hard thing to try to manage from the Executive Office Building. Thousands
of miles from the frontlines and far from harm, the NSC make recommendations based on what they
come to know from intelligence reports, news sources, phone calls, video-teleconferences, and
visits to the front. Even with advice based only on this limited and limiting view, the NSC
staff has transformed how the United States fights its wars.
The American way of war, developed over decades of thinking and fighting, informs how and
why the nation goes to battle. Over the course of American history and, most relevantly, since
the end of World War II, the US military and other national security professionals have
developed, often through great turmoil, strategic preferences and habits, like deploying the
latest technology possible instead of the largest number of troops. Despite the tremendous
planning that goes into these most serious of undertakings, each new conflict tests the
prevailing way of war and often finds it wanting.
Even knowing how dangerous it is to relight the last war, it is still not easy to find the
right course for a new one. Government in general and national security specifically are
risk-averse enterprises where it is often simpler to rely on standard operating procedures and
stay on a chosen course, regardless of whether progress is slow and the sense of drift is
severe. Even then, many in the military, who often react to even the mildest of suggestions and
inquiries as unnecessary or even dangerous micromanagement, defend the prevailing approach with
its defining doctrine and syndrome.
As Machiavelli recommended long ago, there is a need for hard questions in government and
war in particular. He wrote that a leader "ought to be a great askcr, and a patient hearer of
the truth." 7 From the Executive Office Building, the NSC staff, who are more
distanced from the action as well as the fog of war, have tried to fill this role for a busy
and often distracted president. They are, however, not nearly as patient as Machiavelli
recommended: they have proven more willing, indeed too willing at times, to ask about what is
working and what is not.
Warfighters are not alone in being frustrated by questions: everyone from architects to
zookeepers believes they know how best to do their job and that with a bit more time, they will
get it right. Without any of the responsibility for the doing, the NSC staff not only asks hard
questions but, by avoiding implementation bias, is willing to admit, often long before those in
the field, that the current plan is failing. A more technologically advanced NSC, with the
ability to reach deep into the chain of command and war zones for updates, has also given the
staff the intelligence to back up its impatience.
Most times in history, the NSC staff has correctly predicted that time is running against a
chosen strategy. Halperin. and others on the Nixon NSC, were accurate in their assessments of
Vietnam. Dur and his Reagan NSC colleagues were right to worry that diplomacy was moving too
slowly in Lebanon. Haass and Vershbow were correct when they were concerned with how windows of
opportunity for action were shrinking in the Gulf and Balkans respectively, just as O'Sullivan
was right that things needed to change relatively soon in Iraq.
Yet an impatient NSC staff has a worse track record giving the president answers to what
should come next. The NSC staff naturally have opinions and ideas about what can be done when
events and war feel out of control, but ideas about what can be done when events and war feel
out of control, but the very distance and disengagement that allow' the NSC to be so effective
at measuring progress make its ideas less grounded in operational realities and more clouded by
the fog of Washington. The NSC, often stridently, wants to do something more, to "go big when
wc can," as one recent staffer encouraged his president, to fix a failing policy or win a w
r ar, but that is not a strategy, nor does that ambition make the staff the best
equipped to figure out the next steps."
With their proposals for a new plan, deployment, or initiative, the staff has made more bad
recommendations than good. The Diem coup and the Beirut mission are two examples, and
particularly tragic ones at that, of NSC staff recommendations gone awry. The Iraq surge was
certainly a courageous decision, but by committing so many troops to that country, the manpower
w r as not available for a war in Afghanistan that was falling off track. Even the
more successful NSC recommendations for changes in US strategy in the Gulf War and in Bosnia
did not end up exactly as planned, in part because even good ideas in war rarely do.
Although presidents bear the ultimate responsibilities for these decisions, the NSC
staff played an essential, and increasing, role in the thinking behind each bold move. In
conflict after conflict, a more powerful NSC staff has fundamentally altered the American way
of war. It is now far less informed by the perspective of the military and the view from the
frontlines. It is less patient for progress and more dependent on the clocks in the Executive
Office Building and Washington than those in theater. It is far more combative, less able to
accept defeat, and more willing to risk a change of course.
And it is characterized by more frequent and counterproductive friction between the civilian
and military leaders.
... ... ...
Through it all, as the NSC's voice has grown louder in the nation's war rooms, the staff has
transformed how Washington works, and more often does not work. The NSC's fights to change
course have had another casualty: the ugly collapse of the common law' that has governed
Washington policymaking for more than a generation. The result today is a government that
trusts less, fights more, and decides much slower.
National security policy- and decision-making was never supposed to be a fair fight. Eliot
Cohen, a civil-military scholar with high-level government experience, has called the
give-and-take of the interagency process an "unequal" dialogue -- one in which presidents are
entitled to not just make the ultimate decision but also to ask questions, often with the NSC's
help, at any time and about any topic.* Everyone else, from the secretaries of state and
defense in Washington dow r n to the commanders and ambassadors abroad, has to
expect and tolerate such presidential interventions and then carry out his orders.
Even an unfair fight can have rules, however. The NSC common law's kept the peace in
Washington for years after Iran-Contra. The restrictions against outright advocacy and outsized
operational responsibilities were accepted by those at the White House as well as in the
agencies during Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet as many in Washington believed
the world grew more interconnected and the national security stakes increased, especially after
September 11th, a more powerful NSC has given staffers the opportunity to bend, and
occasionally break, the common laws, as they have been expected to and allowed to take on more
responsibilities for developing strategies and new r ideas from those in the
bureaucracy and military.
... ... ...
...Meanwhile, others, including the anonymous author of the infamous September 2018 New
York Times opinion piece, believe government officials who comprise a "steady state" amid
Trump's chaotic presidency are "unsung heroes" resisting his worst instincts and overreaches.
13 Thus, it is no surprise that more and more Americans are concerned: a 2018 poll
found that 74 percent of Americans feel a group of officials arc able to control government
policy without accountability.
In an era when Americans can see on reality television how their fish are caught, meals arc
cooked, and businesses are financed, it is strange that few have ever heard the voice of an NSC
staffer. The Executive Office Building is not the only building out of reach: most of the
government taxpayers' fund is hard, and getting harder, to see. With bigger security blockades,
longer waits on declassification, and more severe crackdowns on leaks, it is no wonder some
Americans have taken to assuming the worst of their public servants.
The American people need to know the NSC's war stories if for no other reason than each
makes clear that there is no organized deep state in Washington. If one existed, there would be
little need for the NSC to fight so hard to coordinate the government's various players and
parts. However, this history also makes plain that though the United States can overcome bad
decisions and survive military disasters, a belief in a deep state is a threat to the NSC and
so much more.
... ... ...
Each member of the NSC staff needs to remember that their growing, unaccountable power
has helped give evidence to the worries about a deep state. Although no one in Washington gives
up influence voluntarily, the staff, even its warriors, need to remember it is not just what
they fight for but whether a fight is necessary at all. Shortcuts and squabbles may make
sense when every second feels like it counts, but the best public servants do what is necessary
for the president even as they protect, for years to come, the health of the institutions and
the very democracy in which they serve. As hard as that can be to remember when the clock in
the Oval Office is ticking, doing things the right way is even more important than the latest
crises, war, or meeting with the president.
... ... ...
... Too many in Washington, including at the Executive Office Building, have forgotten
that public service is a privilege that bestows on them great responsibility. Although the NSC
has long justified its actions in the name of national security, the means with which its
members have pursued that objective have made for a more aggressive American way of war, a more
fractious Washington, and more conspiracies about government.
Centuries ago, Plato argued that civilians must hope for warriors who could be trusted to be
both "gentle to their own and cruel to their enemies." At a time when many doubt government and
those who serve in it, the NSC staff s history demonstrates just what White House warriors arc
capable of. The question is for what and for whom they will fight in the years and wars
ahead.
... ... ...
The legendary British double agent Kim Philby wrote: "just because a document is a document
it has a glamour which tempts the reader to give it more weight than it deserves An hour of a
serious discussion with a trustworthy informant is often more valuable than any number of
original documents. Of course, it is best to have both."
A must-read for anyone interested in history or foreign policy. Gans pulls back the
curtain on arguably the most powerful yet opaque body in foreign policy decision-making,
the National Security Council. Each chapter recounts a different administration -- as told
through the work of an NSC staffer. Through these beautifully-written portraits of largely
unknown staffers, Gans reveals the chilling, outsized influence of this small, unelected
institution on American war and peace. From this perspective, even the policy success
stories seem more luck than skill -- leaving readers concerned about the NSC's continued
unchecked power.
"... Adam Schiff: If Trump isn't removed he "could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election or decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and leave Jared Kushner to run the country, delegating to him the decision whether they go to war." pic.twitter.com/VBzkonqpmH ..."
Impeachment manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) argued on Monday during closing remarks that if
President Trump isn't removed from office, he " could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange
for support in the next election or decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and leave Jared
Kushner to run the country , delegating to him the decision whether they go to war."
Adam Schiff: If Trump isn't removed he "could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in
the next election or decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and leave Jared Kushner to run
the country, delegating to him the decision whether they go to war." pic.twitter.com/VBzkonqpmH
"... Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment. ..."
"... In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump slightly deviated. ..."
As for "evil republican senators", they would be viewed as evil by electorate if and only only if actual crimes of Trump regime
like Douma false flag, Suleimani assassination (actually here Trump was set up By Bolton and Pompeo) and other were discussed.
Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges
that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides
understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment.
Both sides are afraid to discuss real issues, real Trump regime crimes.
Schiff proved to be patently inept in this whole story even taking into account limitations put by Kabuki theater on him, and
in case of Trump acquittal *which is "highly probable" borrowing May government terminology in Skripals case :-) to resign would be a honest thing
for him to
do.
Assuming that he has some honestly left. Which is highly doubtful with statements like:
"The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there so we don't have to fight Russia here."
And
"More than 15,000 Ukrainians have died fighting Russian forces and their proxies. 15,000."
Actually it was the USA interference in Ukraine (aka Nulandgate) that killed 15K Ukrainians, mainly Donbas residents
and badly trained recruits of the Ukrainian army sent to fight them, as well as volunteers of paramilitary "death squads" like Asov
battalion financed by oligarch Igor Kolomyskiy
In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means
much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump
slightly deviated.
Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close
relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together 1/2
RT.com, Jan. 30, 2020 has the back
story:
"Ciaramella, a CIA analyst, is widely believed to be the 'whistleblower' who kickstarted the
impeachment inquiry by alleging that Trump tried to strong-arm Zelensky into reopening a
corruption investigation into Joe Biden's son, Hunter, and his business activities in Ukraine."
[snip]
Schiff, the lead prosecutor in the impeachment trial, has both denied knowing the identity
of the whistleblower and called the report of Ciaramella's plot a "conspiracy theory." Schiff
has also repeatedly warned Republicans against naming the whistleblower, citing a need to
protect his or her identity – though no statutory requirement for that actually
exists.
However, Roberts' refusal to read Ciaramella's name and the media furor that followed Paul's
question – with mostly liberal pundits hounding the senator for "naming the
whistleblower" – all but confirms that he is indeed Schiff's source. Paul never mentioned
the term "whistleblower" in his written question, yet Roberts still refused to read
Ciaramella's name. Earlier, Roberts had vowed not to read any question that might "out" the
whistleblower."
RT had also linked to this
Jan. 22 2020 piece at realcrealinvestigations.com:
"Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst
whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the
anonymous "whistleblower" who touched off Trump's impeachment – was overheard in the
White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from
office, according to former colleagues.
Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean
Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign
policy and national security issues. And both expressed anger over Trump's new "America First"
foreign policy, a sea change from President Obama's approach to international affairs.
"Just days after he was sworn in they were already talking about trying to get rid of him,"
said a White House colleague who overheard their conversation.
"They weren't just bent on subverting his agenda," the former official added. "They were
plotting to actually have him removed from office."
Misko left the White House last summer to join House impeachment manager Adam Schiff's
committee, where sources say he offered "guidance" to the whistleblower, who has been
officially identified only as an intelligence officer in a complaint against Trump filed under
whistleblower laws. Misko then helped run the impeachment inquiry based on that complaint as a
top investigator for congressional Democrats." [snip]
"The coordination between the official believed to be the whistleblower and a key Democratic
staffer, details of which are disclosed here for the first time, undercuts the narrative that
impeachment developed spontaneously out of what Trump's Democratic antagonists call the
"patriotism" of an "apolitical civil servant."
Today's the day ♫the Teddy Bears have their picnic♪♫ Senate
will decide if any more witnesses will be permitted to testify/testilie...or not.
@The
Voice In the Wilderness well aware of Deep State machinations should they dare to
wander off the reservation. Dallas lesson has been learned -- maybe a little too well.
Dems also are aware their D president could be next -- in fact, one was already next, not
too long after Nixon, when the R Congress decided to seek revenge and impeach B Clinton over a
trivial personal dalliance. At least U=gate involves actual conduct by the president acting in
his official not personal capacity, so at least is sufficient enough for an argument on
impeachment grounds. Unfortunately for the Trump team, Alan Dershowitz' bizarre Louis XIV
defense makes for an embarrassing attempt at rebutting the charges.
"They weren't just bent on subverting his agenda," the former official added. "They
were plotting to actually have him removed from office."
And Pelosi and Schiff are co-conspirators.
They should be arrested by the FBI for conspiring to overthrow the elected government.
Democrats may feel that anything goes to get rid of Trump, but forget that they could be
next. No Democrat would be safe from Deep state machinations.
It's time to purge the intelligence agencies of anyone doing anything but actual data
gathering and analysis.
@wokkamile
The Washington "royal court" has degenerated so far that impeachment over trivialities (and
comparing them to his real crimes only proves the pettiness) has been established as the norm.
It is the Democrats who have crossed the line that should never be crossed. (actually it was
the Republicans who did with Clinton, but that was quickly forgotten.(but not punished) This
will not) America is now officially a failed state, a chaotic oligarchy where debauchery and
intrigue rules.
#1 well
aware of Deep State machinations should they dare to wander off the reservation. Dallas
lesson has been learned -- maybe a little too well.
Dems also are aware their D president could be next -- in fact, one was already next,
not too long after Nixon, when the R Congress decided to seek revenge and impeach B Clinton
over a trivial personal dalliance. At least U=gate involves actual conduct by the president
acting in his official not personal capacity, so at least is sufficient enough for an
argument on impeachment grounds. Unfortunately for the Trump team, Alan Dershowitz' bizarre
Louis XIV defense makes for an embarrassing attempt at rebutting the charges.
"...impeachment over trivialities (and comparing them to his real crimes only proves the
pettiness) has been established as the norm.
he belongs in the hague, with at least the last four presidents before him. but compared to
what biden actually did in ukraine. .
i'll just add this groaner, but big $$$ feature big time: ' Pompeo in Kiev: Ukrainians want
to be more than friends but Trump's team ain't interested' , jan. 31 , bryan macDonald
#1.1
The Washington "royal court" has degenerated so far that impeachment over trivialities (and
comparing them to his real crimes only proves the pettiness) has been established as the
norm. It is the Democrats who have crossed the line that should never be crossed. (actually
it was the Republicans who did with Clinton, but that was quickly forgotten.(but not
punished) This will not) America is now officially a failed state, a chaotic oligarchy
where debauchery and intrigue rules.
that's the same excuse obomabots used to give: "he had to do it to or they'd JFK him ! (bail
out the banks to the tune of $1,7 trillion, drone murder hundreds in afghanistan, (sorry for
the Bug Splat), and on down the list.
Hint to Presidential Hopefuls: if ya think ya might not be able to handle the heat: stay out
of the kitchen! and again, i can't imagine anyone believing they should be president, let alone
imaging they'd be 'good' at it, whatever that low bar means by now.
#1 well
aware of Deep State machinations should they dare to wander off the reservation. Dallas
lesson has been learned -- maybe a little too well.
Dems also are aware their D president could be next -- in fact, one was already next,
not too long after Nixon, when the R Congress decided to seek revenge and impeach B Clinton
over a trivial personal dalliance. At least U=gate involves actual conduct by the president
acting in his official not personal capacity, so at least is sufficient enough for an
argument on impeachment grounds. Unfortunately for the Trump team, Alan Dershowitz' bizarre
Louis XIV defense makes for an embarrassing attempt at rebutting the charges.
@The
Voice In the Wilderness are inextricably linked to the deep state. They sold their
souls long ago. If it ever comes to be a choice between a Democratic President and the deep
state, Pelosi and Schiff will do the bidding of the deep state.
"They weren't just bent on subverting his agenda," the former official added. "They
were plotting to actually have him removed from office."
And Pelosi and Schiff are co-conspirators.
They should be arrested by the FBI for conspiring to overthrow the elected government.
Democrats may feel that anything goes to get rid of Trump, but forget that they could be
next. No Democrat would be safe from Deep state machinations.
It's time to purge the intelligence agencies of anyone doing anything but actual data
gathering and analysis.
@Roy
Blakeley
Their puppeteering strings reach into the White House, both houses of Congress and the Supreme
Court.
Our elections are designed to manufacture consent and prevent change. The last President
to take steps to rein in the overreach of the CIA component of the deep state is probably going
to be the only one to challenge on our permanent government in a serious manner.
God help Bernie, if he should manage to get through the DNC gauntlet to occupy the White
House!
#1 are
inextricably linked to the deep state. They sold their souls long ago. If it ever comes to
be a choice between a Democratic President and the deep state, Pelosi and Schiff will do
the bidding of the deep state.
this piece of information did catch my attention. Regardless of which "side" wins, plotting
to "remove them" from the moment they do take office is a horrendous precedent to set.
Get out the popcorn because this development is worth watching.
and i'm pretty sure that it was the NY/CIA times that brought the 'whistleblower story'.
t'was that stellar paper of record that also brought the 'trump means to leave NATO anonymous
military insiders report' which immediately spawned 'the NATO defense' bill, unanimous 'aye'
vote in the senate.
but no new witnesses permitted, dagnabbit, we won't hear from CIA ciarmarella. so here's
whassup according to CNN (they have mcConnell's resolution):
closing arguments will be heard on feb. 3 for four hours, and the court will reconvene on
feb. 5 for a vote.
lol; on the left sidebar is:
About the final vote : A tentative agreement has been made for the acquittal vote to be held
next week. Closing arguments for both sides would occur Monday through Wednesday. The vote
would occur Wednesday afternoon.
save your popcorn for wednesday?
this piece of information did catch my attention. Regardless of which "side" wins,
plotting to "remove them" from the moment they do take office is a horrendous precedent to
set.
Get out the popcorn because this development is worth watching.
a real whistleblower because he is not in federal prison and Rachael Madcow is not calling
for him to be executed. He's a tool in a beltway pissing match.
said Waters right after Trump was elected so they went looking for a reason to do just
that.
"They weren't just bent on subverting his agenda," the former official added. "They were
plotting to actually have him removed from office."
Sure lots of the witnessed said that Trump did the deed and withheld aid to Ukraine when the
dems were questioning them. But on cross exam from the republicans they all admitted that they
did not have first hand knowledge of Trump saying that. Why the GOP isn't hammering on this is
beyond me. They could run ad after ad of Sondland saying that it was hs 'presumption' that
Trump wanted that done.
They should be arrested by the FBI for conspiring to overthrow the elected government.
So far the justice department has held no one accountable for abusing the FISA court. Page
should never have had a warrant taken out on his because he was working with the CIA at the
time it was. Comey leaked his conversation with Trump because he wanted Rosenstein to appoint a
special prosecutor. Comey committed a few other crimes and yet the justice department said that
he will go scott free.
Horowitz basically said that what happened was beyond the pale, but then he walked most of
it back and said let's just let bygones be bygones.
SO it now comes down to Durham and Barr to give the country some justice. But does anyone
actually believe that Barr will be allowed to trash the reputation of the FBI or the CIA? Of
course not.
Then there's Trump who has continued to play along with this farce and farce it has been.
WHy hasn't he fired all of the Obama holdovers that have been working to take him down as Ron
Paul alluded to? Why is his personal mouthpiece, Rudy allowed to go on Fox Snooze and lay out
the case instead of working with prosecutors to bring it to the American people?
I am saying this has been a farce committed on the American people by both parties who agree
that Russia did interfere with the election although no one has shown just how the did that.
Facebook ads and Wikileaks emails? Puleese! The new Cold War with Russia has always been the
goal and the consequences of it have been very damaging to our first amendment rights and to
people's liberties. I am so disgusted that too many people can't see through what is happening.
Not here. Kudos again to the site for seeing it for what it was. Now how to wake up the ones
who think Putin is actually running the president and his party.
Examples:
We'll be fighting against everything an emboldened Trump -- and Putin -- throw at us. It
means we unify behind the Democratic candidate for president except Tulsi
Gabbard
People also believe that Vlad got Britains to vote for Brexit. Nothing like telling people
that they are too stupid to know what they are voting for.
Now Nancy should rescind the invitation to the State of the Union?
The GOP under orders from tRump/Putin are destroying everything in their path that holds
America together.
SMDH!! Seriously how can grown adults believe that?
Bolton is saying that Trump told him to get info on democrats though everyone involved in
the meeting deny it happened. Here's the part:
Over several pages, Mr. Bolton laid out Mr. Trump's fixation on Ukraine and the
president's belief, based on a mix of scattershot events, assertions and
outright conspiracy theories, that Ukraine tried to undermine his chances of winning the
presidency in 2016.
In 2014, Hunter joined the board of Burisma, which was then mired in a corruption
scandal . Authorities in Ukraine, Britain and the United States had opened investigations
into the company's operations. Mr. Zlochevsky had also been accused of marshaling
government contracts to companies he owned and embezzling public money.
At the time of his board appointment, the younger Mr. Biden had just been discharged
from the Navy Reserve for drug use. He had no apparent experience in Ukraine or natural
gas. And while accepting the board position was legal, it reportedly raised some eyebrows
in the Obama administration. The Burisma board position was lucrative: Mr. Biden received
payments that reached up to $50,000 per month.
(hmm no CT there)
"The server, they say Ukraine has it," Mr. Trump said, according to notes describing the
call.
There is no evidence to support Mr. Trump's assertions, which have spread widely
online.
Okay this part is not true. However there were numerous articles written in 2015 about how
people with ties to Hillary did try to derail Trump's election and they wrote how Ukraine now
having mud on their faces were worried about how Trump would work with them. As for the 'hit
job' on the US ambassador to Ukraine and getting her fired, that apparently happened a year
before Trump actually fired after word of her bad mouthing Trump got back to him. Don't people
serve at the pleasure of the president? And can't he have someone that works with him in place
instead of working against him? Yep.
Back to the book:
Mr. Trump also repeatedly made national security decisions contrary to American
interests,
Ahh yes back to Trump not sending weapons to Ukraine that can not be used on the front line
and are now still sitting in a warehouse in Kiev. But who decides US policy? And how did not
sending them weapons hurt national security? Oh yeah according to Schiff we have to fight the
Russian over there instead of fighting them here even though there hasn't been a lot of
fighting since 2014 or 15. But whatever. Now just imagine Russia overthrowing the president of
Mexico and installing a Russian friendly president and then tried to get him into whatever the
Russian federation is. Countries want Ukraine to become part of NATO. Yeah great idea. On
Russia's border. R2P in case Russia did something and wham we are off to WWIII.
The New York Times reported this week on another revelation from Mr. Bolton's book draft:
that Mr. Trump told him in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in
security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into
Democrats including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter.
Lots of reports that democrats were skimming tax paid funds meant for Ukraine into their
pockets including Biden taking $900,000 for his lobbying group. Pelosi's son was involved as
were some member of the GOP. If corruption happened I'd like the pres to look into it and
especially because of how bad the Ukraine economy is after Obama's brutal coup and the millions
there that are suffering. Maybe that's just me.
But how is this being interpreted?
That information includes how Donald Trump ordered Bolton to squeeze Ukrainian officials
for damaging slander of political opponents two months earlier than was known. T
And I'd like to send Bolton to Gitmo so he can review again his position that waterboarding
isn't torture. After about a dozen sessions he can tell us.
Trump has a lot of problems. One is trusting those neocon scum.
Bolton is saying that Trump told him to get info on democrats though everyone involved
in the meeting deny it happened. Here's the part:
Over several pages, Mr. Bolton laid out Mr. Trump's fixation on Ukraine and the
president's belief, based on a mix of scattershot events, assertions and
outright conspiracy theories, that Ukraine tried to undermine his chances of winning
the presidency in 2016.
In 2014, Hunter joined the board of Burisma, which was then mired in a corruption
scandal . Authorities in Ukraine, Britain and the United States had opened
investigations into the company's operations. Mr. Zlochevsky had also been accused of
marshaling government contracts to companies he owned and embezzling public money.
At the time of his board appointment, the younger Mr. Biden had just been discharged
from the Navy Reserve for drug use. He had no apparent experience in Ukraine or natural
gas. And while accepting the board position was legal, it reportedly raised some
eyebrows in the Obama administration. The Burisma board position was lucrative: Mr.
Biden received payments that reached up to $50,000 per month.
(hmm no CT there)
"The server, they say Ukraine has it," Mr. Trump said, according to notes describing
the call.
There is no evidence to support Mr. Trump's assertions, which have spread widely
online.
Okay this part is not true. However there were numerous articles written in 2015 about
how people with ties to Hillary did try to derail Trump's election and they wrote how
Ukraine now having mud on their faces were worried about how Trump would work with them. As
for the 'hit job' on the US ambassador to Ukraine and getting her fired, that apparently
happened a year before Trump actually fired after word of her bad mouthing Trump got back
to him. Don't people serve at the pleasure of the president? And can't he have someone that
works with him in place instead of working against him? Yep.
Back to the book:
Mr. Trump also repeatedly made national security decisions contrary to American
interests,
Ahh yes back to Trump not sending weapons to Ukraine that can not be used on the front
line and are now still sitting in a warehouse in Kiev. But who decides US policy? And how
did not sending them weapons hurt national security? Oh yeah according to Schiff we have to
fight the Russian over there instead of fighting them here even though there hasn't been a
lot of fighting since 2014 or 15. But whatever. Now just imagine Russia overthrowing the
president of Mexico and installing a Russian friendly president and then tried to get him
into whatever the Russian federation is. Countries want Ukraine to become part of NATO.
Yeah great idea. On Russia's border. R2P in case Russia did something and wham we are off
to WWIII.
The New York Times reported this week on another revelation from Mr. Bolton's book
draft: that Mr. Trump told him in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million
in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into
Democrats including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter.
Lots of reports that democrats were skimming tax paid funds meant for Ukraine into their
pockets including Biden taking $900,000 for his lobbying group. Pelosi's son was involved
as were some member of the GOP. If corruption happened I'd like the pres to look into it
and especially because of how bad the Ukraine economy is after Obama's brutal coup and the
millions there that are suffering. Maybe that's just me.
But how is this being interpreted?
That information includes how Donald Trump ordered Bolton to squeeze Ukrainian
officials for damaging slander of political opponents two months earlier than was known.
T
i've gotten my tit into a time wringer, as they say around here (and if you've ever had that
happen while using an electric wringer washer, you'll know what i mean). the stack of mending
near the sewing machine had reached critical mass, then mr. wd had come home for lunch with
nuttin' scavenged from the fridge and so on.
by now, having been awake again since 3:30, i need some rest. back later.
(Signed, the former bald avian, now flying under the radar).
i've gotten my tit into a time wringer, as they say around here (and if you've ever had
that happen while using an electric wringer washer, you'll know what i mean). the stack of
mending near the sewing machine had reached critical mass, then mr. wd had come home for
lunch with nuttin' scavenged from the fridge and so on.
by now, having been awake again since 3:30, i need some rest. back later.
Back in November 2019, the whistleblower's handlers were trying to hide hisidentity so
people wouldn't realize Eric Ciaramella, National Security Council member, had an office in the
Obama White House during the final year of Obama's presidency. While there, Ciaramella was
involved in Ukraine's meddling in the US Presidential Election, on behalf of Hillary
Clinton.
This past December, 2019, the Democrats were puffing up with the urgency of finding the
right impeachment charge to wage against President Trump -- one that sounded like a real crime
people can envision.
Just a few blocks away, Judicial Watch was pouring over FOIA docs and analyzing the 2016
Obama White House visitor logs that had just arrived. The visitor logs revealed frequent
meetings between CIA operative Eric Ciaramella and a parade of State Department spooks who were
operating in Ukraine. Other frequent visitors included the Soros-funded social engineers and
marginal Ukrainian officials who were running their various cons and payoffs in both
countries.
Ciaramella began operating out of the White House in 2015 -- and continued through 2016,
when he Russia Hoax was hatched. He returned to the CIA when the Trump administration arrived
in 2017. There, we loose track of him until summer of 2019, when he would turn up transformed
into a whistleblower of hearsay, frightened for his life because he had overheard someone
talking about a banal conversation that President Trump had with another President on the
telephone. I don't think anyone felt very threatened.
The 2016 White House logs reveal a much clearer picture of the political shenanigans
Ciaramella was engaged in. The logs reveal frequent meetings with Alexandra Chalupa, a
contractor hired by the DNC during the 2016 election. Chalupa would later coordinated with
corrupt Ukrainian officials to smuggle evidence to the US that could be used against President
Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort. It was going to be a very important election
year, filled with spying and lying and geopolitical chaos. Chalupa would visit the White House
27 times that year.
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Eric Ciaramella
while he was detailed to the Obama White House:
Daria Kaleniuk: Co-founder and executive director of the Soros-funded Anticorruption
Action Center (AntAC) in Ukraine. She visited on December 9, 2015. (The Hill reported that in
April 2016, during the U.S. presidential race, the U.S. Embassy under Obama in Kiev, "took
the rare step of trying to press the Ukrainian government to back off its investigation of
both the U.S. aid and (AntAC).")
Gina Lentine: Now a senior program officer at Freedom House, she was formerly the Eurasia
program coordinator at Soros funded Open Society Foundations . She visited on March 16,
2016.
Rachel Goldbrenner: Now an NYU law professor, she was at that time an advisor to
then-Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power. She visited on both January 15, 2016
and August 8, 2016.
Orly Keiner: A foreign affairs officer at the State Department who is a Russia specialist.
She is also the wife of State Department Legal Advisor James P. Bair. She visited on both
March 4, 2016 and June 20, 2015.
Nazar Kholodnitzky: The lead anti-corruption prosecutor in Ukraine. He visited on January
19, 2016.On March 7, 2019, The Associated Press reported that the then-U.S. ambassador to
Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch called for him to be fired.
Michael Kimmage: Professor of History at Catholic University of America, at the time was
with the State Department's policy planning staff where specialized in Russia and Ukraine
issues. He is a fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He was also one of the signatories to the
Transatlantic Democracy Working Group Statement of Principles. He visited on October 26,
2015.
Victoria Nuland : who at the time was assistant secretary of state for European and
Eurasian Affairs met with Ciaramella on June 17, 2016.
(Judicial Watch has previously uncovered documents revealing Nuland had an extensive
involvement with Clinton-funded dossier. Judicial Watch also released documents revealing
that Nuland was involved in the Obama State Department's "urgent" gathering of classified
Russia investigation information and disseminating it to members of Congress within hours of
Trump taking office.)
Artem Sytnyk: the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau director visited on January 19,
2016.
On October 7, 2019, the Daily Wire reported leaked tapes show Sytnyk confirming that the
Ukrainians helped the Clinton campaign.
.
By the middle of the 2016, according to the White House visitor logs, Alexandra Chalupa,
then a DNC contractor, was setting up her own meetings in the White House. On May 4, 2016,
Chalupa emailed DNC official Luis Miranda to inform him that she had spoken to investigative
journalists about Paul Manafort in Ukraine. The Trump campaign was being spied on by then, and
in a few months the scheme to cast suspicion on Trump because Manafort had consulted years
earlier with Ukraine's 'ethnic-Russian' President, snapped into place. The unholy ghost of faux
Russian collusion was born in the summer of 2016, and it would haunt America, and cripple it
intellectually, for many long years to come.
The timing was such that this evidence of election sabotage in 2016 happened to surfaced in
the midst of the impeachment hearings in December 2019. In announcing the evidence,
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statemen t:
Judicial Watch's analysis of Obama White House visitor logs raises additional questions
about the Obama administration, Ukraine and the related impeachment scheme targeting
President Trump. Both Mr. Ciaramella and Ms. Chalupa should be questioned about the meetings
documented in these visitor logs.
.
These are not the impeachment witnesses that the Democrats had in mind.
"We don't look at sites that debunk what we believe to be the truth." Kinda like consortium
news, Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald and every one else who has debunked every damn thing about
Russia Gate.
Careful there, Pluto, any criticism of Soros is anti Semitic. So what if he has been behind
all the violent color revolutions he's off limits for criticism. Yup....
Also that little black book that Alexandra found that was tied to Paul Manafort was never
verified that it did. No matter...he did bad things. Like tried to get the Ukraine president to
accept the EU deal instead of the Russia was offering.
Marie Yovanovitch called for him to be fired.
Karma baby!
These are not the impeachment witnesses that the Democrats had in mind.
Would the republicans have called for those witnesses if it had ever gotten that far? I'm
sure that if we know what we do then the republicans know it too. Lindsay was going to have
Biden testify, but then he changed his mind and wanted him protected.
In addition to the brutal coup it was a crime spree where lots of people had their sticky
fingers in the money pie. Lots of money laundering happened with that money meant for the
Ukraine people who are suffering with economy problems since it happened. I was hoping that
this information would come out, but now I wonder if it would have even mattered to the people
who have had their minds made up since they first heard about this?
Or do they not know how exposed they are?
Back in November 2019, the whistleblower's handlers were trying to hide hisidentity so
people wouldn't realize Eric Ciaramella, National Security Council member, had an office in
the Obama White House during the final year of Obama's presidency. While there, Ciaramella
was involved in Ukraine's meddling in the US Presidential Election, on behalf of Hillary
Clinton.
This past December, 2019, the Democrats were puffing up with the urgency of finding the
right impeachment charge to wage against President Trump -- one that sounded like a real
crime people can envision.
Just a few blocks away, Judicial Watch was pouring over FOIA docs and analyzing the 2016
Obama White House visitor logs that had just arrived. The visitor logs revealed frequent
meetings between CIA operative Eric Ciaramella and a parade of State Department spooks who
were operating in Ukraine. Other frequent visitors included the Soros-funded social
engineers and marginal Ukrainian officials who were running their various cons and payoffs
in both countries.
Ciaramella began operating out of the White House in 2015 -- and continued through 2016,
when he Russia Hoax was hatched. He returned to the CIA when the Trump administration
arrived in 2017. There, we loose track of him until summer of 2019, when he would turn up
transformed into a whistleblower of hearsay, frightened for his life because he had
overheard someone talking about a banal conversation that President Trump had with another
President on the telephone. I don't think anyone felt very threatened.
The 2016 White House logs reveal a much clearer picture of the political shenanigans
Ciaramella was engaged in. The logs reveal frequent meetings with Alexandra Chalupa, a
contractor hired by the DNC during the 2016 election. Chalupa would later coordinated with
corrupt Ukrainian officials to smuggle evidence to the US that could be used against
President Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort. It was going to be a very
important election year, filled with spying and lying and geopolitical chaos. Chalupa would
visit the White House 27 times that year.
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Eric
Ciaramella while he was detailed to the Obama White House:
Daria Kaleniuk: Co-founder and executive director of the Soros-funded Anticorruption
Action Center (AntAC) in Ukraine. She visited on December 9, 2015. (The Hill reported
that in April 2016, during the U.S. presidential race, the U.S. Embassy under Obama in
Kiev, "took the rare step of trying to press the Ukrainian government to back off its
investigation of both the U.S. aid and (AntAC).")
Gina Lentine: Now a senior program officer at Freedom House, she was formerly the
Eurasia program coordinator at Soros funded Open Society Foundations . She visited on
March 16, 2016.
Rachel Goldbrenner: Now an NYU law professor, she was at that time an advisor to
then-Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power. She visited on both January 15,
2016 and August 8, 2016.
Orly Keiner: A foreign affairs officer at the State Department who is a Russia
specialist. She is also the wife of State Department Legal Advisor James P. Bair. She
visited on both March 4, 2016 and June 20, 2015.
Nazar Kholodnitzky: The lead anti-corruption prosecutor in Ukraine. He visited on
January 19, 2016.On March 7, 2019, The Associated Press reported that the then-U.S.
ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch called for him to be fired.
Michael Kimmage: Professor of History at Catholic University of America, at the time
was with the State Department's policy planning staff where specialized in Russia and
Ukraine issues. He is a fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He was also one of the
signatories to the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group Statement of Principles. He
visited on October 26, 2015.
Victoria Nuland : who at the time was assistant secretary of state for European and
Eurasian Affairs met with Ciaramella on June 17, 2016.
(Judicial Watch has previously uncovered documents revealing Nuland had an
extensive involvement with Clinton-funded dossier. Judicial Watch also released documents
revealing that Nuland was involved in the Obama State Department's "urgent" gathering of
classified Russia investigation information and disseminating it to members of Congress
within hours of Trump taking office.)
Artem Sytnyk: the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau director visited on January 19,
2016.
On October 7, 2019, the Daily Wire reported leaked tapes show Sytnyk confirming that the
Ukrainians helped the Clinton campaign.
.
By the middle of the 2016, according to the White House visitor logs, Alexandra Chalupa,
then a DNC contractor, was setting up her own meetings in the White House. On May 4, 2016,
Chalupa emailed DNC official Luis Miranda to inform him that she had spoken to
investigative journalists about Paul Manafort in Ukraine. The Trump campaign was being
spied on by then, and in a few months the scheme to cast suspicion on Trump because
Manafort had consulted years earlier with Ukraine's 'ethnic-Russian' President, snapped
into place. The unholy ghost of faux Russian collusion was born in the summer of 2016, and
it would haunt America, and cripple it intellectually, for many long years to come.
The timing was such that this evidence of election sabotage in 2016 happened to surfaced
in the midst of the impeachment hearings in December 2019. In announcing the evidence,
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statemen t:
Judicial Watch's analysis of Obama White House visitor logs raises additional
questions about the Obama administration, Ukraine and the related impeachment scheme
targeting President Trump. Both Mr. Ciaramella and Ms. Chalupa should be questioned about
the meetings documented in these visitor logs.
.
These are not the impeachment witnesses that the Democrats had in mind.
But, I follow evidence. And they document the evidence.
How they interpret it is a problem. They have no 'First Principle' to guide them.
@snoopydawg
As for witnesses, there is so much askew here that I am beginning to think the DC people are
hopeless.
Like, do the Republicans know that Eric Ciaramella is dating Adam Schiff's daughter?
Do they know that Members of Parliament have been trying to confess in detail to what they
did to rig the 2016 US elections? They did a lot of stuff. It's crazy,
"We don't look at sites that debunk what we believe to be the truth." Kinda like
consortium news, Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald and every one else who has debunked every damn
thing about Russia Gate.
Careful there, Pluto, any criticism of Soros is anti Semitic. So what if he has been
behind all the violent color revolutions he's off limits for criticism. Yup....
Also that little black book that Alexandra found that was tied to Paul Manafort was
never verified that it did. No matter...he did bad things. Like tried to get the Ukraine
president to accept the EU deal instead of the Russia was offering.
Marie Yovanovitch called for him to be fired.
Karma baby!
These are not the impeachment witnesses that the Democrats had in mind.
Would the republicans have called for those witnesses if it had ever gotten that far?
I'm sure that if we know what we do then the republicans know it too. Lindsay was going to
have Biden testify, but then he changed his mind and wanted him protected.
In addition to the brutal coup it was a crime spree where lots of people had their
sticky fingers in the money pie. Lots of money laundering happened with that money meant
for the Ukraine people who are suffering with economy problems since it happened. I was
hoping that this information would come out, but now I wonder if it would have even
mattered to the people who have had their minds made up since they first heard about
this?
But, I follow evidence. And they document the evidence.
Is Adam's daughter really dating Eric? Literally LMAO.
But I did know that Ukraine has opened an investigation into Biden and son. Hopefully they
will get to exposing all of the people involved in the corruption from both parties.
But, I follow evidence. And they document the evidence.
How they interpret it is a problem. They have no 'First Principle' to guide them.
#7.1
As for witnesses, there is so much askew here that I am beginning to think the DC people
are hopeless.
Like, do the Republicans know that Eric Ciaramella is dating Adam Schiff's daughter?
Do they know that Members of Parliament have been trying to confess in detail to what
they did to rig the 2016 US elections? They did a lot of stuff. It's crazy,
The holes in the
Democrats' impeachment case were apparent from the start, and the House proceedings and
Senate trial brought them to the fore. The lone witness who communicated with Trump about the
frozen military funding to Ukraine -- and, even more crucially, the only Trump official
thought to have relayed a quid pro quo to the Ukrainian side -- is EU Ambassador Gordon
Sondland. But Sondland testified that the link between aid and the opening of investigations
was only his " presumption" and that he had communicated this presumption only in
passing. Ukrainian officials, including President Volodymyr Zelensky, Foreign Minister
Vadym Prystaiko, and Zelensky aide Andriy Yermak, have all said that they saw no ties between
the frozen funding and pressure to open investigations.
In the face of rejections by top Ukrainian officials of his core allegation, Schiff has
LIED mischaracterized the available evidence and engaged in supposition. Sondland,
according to Schiff's account, told Yermak, " You ain't getting the money until you do the
investigations." But both Sondland and Yermak offer a radically different account. According
to Sondland, he told Yermak in "a very, very brief pull-aside conversation," that he "didn't
know exactly why" the military funding was held up, and that its linkage to opening an
investigation was only his "personal presumption" in the absence of an explanation from
Trump. Yermak does not even recall the issue of the frozen aid being mentioned.
and now all you brainiacs with huge memory head spaces are giving us homework? can i rent
some of yours?
way-ull. there seems to be some disagreement as to the additional witnesses. ooopsie:
update: roll call's impeachment news
roundup says: Senate votes against motion to call witnesses
Updated 5:43 p.m.
The Senate is in recess after a motion to call witnesses at the impeachment trial of
President Donald Trump was unsuccessful Friday evening, on a 49-51 vote.
murkowski and collins wanted to hear from john bolton, but now the arguments slide into if,
and how much time, to allot for closing arguments. so who knows how long it will drag on?
didn't see anything about #ciarmarella, sadly. guess that un's a Dead Duck?
but wasn't it great that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court let it slip that EC IS the
CIA whistleblower? file under: Ooopsie.
Chief Justice Roberts said he wouldn't read any questions that outed the whistleblower - and
his very refusal outed the whistleblower.
and now all you brainiacs with huge memory head spaces are giving us homework? can i
rent some of yours?
way-ull. there seems to be some disagreement as to the additional witnesses. ooopsie:
update: roll call's impeachment news
roundup says: Senate votes against motion to call witnesses
Updated 5:43 p.m.
The Senate is in recess after a motion to call witnesses at the impeachment trial of
President Donald Trump was unsuccessful Friday evening, on a 49-51 vote.
murkowski and collins wanted to hear from john bolton, but now the arguments slide into
if, and how much time, to allot for closing arguments. so who knows how long it will drag
on? didn't see anything about #ciarmarella, sadly. guess that un's a Dead Duck?
but wasn't it great that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court let it slip that EC IS
the CIA whistleblower? file under: Ooopsie.
@wendy
davis
vindictiveness will lead to a purge at the CIA. They seem way more involved in domestic
politics than foreign intelligence gathering.
and now all you brainiacs with huge memory head spaces are giving us homework? can i
rent some of yours?
way-ull. there seems to be some disagreement as to the additional witnesses. ooopsie:
update: roll call's impeachment news
roundup says: Senate votes against motion to call witnesses
Updated 5:43 p.m.
The Senate is in recess after a motion to call witnesses at the impeachment trial of
President Donald Trump was unsuccessful Friday evening, on a 49-51 vote.
murkowski and collins wanted to hear from john bolton, but now the arguments slide into
if, and how much time, to allot for closing arguments. so who knows how long it will drag
on? didn't see anything about #ciarmarella, sadly. guess that un's a Dead Duck?
but wasn't it great that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court let it slip that EC IS
the CIA whistleblower? file under: Ooopsie.
Ukrainian nationalists serve as the Trojan horse of neoliberal globalization and fleecing the
nation by international corporations and institutions. Ukraine now is a deft slave.
Like A Canadian identity amounted to 'we're not American', Ukrainian identity is limited to
"We are not Russians".
Putting yourself in the mind of someone who commits an act of illegality is perhaps the only
way we can begin to understand the motivation behind the transgression. A common reflex
reaction to the most heinous of crimes is to simply call for the perpetrator to be removed from
society and put in prison. Out of sight, out of mind. Whilst this is not an unreasonable
expectation, it does not get to the root of why he or she became a criminal.
We can take a similar stance when it comes to globalism. If a self appointed elite who
permeate institutions like the Bank for International Settlements and the IMF share a desire to
concentrate world power through a centralized network of global governance, rather than simply
rebel against this vision is it not equally as important to try and understand the vision from
the perspective of those who created it? I would argue that to comprehend the minds of global
planners it is necessary to mentally place yourself into their way of thinking.
A couple of years ago I published an article called,
Order Out of Chaos: A Look at the Trilateral Commission , where I examined some of the key
motivations behind this particular institution's goals. I quoted past members of the Commission
openly rejecting national sovereignty and championing the interdependence of nations. One of
those quotes was from Sadako Ogata, a former member of the Trilateral Commission's Executive
Committee, who at an event to mark 25 years of the institution remarked how ' international
interdependence requires new and more intensive forms of international cooperation to
counteract economic and political nationalism '.
Shortly after the Trilateral Commission was founded in 1973, one of its members, Richard
Gardner, wrote an essay for Foreign Affairs magazine (the official publication of the Council
on Foreign Relations). In ' The Hard Road to
World Order ' , Gardner emphasised the objective of dismantling national sovereignty:
In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than
from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William
James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it
piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.
With Britain in the process of leaving the European Union, you could argue that one of the
main planks of the Commission's agenda has failed. If the global elite want the integration of
European nations, and for the majority of those nations to be controlled through a centralised
behemoth like the EU, surely seeing the UK become independent from the union goes against
everything they believe in? Not necessarily.
Back in 2014 and before globalists began touting political protectionism / nationalism as a
danger to financial stability, the Trilateral Commission published a paper called,' Credible
European Governance '. Within the paper the UK's membership of the single market is
discussed, an issue which has been central to the narrative on Brexit since the referendum:
A debate on competences has been launched by the British government on Britain's future
position in Europe where reference is made to the Single Market. Today, most EU countries
accept that the euro area represents what President Van Rompuy calls the "symbolic heart of
the European Union". For the United Kingdom, the single market is the essence of the EU. Can
these two visions continue to coexist within the EU, now that the euro area is surmounting
its "existential crisis"?
I asked in 2017 whether this passage in particular was not only questioning the UK's
position inside the single market, but by extension it's membership of the European Union. It
was the same paper that quoted Jean Monnet, one of the founding fathers of the European
Union:
People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognize necessity
when crisis is upon them.
As I have discussed in previous articles, this philosophy gives credence to the theory that
crisis scenarios, rather than being a detriment to the aspirations of globalists, present an
opportunity to further their grip on power.
At the latter end of 2015, just months before the EU referendum, the Commission produced
another paper conceived by four David Rockefeller fellows – ' EUROPE'S NEW NORMAL:
SIMULTANEOUS CRISES THAT THREATEN TO UNRAVEL THE EU '. The authors wrote at length about
the growing distrust of ' ever closer union ' following the European debt crisis that
originated after the collapse of Lehman Brothers:
Many Europeans have come to suspect that the EU's institutions have become overly powerful
and some think that they have even used the latest crises for a further power grab.
A solution put forward by the fellows was that ' some flow into the opposite direction might
help Europeans to regain trust in the European process '.
One interpretation of this remark is that countries be granted a platform to express their
grievances with the European Union, perhaps even to the point of seeking renewed independence
or opting to withdraw from the bloc altogether. From their own perspective the union desires
a sharing of sovereignty rather than individual expressions of it. Therefore, a nation
instigating a greater level of autonomy (dubbed protectionism / populism in some quarters)
might eventually suffer lasting consequences given the steadfast and federalist nature of the
supranational EU. Over time countries demonstrating more nationalistic tendencies could quite
easily unravel into crisis. Especially if separation from the union results in a nation being
compromised economically. In this scenario, might those same Europeans opposed to further
integration become more receptive to the idea?
The ultimate question then is whether the outbreak of a 'crisis' is organic, in the sense
that it happens beyond the control of government and globalist institutions. Or whether
instances such as Brexit were designed to happen to further the agenda for more power. You
may ask why the UK would be permitted to leave the EU when the objective is for ' ever closer
union '. But without Brexit and further instances of a rise in ' populism ', calls for reform
have no traction. Crisis must either originate or be instigated to achieve the desired
response from the electorate. Calling for reform inside a vacuum of no discernible unrest on
a geopolitical level leaves institutions like the EU exposed to greater scrutiny.
Here, Chatham House observed that ' the process of globalization demanded that all states
adapt to being part of a shared project and subject themselves to its norms and laws ', and
that ' the European Union became the vanguard of this process of post‑nationalism .'
They identified that European identity was essentially anti-nationalist in nature. But the
growth of nationalism witnessed throughout Europe over the past five years has distorted this
belief. Combating it will require ' investing over the coming years in the legitimacy of major
international institutions such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and the
International Monetary Fund .'
According to Chatham House, without investment, ' these institutions will find they are
increasingly ineffective .' In short, the advent of a new wave of nationalism has created a
narrative that global bodies will require more power to shore up both trade and economic
stability now and into the future.
At the same time this article was published, it was announced at the World Economic Forum
that businessman George Soros is to launch a ' global network of
higher education ' against nationalism , with investment of $1 billion. By coincidence or
otherwise, Chatham House is involved in the initiative. Here is what Soros himself said about
it:
I believe that as a long-term strategy our best hope lies in access to quality education,
specifically an education that reinforces the autonomy of the individual by cultivating
critical thinking and emphasising academic freedom.
The tide turned against open societies after the crash of 2008 because it constituted a
failure of international co-operation. This in turn led to the rise of nationalism, the great
enemy of open society.
But is a resurgence of nationalism really the ' great enemy ' that Soros makes out, given
that crisis on a global scale invariably leads to opportunity? One example is from an op-ed
written by former IMF Deputy Director Mohamed A. El-Erian, who in 2017 questioned whether a
rise in populism and nationalism throughout the world could be remedied by revamping the IMF's
Special Drawing Rights:
So, do today's anti-globalisation winds – caused in part by poor global policy
coordination in the context of too many years of low and insufficiently inclusive growth
– create scope for enhancing the SDR's role and potential contributions?
We have seen as well how the EU and the World Trade Organisation have
presented proposals for the wide scale reformation of the WTO in the wake of renewed
nationalism. And as regular readers will know, central banks led by the BIS and IMF are rapidly
advancing plans to reform global payment systems and introduce digital currencies. These were
not public considerations prior to the likes of Brexit. They only started to gather momentum
after nationalism became a permanent fixture on the geopolitical landscape.
The overriding sentiment from globalists has been that a combination of political and
economic protectionism is a direct threat to financial stability. The IMF, the BIS and the
World Bank have all over recent months been ramping up warnings about the dangers of an
impending economic downturn. Two weeks ago the IMF's new Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva
commented at the Peterson Institute of International Economics in Washington :
We have to learn the lessons of history while adapting them for our times. We know that
excessive inequality hinders growth and hollows out a country's foundations. It erodes trust
within society and institutions. It can fuel populism and political upheaval.
Now is the time to put yourself into the mind of a globalist. Whether it be the Innovation
BIS 2025 project or the UN's Agenda 2030 sustainability goals, what circumstances would benefit
these people the most in furthering their ambitions? What would have to occur for the elite to
gain widespread public support for policies that would fundamentally change our way of life? If
an increased break out of trade protectionism and political populism triggered an economic
collapse, would this impair the autonomy of global institutions? Or would it serve to
reinvigorate them in the sense of scapegoating nationalism as being responsible for the rupture
of the ' rules based global order ' founded after World War Two?
From a globalist perspective, national sovereignty – the independent nation state
– has no place in an interconnected world. It is an outmoded concept. The goal is always
to further centralise power. But by what means exactly?
Recall what Richard Gardner said back in 1974: ' an end run around national sovereignty,
eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault
.'
The institutions cited in this article are not ignorant to the plight of the global economy.
The policies enacted since 2008, from near zero interest rates and trillions of dollars in
quantitative easing measures to rising interest rates and quantitative tightening, has brought
the financial system to where it is today.
Central banks know perfectly well the effect their policies have on the health of economies
, evidenced by comments from Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell back in 2012:
Right now, we are buying the market, effectively, and private capital will begin to leave
that activity and find something else to do. So when it is time for us to sell, or even to
stop buying, the response could be quite strong; there is every reason to expect a strong
response.
Meanwhile, we look like we are blowing a fixed-income duration bubble right across the
credit spectrum that will result in big losses when rates come up down the road. You can
almost say that that is our strategy.
From a UK standpoint, the country's departure from the EU may appear on the surface to be
rallying against the tide of globalism. But my concern is that globalists will successfully
manage to position Brexit and the spectre of a global trade conflict as causes for an economic
collapse, when in fact it is monetary policy over the last twelve years which will be the
primary culprit.
Rather than heavy handedly marching into western nations and claiming their sovereignty, I
would be concerned that the global elite will allow nationalist movements to fall on their own
sword, and for the onset of a series of crises to consume geopolitics throughout the next
decade. The job then would be to implement a whole raft of reforms and to educate the next
generation on the perils of self determination.
The realisation of a ' new world order ' means tearing down existing structures, or at the
very least jeopardising them to the point of collapse, to facilitate the new. Out of resurgent
nationalism may come a swathe of centralised directives that make today's level of
globalisation seem tame by comparison.
Depends on your definitions. But although the elites prefer the bigger cartel to run, with
no competition on tax levels and freedoms, they are also quiet happy for nationalistic, flag
waving, I'm happy to die for my country and **** them others nationalism. These wars of the
past were pretty profitable for those whipping up the masses. And it is an easy scape goat if
you have ruined and plundered the economy.
They are not going to take the blame themselves for the economic disaster taking place
after extracting trillions out of the hands of citizens for a green new deal.
Foreigners are easy to blame. With globalism, who will they blame?
As repellent as Trump and his policies are, the Democrats' impeachment bid deserves to fail
because they did not attempt to impeach Bush II, whose offences were far graver.
My prediction: Trump will beat the impeachment. If Bernie were, by a miracle, to get the
nomination, he could beat him. If the Democratic establishment scuppers Bernie in favour of a
right-wing Democrat who offers little to blue-collar workers, their chance of winning will be
slim. HRC, as a war-and-Wall Street type, would surely go down like a lead balloon with the
'battlers'.
"... This gave meaning to the quote from Larry Johnson from "Intelligence: The Human Factor" by Col Lang. "Be quick to ask ask why and insist on hard empirical evidence to corroborate or refute a statement claimed as fact. Hopefully, you will discover that National Security is not based on on deploying the the most technologically sophisticated metal detector or hiring new thousands of new specialists -- but on freedom and " the rule of law". The freedoms we enjoy belong to citizens who know their rights and understand how their government works." ..."
I agree with you. I saw elements of the color
revolution that the previous administration used to destabilize governments being used in the
U.S. at that time. It seems the man behind the curtain is using skilled rhetoric, linguistics,
NLP, persuasion principles and hypnosis tactics. These tactics are are also pointedly being
used, to get around the law and and any meaningful accountability. This appears to being done
in a coordinated, organized and continuous method.
This gave meaning to the quote from Larry Johnson from "Intelligence: The Human Factor" by
Col Lang. "Be quick to ask ask why and insist on hard empirical evidence to corroborate or
refute a statement claimed as fact. Hopefully, you will discover that National Security is not
based on on deploying the the most technologically sophisticated metal detector or hiring new
thousands of new specialists -- but on freedom and " the rule of law". The freedoms we enjoy
belong to citizens who know their rights and understand how their government works."
This Youtube breakdown of Adam Schiff's closing statement, gives insight into some of the
tactics I am speaking of, better than I could explain it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U0ipS5gjmDc
"... So we are to know nothing about an accuser, his history, his motives, his loyalties? It seems that servants of the deep state are to be believed and protected without question... ..."
"... Let's be clear ~ Whistleblower/CIA who started this plan in January 2016... probably mentored by Brennan. ..."
"... This whole impeachment is sham much like the Russian investigation, it is clear just from the actions that we all have witnessed that the US intelligence agencies are guilty of attempting to overthrow the elected government. ..."
Update (1:45 p.m.): Paul was once again denied a question about whistleblower Eric
Ciaramella by Chief Justice Roberts during Thursday's round of impeachment questions in the
Senate.
He refused to read the question @RandPaul : "My question today is
about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama NSC and Democrat partisans
conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal
House impeachment proceedings." pic.twitter.com/8FIcu47PBl
Paul then took to Twitter - writing "My question today is about whether or not individuals
who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired
with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House
impeachment proceedings."
My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama
National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot
impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.
" Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close
relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you
aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to
plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings. "
***
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was spitting mad Wednesday night after Chief Justice John Roberts
blocked his question concerning the CIA whistleblower at the heart of the impeachment of
President Trump.
According to both Politico
and The Hill , Roberts told Senators that he wouldn't read Paul's question, or any
other question which would require him to publicly say the whistleblower's name or otherwise
reveal his identity - which has been widely reported as CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella, who worked
for the National Security Council under the Obama and Trump administrations - and who consulted
with Rep. Adam Schiff's (D-CA) staff prior to filing the complaint.
Stunning that Adam Schiff lies to millions of Americans when he says he doesn't know the
identity of the whistleblower.
He absolutely knows the identity of the whistleblower b/c he coordinated with the
individual before the whistleblower's complaint! His staff helped write it!
A frustrated Paul was overheard expressing his frustration on the Senate floor during a
break in Wednesday's proceedings - telling a Republican staffer " If I have to fight for
recognition, I will. "
Roberts signaled to GOP senators on Tuesday that he wouldn't allow the whistleblower's
name to be mentioned during the question-and-answer session that started the next day, the
sources. Roberts was allowed to screen senators' questions before they were submitted for
reading on the Senate floor, the sources noted.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other top Republicans are also
discouraging disclosure of the whistleblower's identity as well . Paul has submitted at least
one question with the name of a person believed to be the whistleblower, although it was
rejected. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) composed and asked a question regarding the whistleblower
earlier Wednesday that tiptoed around identifying the source who essentially sparked the
House impeachment drive. - Politico
"We've got members who, as you have already determined I think, have an interest in
questions related to the whistleblower," said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-SD), adding
"But I suspect that won't happen. I don't think that happens. And I guess I would hope it
doesn't."
That said, Paul says he's not giving up - telling reporters "It's still an ongoing process,
it may happen tomorrow."
Does Ciaramella deserve 'anonymity'?
Of note, Roberts did not offer any legal argument for hiding the whistleblower's identity -
which leads to an
interesting argument from Constitutional law expert and impeachment witness Johnathan
Turley concerning whistleblower anonymity.
Federal law does not guarantee anonymity of such whistleblowers in Congress -- only
protection from retaliation . Conversely, the presiding officer rarely stands in the path of
senators seeking clarification or information from the legal teams. Paul could name the
whistleblower on the floor without violation federal law. Moreover, the Justice Department
offered a compelling analysis that the whistleblower complaint was not in fact covered by the
intelligence law (the reason for the delay in reporting the matter to Congress). The Justice
Department's Office of Legal Counsel found that the complaint did not meet the legal definition
of "urgent" because it treated the call between Trump and a head of state was if the president
were an employee of the intelligence community. The OLC found that the call "does not relate to
'the funding administration, or operation of an intelligence activity' under the authority of
the Director of National Intelligence . . . As a result, the statute does not require the
Director to transmit the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees. " The Council
of the Inspectors General on Integrity and EfficiencyCouncil strongly disagree with that
reading.
Regardless of the merits of this dispute, Roberts felt that his position allows him to
curtail such questions and answers as a matter of general decorum and conduct. It is certainly
true that all judges are given some leeway in maintaining basic rules concerning the conduct
and comments of participants in such "courts."
This could lead to a confrontation over the right of senators to seek answers to lawful
questions and the authority of the presiding office to maintain basic rules of fairness and
decorum . It is not clear what the basis of the Chief Justice's ruling would be in barring
references to the name of the whistleblower if his status as a whistleblower is contested and
federal law does not protect his name. Yet, there are many things that are not prohibited by
law but still proscribed by courts. This issue however goes to the fact-finding interests of a
senator who must cast a vote on impeachment. Unless Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can defuse
the situation, this afternoon could force Roberts into a formal decision with considerable
importance for this and future trials.
Technically he's not a Whistleblower, he's an Informant. To be a whistleblower Ciaramella
would have to inform on the CIA. Because that's who he worked for.
If the Senate is truly the Chief Justices Court the Chief Justice can modify the rules
case by case. In this case he made the wrong decision and Senator Paul is concerned I agree
with Senator Paul.
I'd have double-tapped that ****** and pissed in his face while he bled to death. And I'd
have been a little bit "slow" to dial 911 after I'd dialed 9MM.
Interesting how Trump does not need to make any more appointments to SCOTUS. I figure RBG
is not long for the court, but Roberts might beat her to it. Either way, the majority
strengthens by subtraction.
So we are to know nothing about an accuser, his history, his motives, his loyalties?
It seems that servants of the deep state are to be believed and protected without
question...
The Deep State agents must be protected at all costs, including obstruction of justice and
failing to allow relevant information to be submitted without reference to a
whistleblower.
The chief justice will not allow CIA agents who conspire and plan a coup to overthrow the
president to be revealed for it would destroy any sliver of credibility they have left.
I think it's hilarious that they actually believe they can remove a President based on
nothing but hidden "evidence" and that we will all just accept that! These people are the
Alpha and Omega of stupid!
The problem is, there seems to be no court to try him. Actually SCOTUS would be that
court, but it's questionable, if the Conservative bench at SCOTUS would dare to take that
case, even though they would be in majority, since „Chief Judge" Roberts would - as
party in the case - not be allowed to vote in that matter
The problem with all these compromised a-holes, like Roberts is they are slaves to the
state. Their oath to office needs to be rewritten, with hand placed on an enormous money
vault.
Why call someone clearly guilty of sedition a whistle blower?
This whole impeachment is sham much like the Russian investigation, it is clear just
from the actions that we all have witnessed that the US intelligence agencies are guilty of
attempting to overthrow the elected government.
They are not helping Ukraine citizen of which after 2014 live in abject poverty. So in now
way this an aid. They are arming Ukraine to kill Russians and maintain a hot spot on Russian
border.
The USA, specifically Brennan, Nuland and Biden create civil war out of nothing pushing far
right nationalist to suppress eastern population by brute forces (they burned alive 200 hundred
or more people on Odessa and killed people in Mariupol before Donbass flared up)
They are despicable MIC bottomfeeders. Neocon calculation is that Russia will not respond to
this provocation, because it is too weak after the economic rape of 1991-2000. While Putin is a
very patient politician they might be wrong.
Notable quotes:
"... Authored by James Bovard via JimBovard.com, ..."
"... "corruption is positively correlated with aid received from the United States." ..."
"... "I think it makes no sense to give aid money to countries that are corrupt." ..."
"... " remains skeptical after a history of broken promises [from the Ukraine govt]. Kiev hasn't successfully completed any of a series of IMF bailout packages over the past two decades, with systemic corruption at the heart of much of that failure." ..."
"... "Most foreign aid winds up with outside consultants, the local military, corrupt bureaucrats, the new NGO [nongovernmental organizations] administrators, and Mercedes dealers." ..."
"... James Bovard is the author of " ..."
"... Attention Deficit Democracy ..."
"... The Bush Betrayal ..."
"... Terrorism and Tyranny ..."
"... ," and other books. Bovard is on the USA Today Board of Contributors. He is on Twitter at @jimbovard. His website is at ..."
The campaign to convict and remove President Donald Trump in the Senate hinges on delays in
disbursing U.S. aid to Ukraine. Ukraine was supposedly on the verge of great progress until
Trump pulled the rug out from under the heroic salvation effort by U.S. government bureaucrats.
Unfortunately, Congress has devoted a hundred times more attention to the timing of aid to
Ukraine than to its effectiveness. And most of the media coverage has ignored the biggest
absurdity of the impeachment fight.
The temporary postponement of the Ukrainian aid was practically irrelevant considering that
U.S. assistance efforts have long fueled the poxes they promised to eradicate –
especially
kleptocracy, or government by thieves .
A 2002 American Economic Review analysis concluded that
"increases in [foreign] aid are associated with contemporaneous increases in corruption" and
that "corruption is positively correlated with aid received from the United
States."
Then-President George W. Bush promised to reform foreign aid that year,
declaring , "I think it makes no sense to give aid money to countries that are
corrupt." Regardless, the Bush administration continued delivering billions of dollars in
handouts to
many of the world's most corrupt regimes .
Then-President Barack Obama, recognizing the failure
of past U.S. aid efforts, proclaimed at the United Nations in 2010 that the U.S. government
is "
leading a global effort to combat corruption ." The following year, congressional
Republicans sought to restrict foreign aid to fraud-ridden foreign regimes. Then-Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton wailed that restricting handouts to nations that fail anti-corruption
tests "has
the potential to affect a staggering number of needy aid recipients."
The Obama administration continued pouring tens of billions of U.S. tax dollars into
sinkholes such as Afghanistan, which even its president, Ashraf Ghani, admitted in 2016 was
"one of the
most corrupt countries on earth ." John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghan
Reconstruction (SIGAR), declared that "U.S.
policies and practices unintentionally aided and abetted corruption" in Afghanistan.
Since the end of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has provided more than $6 billion in aid to
Ukraine. At the House impeachment hearings, a key anti-Trump witness was acting U.S. ambassador
to the Ukraine, William B. Taylor Jr. The Washington Post hailed Taylor as someone who "
spent much of the 1990s telling Ukrainian politicians that nothing was more critical to
their long-term prosperity than rooting out corruption and bolstering the rule of law, in his
role as the head of U.S. development assistance for post-Soviet countries." A New York Times
editorial
lauded Taylor and State Department deputy assistant secretary George Kent as witnesses who
"came across not as angry Democrats or Deep State conspirators, but as men who have devoted
their lives to serving their country."
After their testimony spurred criticism, a Washington Post headline
captured the capital city's reaction: "The diplomatic corps has been wounded. The State
Department needs to heal." But not nearly as much as the foreigners supposedly rescued by U.S.
bureaucrats.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Oct. 31 that the International Monetary Fund, which has
provided more than $20
billion in loans to Ukraine, " remains
skeptical after a history of broken promises [from the Ukraine govt]. Kiev hasn't
successfully completed any of a series of IMF bailout packages over the past two decades, with
systemic corruption at the heart of much of that failure."
The IMF concluded that Ukraine continued to be vexed by " shortcomings
in the legal framework, pervasive corruption, and large parts of the economy dominated by
inefficient state-owned enterprises or by oligarchs." That last item is damning for the U.S.
benevolent pretensions. If a former Soviet republic cannot even terminate its government-owned
boondoggles, then why in hell was the U.S. government bankrolling them?
Transparency International, which publishes an annual Corruption Perceptions Index, shows
that corruption
surged in Ukraine in the late 1990s (after the U.S. decided to rescue them) and remains at
abysmal levels. Ukraine is now ranked as the 120th most
corrupt nation in the world -- a lower ranking than received by Egypt and Pakistan, two
other major U.S. aid recipients also notorious for corruption.
Actually, the best gauge of Ukrainian corruption is the near-total collapse of its citizens'
trust in government or in their own future. Since 1991, the nation
has lost almost 20% of its population as citizens flee abroad like passengers leaping off a
sinking ship.
And yet, the House impeachment hearings and much of the media gushed over career U.S.
government officials despite their strikeouts. It was akin to a congressional committee
resurrecting Col. George S. Custer in 1877 and fawning as he offered personal insights in
dealing with uprisings by Sioux Indians (while carefully avoiding awkward questions about the
previous year at
the Little Big Horn ).
Foreign aid is virtue signaling with other people's money. As long the aid spawns press
releases and photo opportunities for presidents and members of Congress and campaign donations
from corporate and other beneficiaries, little else matters. Congress almost never conducts
thorough investigations into the failure of aid programs despite their legendary pratfalls. The
Agency for International Development ludicrously evaluated its programs in Afghanistan based
on their "burn rate" – whether they were spending money as quickly as possible,
almost regardless of the results. SIGAR's John Sopko "found a USAID lessons-learned report from
1980s on Afghan reconstruction but nobody at AID had read it
."
After driving around the world, investment guru Jim Rogers declared: "Most foreign
aid winds up with outside consultants, the local military, corrupt bureaucrats, the new NGO
[nongovernmental organizations] administrators, and Mercedes dealers." After the Obama
administration promised massive aid to Ukraine in 2014,
Hunter Biden jumped on the gravy train – as did legions of well-connected
Washingtonians and other hustlers around the nation. Similar largesse assures that there will
never be a shortage of overpaid individuals and hired think tanks ready to write op-eds or
letters to the editor of the Washington Post whooping up the moral greatness of foreign aid or
some such hokum.
When it comes to the failure of U.S. aid to Ukraine, almost all of Trump's congressional
critics are like the "
dog that didn't bark " in the Sherlock Holmes story. The real outrage is that Trump and
prior presidents, with Congress cheering all the way, delivered so many U.S. tax dollars to
Kiev that any reasonable person knew would be wasted. If Washington truly wants to curtail
foreign corruption, ending U.S. foreign aid is the best first step.
paying billions to corrupt Jewish Ukranians is just another way to support Israel.
Christian Zionists understand and approve of this. So what's the big deal? It's free money.
Money that grows on trees. What does it cost to print billions of free money by a few
electronic entries? Nothing. We should print more. Free **** is a beautiful thing.
We can postpone judgment day for at least another decade or so. By then, all the smart
Harvard educated guys and gals at Goldman Sachs and Wall Street will figure out how to kick
the can down the road for another decade or so.
When it all collapses, half of India and Africa and central America will already have
replaced what used to be the American population. The few remaining Americans aside from the
immigrants will be unrecognizable anyway. many will have left. Many more will have been
reduced by failure to procreate and replace themselves. Christians will be a despised,(even
the idiotic Zio-Christians who looked the other way on important issues as long as we were
bombing and killing for their beloved Israel) We will have a dying population as many will
have chosen the gay LGBTQ lifestyle and we are replaced by subservient obedient, uneducated
immigrants who are happy to work for $8 an hour and live in a single room apartment they
share with other immigrant families.
Ukraine was a failed state since day one and it got much worse since US/EU instigated
coup. I don't see any light at the end of tunnel. Zielensky is a more friendly face, but
that's it. He obviously doesn't have power to change the course. He can promise anything
while abroad, but he has to appease the nazis at home or they will get rid of him. In other
words Ukraine is doomed.
Zielensky is more than friendly face...he signed many deals with Putin and behave as
responsible politician who wanna bring normalization and peace. Same forces overthrow
Yanukovitch will try it with Zielensky, because they not wanna peace, but their interest is
war....so Zielensky is in danger.
Ukraine has biggest potential of all countries. Has richest on a planet soil, educated
European population, is poor so money go long way. And of course bridge to forcing Russia
being our ally, and adhere to nationalism, vs being corrupted by globalists.
No ****, it's absurd. The Wretched City was practically unanimous in the screeching about
sending weapons to Ukraine because Crimea voted to join Russia, something they describe up
there as being "annexed". Especially so now because since then Iraq voted to kick the US out
of their country and has been ignored, themselves being "annexed".
This is something that is accepted to a certain degree as a result of Bob Mueller.
Crimea is military important for their security...that why they had naval base there..they
cant afford lose this point and Black Sea....
Soviets were not willing to colonize these satelites like Poland, Czechoslovakia etc. they
were relevant after ww2 and Russians were scared of another war...day they become irrelevant
thanks of new weapons they abandon these states.
I know they are corrupted one...but USA is careless toward Ukraine fortunes...they use
them to provoke conditions to create cold war two...military industry need big enemies for
sake of hundreds bilions usd profits...how would you explain your citizens you pay one third
of budget and no enemies??? so Deep state want cold war two.
More than milion Ukrainians left to Russia...while EU has closed Ukrainian borders...so
who care more of Ukrainian people?
Russians were victims of all of this...red line was Crimea...and Putin did
right...otherwise Russian nuclear security would be doomed if you allow NATO troops to
Crimea.
US politicians not do it first time...did you know most wealthy Kosovian is Magdalene All
Bright?? i live in postcommunist state and whole my life witness western proxies stealing all
valuable stakes here....Communism created state ownership of big industries...domestic
politicians alongside western snakes steal it very ugly way.IN SO CALLED PRIVATIZATION..wheather it is Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, Romania etc. even information networks are owed by westeners....we are absolutely
blackmailed.
Russians and partly Ukrainians did not allow foreigers to entry ...they tried it..here and
there something got, whole 90s was going on this big fight among Russians and plus western
snakes for stakes....Putin created order in it alongside Russian oligarchy and
normalization....that why Russians like him.
Are these idiotic Democrats and Russia haters crazy?
Russia has a population and GDP roughly the same as Mexico and they're on the other side
of the planet (unless you're in Alaska). There is exactly zero chance Russia will invade or
attack Western Europe or the USA.
The USA should be concerned with the USA, and not whether Russia will act to safeguard its
border.
When Soviet Union left...military industry for sake of their profits needed to create big
enemy....they created terrorism and islamic wars......now as it failing apart they need new
enemies..big one to explain you why is necessary to give one third of your taxes into
military toys...so they create conflicts around China and Russia with hope to dig in into
cold war two.
Russians and Chinese have not big corporate bussines behind their military...their
spending is tiny compared to US military industry profits....so they have no interest in
wars...while US seek them.
Be aware Americans...your military is not only milking you, but risking of whole humanity
throwing into military disasters even as an accidents . Putin explained it many
times...computer supersystems can be activated so easily if some misteps happen...
If Quid Pro Que is legal, then the swamp is drained. The swamp isn't doing anything wrong.
They have been following the law all this time. Ask the president.
"... Mueller and Schiff are similar figures, who have filled the same thematic space. From the moment Trump took office, a particularly plugged-in segment of the Democratic electorate has been waiting for a Boy Scout with a law degree to take him down. ..."
"... At the Center for American Progress's Ideas Conference in June, for instance, Schiff alluded to the norms of the criminal justice system as he argued that the House should gather enough evidence to convince Republicans to convict Trump in an eventual trial. "How many of you are former prosecutors who indicted someone in the knowledge that you would be unsuccessful in trying to prove the case to a jury?" he asked. "Probably none of you." ..."
"... That, of course, is precisely what Schiff and the House's managers are now doing, House leadership having decided that the revelation of Trump's Ukraine scheme meant that impeachment could wait no longer. ..."
"... "A dangerous moment for America when an impeachment of the president of the United States is being rushed through because of lawyer lawsuits," he intoned. "The Constitution allows it; if necessary, the Constitution demands it if necessary." ..."
"... Everyone participating in the trial knows full well that Trump's acquittal is certain. The real task at hand is speaking to audiences beyond the chamber -- including, at least as far as the defense is concerned, one particular viewer in the White House. ..."
"... When the House managers gave you their presentation -- when they submitted their brief -- they repeatedly referenced Hunter Biden and Burisma," said Bondi. "They spoke to you for over 21 hours and they referenced Biden or Burisma over 400 times. And when they gave these presentations, they said there was nothing to see, it was a sham. ..."
With acquittal a foregone conclusion, Trump's accusers and defenders strive to reach
audiences beyond the Senate.
The impeachment trial of President Trump has been short on
drama. The rules that govern the proceedings effectively preclude it -- senators observing
the trial sit testily, but quietly, through presentations from either side and submit their
questions in writing directly to Chief Justice John Roberts. It's been left to the two legal
teams in the room -- the House managers prosecuting the case against Trump and the
president's defenders -- to craft those moments that might resonate with the public. Now and
again, over the course of their arguments, they've delivered. In this way, the dueling
attorneys don't merely represent two sides in the impeachment debate -- they've served as
stand-ins for the two parties themselves.
The most viral moment of the trial thus far came at the end of last Thursday's session,
when House Intelligence Committee chair and impeachment manager Adam Schiff choked up in an
earnest defense of constitutional order: "If right doesn't matter, we're lost. If the truth
doesn't matter, we're lost. The Framers couldn't protect us from ourselves if right and truth
don't matter. And you know that what he did was not right....
"Here right is supposed to matter. It's what's made us the greatest nation on earth. No
Constitution can protect us if right doesn't matter anymore. And you know you can't trust
this president to do what's right for this country."
Figures ranging from Star Wars icon Mark Hamill to former Acting Solicitor General
Neal Katyal offered Schiff rapturous praise for the speech on Twitter, where hashtags like
"#AdamShiffROCKS [sic]" and "#AdamSchiffHasMyRespect" quickly took off. MSNBC's Lawrence
O'Donnell called Schiff "the greatest defender of the Constitution in the twenty-first
century." "Thank God," The Washington Post 's Jennifer Rubin said, "I was alive to
hear Schiff speak these past few days."
The reception from liberals and Never Trumpers was reminiscent of special counsel Robert
Mueller's many months in the sun, prior to the release of his Russia report and his testimony
before the House -- although Schiff, to be fair, has yet to make a shirtless
cameo appearance in a children's book. All told, Mueller and Schiff are similar
figures, who have filled the same thematic space. From the moment Trump took office, a
particularly plugged-in segment of the Democratic electorate has been waiting for a Boy Scout
with a law degree to take him down. The thirst for a legal fight stems not only from
impeachment's offer of a nonelectoral remedy for Trump but also from the way the legalism and
rhetoric that surrounds any discussion about sustaining Constitutional norms offers a stark
contrast to Trump's style of politics. The knotty work of trying to best Trump methodically
through a legal process feels, for some, inherently restorative.
But it's worth remembering that a year ago, the rhetoric of legalism was being deployed to
suppress calls for Trump's impeachment in the first place. Those who advocated for Trump's
removal were told that hearings would have to wait indefinitely until Mueller's deliberate
and disciplined gathering of evidence and the House's various legal battles with the
administration reached their conclusions. Schiff himself was among those defending the party
line. At the Center for American Progress's Ideas Conference in June, for instance,
Schiff alluded to the norms of the criminal justice system as he argued that the House should
gather enough evidence to convince Republicans to convict Trump in an eventual trial. "How
many of you are former prosecutors who indicted someone in the knowledge that you would be
unsuccessful in trying to prove the case to a jury?" he asked. "Probably none of
you."
That, of course, is precisely what Schiff and the House's managers are now doing,
House leadership having decided that the revelation of Trump's Ukraine scheme meant that
impeachment could wait no longer.
As for Trump's defenders, there has been clear separation between the attorneys
responsible for sketching out a half-plausible legal defense for Trump -- as best they can --
and the lawyers tasked mostly with providing a steady stream of tangential obfuscation and
misdirection. Jay Sekulow, one of Trump's personal lawyers and a fixture on Fox News, has
clearly been in the latter camp, reviving familiar lines about a conspiracy against the
president in the booming tones he's honed on his radio show, Jay Sekulow Live. In an
initially befuddling moment on the first day of the trial, Sekulow pivoted into a harangue
against the House managers for complaining about "lawyer lawsuits" -- complaints they hadn't
actually made. It later emerged that Sekulow had simply misheard the phrase "FOIA lawsuits"
-- although the White House's legislative affairs office insisted, naturally, that Sekulow
had been correct. The salient point is that Sekulow powered through his remarks anyway,
defending the principles embedded in the inherently redundant and nonsensical phrase he'd
invented. "A dangerous moment for America when an impeachment of the president of the
United States is being rushed through because of lawyer lawsuits," he intoned. "The
Constitution allows it; if necessary, the Constitution demands it if necessary."
On Tuesday, Sekulow delivered one of the final speeches before the trial's questioning
phase. Most of it was dedicated to relitigating Mueller's report, with a few declamations
against an election year impeachment scattered throughout. But he also tried out, almost as
an aside, one of the most absurd defenses for the president's actions yet. Trump, he argued,
couldn't have been looking out for his own interests in his dealings with Ukraine because
he's proven himself genuinely interested enough in world affairs to seek peace in the Middle
East: "The one that still troubles me -- this idea that the president, it was said by several
of the managers, is only doing things for himself. Understanding what's going on in the world
today as we're here. They raised it, by the way. I'm not trying to be disrespectful. They
raised it! This president is only doing things for himself, while the leaders of opposing
parties, by the way, at the highest level, to obtain peace in the Middle East. To say you're
only doing that for yourself."
This, putting it mildly, is not the kind of argument one makes in an earnest attempt at
swaying jurors. Everyone participating in the trial knows full well that Trump's
acquittal is certain. The real task at hand is speaking to audiences beyond the chamber --
including, at least as far as the defense is concerned, one particular viewer in the White
House.
This goes some way toward explaining former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi's
involvement in the trial. She's perhaps best known for her run-in with Anderson Cooper after
the Orlando nightclub shooting in 2016, during which Cooper criticized her for professing
support for the LGBT community after her efforts to block gay marriage in Florida. Three
years earlier, Bondi, having announced an investigation into fraud allegations against Trump
University, suddenly closed the investigation after a group affiliated with her reelection
campaign received an illegal donation from Trump's charitable foundation. After a stint as a
lobbyist for Qatar, she's back in Trump's orbit, and she took up half an hour Monday airing
the dirt on Hunter Biden that Trump had badgered the Ukrainians to promote in the first
place. It would have been a slightly shorter speech had she not stumbled through the text
laid in front of her so clumsily. " When the House managers gave you their presentation
-- when they submitted their brief -- they repeatedly referenced Hunter Biden and Burisma,"
said Bondi. "They spoke to you for over 21 hours and they referenced Biden or Burisma over
400 times. And when they gave these presentations, they said there was nothing to see, it was
a sham. This is fiction. In their trial memorandum, the House managers described this as
baseless. Now, why did they say that? Why did they invoke Biden or Burisma over 400 times?
The reason they needed to do that is because they're here saying that the president must be
impeached and removed from office for raising a concern. And that's why we have to talk about
this today. They say sham, they say baseless. Because -- they say this -- because if it's OK
for someone to say, 'Hey, you know what, maybe there's something here worth raising,' then
their case crumbles."
The remarks as delivered don't seem too far off from one of Trump's digressive riffs. Like
Trump, she managed to get at least the right nouns in circulation as red meat for a base less
interested in the formal arguments being concocted by Trump's team. By contrast, Schiff's
earnestness and reason is the corresponding cri de coeur for a meaningful proportion of
Democratic voters, as well as -- Democratic leaders hope -- an affect that will reassure
those voters who have remained on the fence about impeachment.
Earlier today Graham and Cruz turned the question back on Schiiff of Romney's son engaged with Burisma and colored it with
enough language to subtly tell Romney to get in line as his control file is brimming with corruption in Ukraine. Notice how he
became curiously quiet for the rest of the questioning leaving Murkowski and Collins to ask their own questions, which is why Burr
joined their team.
Notable quotes:
"... Yup did you catch the Graham/Cruz question back to Schitt regarding Romney's son involved with Burisma? It was an epic take down letting him know his control file has a lot of evidence...Romney has been very quiet since them. Look for his vote to acquit. ..."
"... This whole impeachment sham has been two-fold: ..."
"... try and damage Trump as much as possible, but more importantly, ..."
"... Try and take the spotlight off the total cesspool the Dem's and, possibly some Republicans (i.e., Romney), have made of the Ukraine. ..."
"... All to cover the monstrous corruption of $multi Billion+ Ukraine aid that was funneled from Obummer's Administration to all the sons, daughters, brothers and phony front companies of the criminal Dimwits and RINOS. Same model in China and Iran. ..."
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) - who has forcefully advocated for testimony from former national
security adviser John Bolton after a leaked manuscript from his upcoming book claims President
Trump directly tied Ukraine aid to investigations into the Bidens - said nothing after the
lunch, which Murkowski did not attend.
Mitt Romney created Obamacare for Massachusetts ... as anti American and anti republican as
you can get... throw the two out.
OpenEyes
Mitt Romney is about to get thrown under the bus by the republican establishment.
Then comes the Durham report
Then comes the official investigation into the Ukraine corruption
The comes the orange jumpsuit
For Mittens, the hits will just keep coming
Totally_Disillusioned
Yup did you catch the Graham/Cruz question back to Schitt regarding Romney's son involved with Burisma? It was an epic
take down letting him know his control file has a lot of evidence...Romney has been very quiet since them. Look for his vote
to acquit.
1) try and damage Trump as much as
possible, but more importantly,
2) Try and take the spotlight off the total cesspool the Dem's and, possibly some Republicans (i.e.,
Romney), have made of the Ukraine. Congress and other agencies could spend years
investigating all the corruption there with starring roles by: Obama, Soros, much of the
Obama State Department, CIA, Obama Defense Dept...........the list is quite long.
All to cover the monstrous corruption of $multi Billion+ Ukraine aid that was funneled
from Obummer's Administration to all the sons, daughters, brothers and phony front companies
of the criminal Dimwits and RINOS. Same model in China and Iran.
The American Enterprise Institute and The Heritage Foundation which shapes Republican
policy, came up with that.
Bush was going to present his plan in 2005 but was sidetracked by his Iraqi War Crimes.
Romney tested it in Massachusetts.
Democrats passed Republican ACA to woo industry donations to themselves. Republicans are
pissed at that and want the donors back. THIS IS WHAT THE REAL FIGHT IS ABOUT.
At the Davos forum an at least 2-year long shutdown of Nord Stream-2 has been
announced
Liliya Karayeva, January 24, 2020
The launch of the Russian gas pipeline "Nord Stream-2", which is needed to supply
Europe with gas that bypasses the Ukraine, will take place not earlier than after 2 years. It
is not ruled out that the project will cease to exist if Western sanctions continue.
Former US ambassador to the Ukraine John Herbst said this at the World Economic Forum
in Davos. He noted that there is no possibility of Russia completing the gas
pipeline.
For the construction, it is necessary to have a company that will ensure the laying of
pipes on the sea bed. However, US sanctions do not allow foreign firms to do this, Eadaily
reports.
Herbst stressed that the Russians "can beat themselves on the chest," but under current
conditions the project may not be completed.
Earlier the pipe-layers of the Swiss company Allseas left the Baltic Sea because of US
sanctions. Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia can complete the gas pipeline,
but it will take more time.
Cue you know who.
That former US ambassador to Banderastan certainly knows a lot about the technological
incapabilities of the gas station with missiles, doesn't he?
Amazing; at the time sanctions were applied, the Russian Energy Minister claimed that the
Russian Federation had the ships and the capability to complete the pipeline in only two
months. Therefore it would have opened only a month late.
In fact, a joint statement just after the sanctions were announced to great fanfare said
that the remainder of the pipeline could be completed using divers, although it would be
slow. But Russia is known to have pipe-laying vessels in its inventory which would surely
require little modification to finish the remaining work. Russia simply does not seem to be
in any hurry to complete the project.
I personally think Russia is just approaching completion of the pipeline in a leisurely
fashion, now that there is a new gas-transit agreement with Ukraine and there is no
particular rush to get it done. Russia is committed to transit 60 BCm through Ukraine this
year, so what's the hurry to get a pipeline done which bypasses Ukraine? According to the
Energy Minister – who must be speaking under advisement from field professionals
– Russia could finish it in about 2 months. It would not be in Ukraine's interests to
provoke a transit crisis now, the winter is over and demand will slacken, and there just is
no compelling reason to hurry. But if there were, it would not take long to finish.
The current cocky attitude which assumes the project has been stopped cold with a wave of
Washington's mighty hand and now may never be completed is, however, pure and classic Ukie
nationalist. The Ukrainians seem fated to slobber lovingly all over America whenever it makes
a gesture, and start up again with the tough talk toward Russia. Nord Stream II is dead in
the water, and now it might never be completed – Russia might have to transit gas
through Ukraine until the infants of today are grandparents! It is so much more pleasant to
put your faith in something which sounds like you are going to have an easy life without
doing much of anything; just loll in bed all day on cushions of goose-down, and let the
Russians pay to use your pipes to transit their gas – so easy! It's a wonder there are
any realists left. Keep in mind that those are the same people who will scream that they were
betrayed when the pipeline is completed, and that the dirty Russians took advantage of
Ukraine's frank and open nature.
This US sanctions business often confuses me. I work at ExxonMobil twice a week -- right next
to the Exceptional Nation's embassy are the Exxon offices situated -- and they tell me there
that the project they were undertaking in the Barents Sea, I think, was stopped and is now on
hold because of sanctions, whereas the Exxon activity in Sakhalin is still in operation. The
reason why? Sakhalin is on dry land, the Russian woman whom I teach there told me. "So?" I
asked. She reckons it's because at Sakhalin they use Russian gear and technology, whereas the
offshore Barents Sea rig is US operated.
For Russia, at least, it will serve as an object lesson to not ever again be reliant on US
technology for anything, and be to the least extent possible reliant on technology of its
close allies. That would likely mean Asian drilling technology. Despite what American media
would have you believe, Americans are not the only people on earth capable of developing and
using extraction technology. Russia is also perfectly capable of engineering its own
production methods and equipment. Sanctions are only effective, to the limited degree they
are effective at all, where you as the sanctioner can get all available sources to deny their
use. Arm-twisting to go along with the American sanctions has cost European business
billions, but the important thing to remember about employment of sanctions and successful
work-arounds is that business will not bounce back to its previous arrangements once
sanctions are lifted unless their duration is very short. The sanctions against Russia, quite
apart from the Americans having supplied their own justification for employing them in the
first place (so that the Russians as a whole have a sense of having been unjustly punished,
which taints the American brand), have had the effect of forcing Russia to seek other
suppliers and to develop domestic industry. It has survived the sanctions regime quite well,
and is much stronger for it. It also serves as a reminder to other countries which are not
ideologically aligned with the United States that a dependence on American products could
constitute an unacceptable vulnerability for them as well.
China is the biggest producer in Asia, with an output of nearly 4 million barrels per day.
Although its production has been stagnant or even declining in recent years, that is about to
change; the national government announced last year a 20% increase in capital investment in
production, with the goal of increasing its output by 50% to 6 million BPD by 2025. I think
it would be safe to bet that none of that technology will be American or owned by its closest
allies, since a key platform of the increased expenditure is energy independence.
Looks like two former ministers in the previous Medvedev government got bumped upstairs:
Vladimir Medinsky (Culture Minister) and Maxim Oreshkin (Economic Development Minister) have
become Presidential aides. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news
Alexander Novak is back in as Minister of Energy so he must have been telling the truth
back in December about Russia being able to finish the Nordstream II pipeline construction in
two months. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/62625
Either that or his lies are so reliable that the Kremlin knows immediately to believe the
opposite of what he says. But that's not likely, because an Energy Minister who started a
massive project like that and had no prospects at all of completing it would not likely be
reappointed.
Another potential reason for Russian relaxation toward pipeline completion might well be
the global collapse of LNG prices due to overproduction: according to the new (ish) CEO of
Gunvor Group (remember them? The energy company that Putin owned 75% of its shares?), US LNG
exporters are 50 cents away from shutdowns.
"LNG prices are on track to hit an all-time low in Asia later this summer. Gas is also
at its weakest seasonally in the U.S. and Europe since the late 1990s. "There's a surplus
already in the U.S. and Europe. And the mild winter in Asia means another surplus is building
up there," Marco Dunand, chief executive officer of trading house Mercuria Energy Group Ltd.,
told Bloomberg. Torbjorn Tornqvist, chief executive officer of Gunvor Group Ltd., said U.S.
LNG exporters are 50 cents away from shutdowns."
Under such conditions, it's unlikely the Kremlin is overly concerned at the thought of
American LNG carriers steaming into European ports and snatching the energy rug from
underneath them. Think what a great time this would be to have an energy-extraction empire in
which – thanks to western sanctions – your production costs were in rubles and
your selling price was in Euros. Why, you'd still be able to take a profit no matter how low
prices went!
Yves here. Hopefully readers who understand Canada's libel and defamation laws can pipe up. Presumably most of
you already know about Consortium News' libel suit.
From its site
:
Consortium News has sent libel notices to the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), Canada's
version of the U.S. National Security Agency, and to a major Canadian television network, Global News, for a
report that said Consortium News was "part of a cyber-influence campaign directed by Russia."
Consortium News promoted a story that was widely picked up and deservedly embarrassing to Chyrstia Freeland,
then Canada's foreign minister, more recently its deputy prime minister. Freeland is of Ukrainian descent and
is rabidly anti-Russian. She has falsely and knowingly depicted her family as victims of the Nazis who fled
persecution, when her grandfather was a prominent Nazi propagandist operating out of Krakow.
Mind you, this is all factually accurate. But Consortium News may not be on solid ground in challenging the
Canadian accounts of its story.
A Helmer describes, Consortium News may have badly undermined its position via its attribution.
Helmer himself originated the story
, as the Consortium News story linked to above acknowledges .but
Consortium News didn't in its piece on
l'affaire Freeland
a month later.
Instead, its story came from "journalist Arina Tsukanova exclusively for CN". The problem is that no such
person appears to exist; it looks to be a handle created by the Strategic Culture Foundation in Moscow. Helmer
points out that there is speculation that the Strategic Culture Foundation gets funding from the Russian
Orthodox Church; the Canadian government believes the Russian government supports it. Regardless, it appears to
have an explicit mission of promoting Russian nationalism.
So Consortium News has undermined its case, perhaps fatally, by not making clear when it ran its Freeland
piece that it was re-reporting Helmer's work. Helmer is in hot water with the Russian government and was even
barred from entering Russia at the time the Freeland story ran. Helmer also knew Freeland from his days at the
Financial Times, when she was his editor for a bit. To put it politely, he found her to be ideological and
sloppy. So it would be well nigh impossible to depict Consortium News as a Russian stooge for relying on
Helmer. But apparently fabricated personas created by a shadowy Russian foundation?
I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, particularly since we were falsely smeared for being Russian stooges,
apparently for sins like questioning rising inequality and other failings of our purported leaders. But if you
are going to attack government officials even in a small country like Canada for misrepresentations about their
backgrounds, as opposed to garden variety incompetence and mendacity, you need to have your ducks in a row.
Going to court similarly requires you to be able to defend your bona fides. Consortium News looks to have set
itself up to be vulnerable. I sincerely hope they prevail, but I would not bet on it.
By
John Helmer
,
the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his
own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political
science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only
member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published
at
Dances with Bears
The truth is that
Consortium News
trusted a Russian entity named the Strategic Culture Foundation
and a Ukrainian reporter called Arina Tsukanova for a story published on February 27, 2017, about Chrystia
Freeland's grandfather Mikhail Chomiak, a propagandist and spy for the German Army who advocated and assisted
in the murder of the Jews, Poles and Russians during World War II, and took his reward by stealing Jewish
property – publishing company, office, apartment, antique furniture, and limousine.
The story about Freeland and the ethnic cleansing of Ukraine on which Freeland agrees, still, with Chomiak,
was the truth. It's also a truth she tries to escape by blaming the Russian state or Kremlin propaganda for
repeating. Repeating doesn't turn the truth into a lie, though as Joseph Goebbels advised, repeating the lie
helps.
The point isn't that Freeland is culpable in her grandfather's sins. Her sin is hiding them, and her reason
for doing so. She agrees with Chomiak on turning Ukraine into the Greater Galicia it was Adolf Hitler's
objective to achieve between 1939 to 1945: that's to say, cleanse the territory of Jews, Poles and Russians by
killing them all. Chomiak succeeded with the first two; he was then employed by the US Army on the third.
Freeland is keeping the plan in the family; they now have the Canadian government behind them. Demonizing
Russians is part of the same plan as it was in Chomiak's day.
The irony is that the Freeland-Chomiak story was plagiarized from an American reporter who first published
the details on January 19, 2017. At the time, and still, he was banned from entering Russia by the Kremlin
because, according to a senior official in Moscow, "he writes bad things about our country"; no western
journalist has been banned for as long – since September 27, 2010. The reporter was me.
There's another truth wrapped in an irony. Arina Tsukanova, the byline writer of the Strategic Culture
Foundation story and the
Consortium News
story, cannot be found; isn't known at the media of Kiev and
Crimea where her published pieces claim she works; and doesn't reply to emails and Facebook communications. She
is a ghost -- a byline invented by the Strategic Culture Foundation in Moscow.
The Galician state plan, the genocide which went with it, and the current campaign of lies against Russia
didn't start with Chomiak or end with Freeland. In Canada they have been continued by many officials; among
them Lieutenant-General Paul Wynnyk, commander of the Canadian Army, then Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff,
2016-2019, and now a minister in the Alberta provincial government; and Roman Waschuk, Canada's ambassador to
Kiev, 2014-2019; for their details,
click
.
Auschwitz-Birkenau, the site of the German death camp whose liberation by the Red Army on January 27, 1945,
is celebrated last week and
this
, was part
of the Galician territory under German occupation. It was seventy kilometres west of Chomiak's office in
Cracow, within his killing range. Opponents and critics of the Galician plan, and researchers of the war
crimes committed by Chomiak and others include many Canadians of Ukrainian origin, including John-Paul Himka, a
professor of history now retired from the University of Alberta in Edmonton; he and they have been the target
of ostracism and worse from the Ukrainian-Canadian community;
read more
.
According to Himka (right) there is "a blank spot in the collective memory of the Ukrainian diaspora", and a
"double standard in discussing war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by Ukrainians as opposed to
those perpetrated against Ukrainians. Memoirs and eyewitness accounts, for example, are considered
untrustworthy evidence for the former, but trustworthy for the latter; that is, Jewish or Polish first-hand
accounts of Ukrainian war crimes are dismissed as biased, while an important Ukrainian victimization narrative,
the famine of 1932-33, has relied primarily on just such eyewitness accounts."
The lying by the promoters of the Galician plan for Ukraine has been promoted by the Canadian mass media,
almost without exception. They don't respond to correction for the truth;
click to follow their record
.
With the collaboration of her former employer, the
Financial Times
, Freeland continues to lie by
omission and commission, In the past weekend's "
Lunch
with the FT
", Freeland was questioned by a reporter called Edward Luce. "I struggle to rustle up some
professional scepticism," he admitted towards the end of listening to Freeland. "I cannot help nodding in
agreement."
Luce also couldn't help omitting the extent of the story of Freeland and Galicia. Instead, he repeated
Freeland's lie that her mother had been "born to Ukrainian refugees in a US displaced person's camp in postwar
Germany." In fact, they weren't refugees from Ukraine. They were Nazi war criminals on the run. The "camp" was
a luxury Bavarian spa town, Bad Worishofen, which the US Army had taken over, in part to develop Ukrainian
espionage and infiltration agents to run against the Soviet Union. Chomiak was an early recruit, switching his
loyalty from the German Army to the US Army for money, and for the same murderous ideology.
The US Army, OSS and CIA files on Chomiak, dating from 1945 to at least 1948, are stored at the National
Archives in Washington. No researcher has opened them yet. Recovering the full story of Chomiak started with
Ukrainian and Canadian researchers working through Chomiak's papers in Alberta, and with Polish police
investigations in Warsaw; they were opened and reported
here
.
The Russian contribution to this research and reporting has been negligible. Ditto
Consortium News
(CN).
In an announcement last week, Joe Lauria, the editor of CN since founder Robert Parry died in 2018, said he
had instructed Toronto lawyers to send libel notices to the Canadian signals intelligence agency,
Communications Security Establishment (CSE), and to a local broadcaster called Global News. The notices asked
for retractions and apologies.
Lauria said CN had been defamed for a publication in February 27, 2017, when Chomiak's wartime record was
reported for the first time. Except it wasn't for the first time and the original CN article wasn't quite what
it purported to be.
The CSE had produced a secret analysis, Global News reported, on Russian info-war against Freeland. "Cyber
influence activity to cause reputational damage" was the technical Canadian spy agency term quoted. "The
Grandfather Nazi narrative" was another of the terms. The secret Canadian intelligence was: "In early spring
2017 and spring 2018, sources linked to Russia popularized MFA Freeland's family history, very likely intended
to cause personal reputational damage in order to discredit the Government of Canada's ongoing diplomatic and
military support of Ukraine, to delegitimize Canada's decision to enact the Justice for Victims of Corrupt
Foreign Offices Act, and the expulsion of several Russian diplomats." The Global News report can be read
here
.
Sources linked to Russia were reportedly tracked down by CSE. "The first attack," claimed Global News,
citing the CSE report, "was a February 2017 report in the 'online Consortium News' followed 'in quick
succession' by pro-Russian English language and Russian-language online media, the CSE report says."
Lauria charged last week that this was libellous. Aside, he didn't dispute Parry's claims at the time that
he had been first or that Freeland's counter-attack with her Russia lie was aimed at Parry and CN.
Here
is Parry's original publication, bylined Arina Tsukanova, and tagged "exclusive".
According to CN's original publication, Tsukanova "is a Russian Ukrainian journalist from Kiev currently
living in Crimea. Before the Euromaidan she used to work for several Ukrainian newspapers, now closed."
In the English language, Tsukanova's stories started to appear in mid-2016 and then stopped in
April 2017
.
When her story on the Freeland-Chomiak case appeared in CN, she had reported nothing on the idea, the topic,
or the subject details before; there was no sequel or related report by her afterwards.
In the Russian language Tsukanova's
reporting
record began on January 18, 2016, and is still
current
. Her two outlets are the Strategic Culture Foundation (FSK in Russian) and
KM.ru,
both in
Moscow. The reports specialize on Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova. She has reported only once on Freeland and
Chomiak. The story which appeared in Russian on
March 2, 2017
, is not the same story as had appeared under her byline in CN three days earlier. The
Russian version of the story has 23 paragraphs. The first 11 paragraphs of the CN story, a third of the
publication, weren't written by Tsukanova and do not appear in the Russian version. They were written by Parry;
"I personally edited and fact-checked [it]", Parry wrote later. It was
Parry's English version
which was reprinted by Strategic Culture Foundation on March 2, 2017, and then
Parry's lone bylined story which ran in the same place on
March 12, 2017
.
"Knowing Bob as I did," Lauria said last week, "I'm certain he would not have published the article if he
knew any of it had been plagiarized. He must have not been aware of your earlier story as I wasn't as I was
preparing my story this week." Lauria then compared what Tsukanova and Parry had written with two reports I had
published five weeks earlier.
Lauria now says: "I carefully went through your two stories and compared it to Consortium News of Feb. 27,
2017. There is no doubt that it is based on your earlier story. That should have been mentioned in the
Consortium article. I did not find whole sentences or paragraphs that were taken directly from your article.
The fact remains that the story of Freeland's grandfather is true and that cannot be disputed. I have updated
the article I wrote on Tuesday to include this line in the body of the text: The story was first reported by
John Helmer a month earlier In her version, Tuskanova reported; and I put a note at the end of the story
saying: This article has been updated to show that the story of Freeland's grandfather was first reported by
John Helmer."
The revised version of the CN report looks like
this
. Lauria is making amends.
Parry, who can't, made a habit of lifting material without giving credit and then promoting himself as the
originator. In March 2015, for example, he produced a piece on Igor Kolomoisky, the Ukrainian oligarch; the
Burisma scandal involving the Biden family, and Natalie Jaresko, the State Department official who became the
Ukrainian minister of finance.
Here's
Parry's story.
This material started with two stories of mine which had appeared a month earlier. Parry helped himself to
the topic and the material, but omitted to mention their origin. He also forgot that he had written to me to
say: "John, thanks. Good piece."
Here
is where Parry started and also
here
.
As for Parry's reporting on Jaresko, which appeared on
February 19, 2015
-- -- that started with a story I had published on Jaresko on
December 3, 2014
. After reworking the material and sources, Parry gave a mention of the origin in my work.
He placed that at the 43
rd
paragraph of his 52-paragraph piece.
Lauria was asked to verify Parry's source, Tsukanova. He says he wrote Tsukanova by email, but she hasn't
replied. Independently, checks of the Crimea and Kiev media last week reveal that she is not known to the
press in either place where she claims to have worked for years. I attempted to contact her at her Facebook
page; she did not reply. In the Facebook gallery of her photographs, there are none of Tsukanova on location
acting as a journalist.
Left: the header for Arina Tsukanova's story archive published by the Strategic Culture Foundation;
source --
https://www.fondsk.ru/authors/
Right: the only photograph of Tsukanova found on the Russian internet. This
identifies Tsukanova, not only as journalist, but also as a "publicist". Source:
https://www.infox.ru/blog/168
On the evidence gathered to date, Tsukanova is a ghost – a byline invented by her Russian publishers for
their purposes, but made to look credible for other purposes. Lauria refused to provide evidence of the
original correspondence with Parry, the terms of exclusivity he reported with Tsukanova, or a record of payment
for her article in 2017. He concludes: "I'm not anticipating any evidence [of her communication]."
Lauria also says that "not being able to reach her only proves that she's not reachable I do not think
there is any evidence to say she is a ghost for someone else. It seems pure speculation at this point In the
end of the day, the story is true so does it really matter? A source or a sources' [sic] motives become
irrelevant if the information they provide is true."
The problem for Lauria and CN is that if Tsukanova was an invention of the Strategic Culture Foundation in
2017 when Parry picked up the Freeland-Chomiak story, and if the Moscow entity was receiving money from Russian
state media agencies, then the link between Parry and the Russian side was one which is an embarrassment now
for CN in its claims against CSE and Global News.
Tsukanova may be a ghost; the Strategic Culture Foundation is not. It may be suspected in Ottawa of taking
money from state organs; in Moscow it is suspected of taking money from the Russian Orthodox Church. But there
is no evidence of either. What there is is a record of the foundation's registration on February 21, 2005, at a
room in the Polyanka district of Moscow. The president was listed as Yury Prokofiev; the general director,
Vladimir Maksimenko. The "main activity" on the
registration forms
is
"research and development in the field of social sciences and humanities". Tax inspection is also confirmed,
but no details of income or expenditures.
Left, Yury Prokofiev, founding president of the Strategic Culture Foundation in Moscow; right,
Vladimir Maksimenko, the general director.
About Prokofiev, now about 81 years of age, there is a detailed history of his evolution from Communist
Party apparatchik in 1990-91 to Orthodox Christian monarchist a decade later. The profile, with extensive
quotes and references, was published by Valery Lebedev in March 2007; read the Russian
here
. Lebedev titles his story
after the Russian story of the puppeteer Karabas Barabas, the villain in a Russian fairy tale. According to
Lebedev's account, the Strategic Culture Foundation was designed as a platform for the promotion of Russian
nationalism. He doesn't know where Prokofiev got his money to publish.
About Maksimenko, the Russian record indicates that he studied history to doctoral level at MGIMO and was
(may still be) an employee of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. His earlier
academic publications were on the Maghreb (Arab North Africa); his later ones on Orthodox monarchism appear
here
. About both Prokofiev and
Maksimenko, Lebedev says they have been shopping from one cause to another for years; he implies they have
never managed to draw much money or audience.
Maksimenko does not reply to emails at the contact address given for the
Strategic Culture Foundation
.
The foundation has published only one article by Maksimenko under his byline in English; it is about French
politics
. There is no article in English by Prokofiev in the archive.
With them Freeland shares the same combination of ethnic nationalism and God – in Freeland's case, she
told
the FT, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.
"I'm very patriotic," Freeland told the FT. "'Be good Ukrainians, and by being good Ukrainians, you will be
even better Canadians'," Freeland recounts. 'I happen to be Ukrainian-Canadian. When I moved to Toronto I had
an instant community of Canadian-Ukrainians. There's a culture there that my kids can immediately experience in
Edmonton or Saskatoon She then embarks on a passionate disquisition about the robustness of Ukraine's
democracy. An aide halts her to say they are late for another meeting a few blocks away.'"
Pricking Freeland's vanity is a bigger job than the FT can handle; or Parry's vanity for Lauria. The vanity
of the Canadian espionage establishment will be safe in a Toronto court. But pricked the CSE file most
certainly it is. That's because the record of Canadian spying for influence over Russian journalism long
precedes this affair.
It started, in fact, with a woman called Janice Cowan, a Canadian of English origin who was the wife of the
Canadian military attaché in the Moscow embassy in the early 1990s. Cowan was trained to penetrate Russian
media circles and report back to Ottawa. "It was a good time to be a spy", Cowan wrote in a
memoir
she published called A Spy's Wife; it was issued in 2006 by a Toronto publisher called James
Lorimer with a grant from the Canadian Government. "Quality Canadian books you'll want to read" is Lorimer's
motto – except that without cash from Ottawa, Lorimer might have judged that no one would have wanted to read
about Cowan's espionage. In Moscow she took diplomatic immunity from her husband; her spy cover was as an
editor at the English language paper,
The Moscow Tribune.
(The competing English-language paper,
The Moscow Times
, had Cowan's counterparts from the CIA.) Cowan's targets for espionage included the
son-in-law of Marshal Georgy Zhukov and me.
In its
review
of Cowan's book, the Toronto
Globe & Mail
said: "Her account of her pre-assignment
operational training, and of her various intelligence-gathering tours to Soviet hot spots is convincing. But
what threatens to drop this otherwise charming little book into the trivia basket is Cowan's incurable and
self-confessed romanticism about intelligence."
The files of the Communications Security Establishment must include Cowan's reports; they remain classified
even after she broke cover with her book. They can't be mentioned now because that would reveal the topmost
secret of all – that when it comes to info-war between Russia and Canada, penetration of the media, and what
the CSE calls "cyber influence activity to cause reputational damage", it was the Canadians who started against
the Russians first.
It's been catch-up, tit-for-tat, not to mention plagiarism, ever since.
No, we're (UK) the 51st state. We got here first. And these things matter. Canada is the 52nd. Well,
possibly. I think Japan is actually the 52nd. Canada can be 53rd, if you like. Although Australians will
need to correct me if that one's already been nabbed by them.
LOL. We welcome you all to our ever expanding republic.
As for the above
It may be suspected in Ottawa of taking money from state organs; in Moscow it is suspected of
taking money from the Russian Orthodox Church. But there is no evidence of either.
And many past US journalists have been suspected–no wait proven–to have taken money and favors from
the CIA. While Parry may have done wrong by not crediting Helmer and CN may not get the apology and
retraction it seeks, surely the main point is that the story is true. If we were scoring this propaganda
war over "fake news" according to truth then it's likely that stories about the west coming out of
Russia–fake byline or not–probably score better on the truth meter than stories about Russia found in our
MSM. As they used to say in Soviet times, everything they told us about Russia was a lie and everything
they told us about America was the truth.
More to the point, this is an interesting and unfortunate turn for this case. Dances with Bears is a site
I forget to read regularly. It's a shame that CN might be setting themselves up for embarassment vs the
Canadian establishment.
I read all three among many others like TruthDig, Craig Murray, Jacobin Mag, Counterpunch, Antiwar, Der
Spiegel, Intercept, MoA, Grayzone Project, Asia Times etc. etc. on a regular basis, and I do not care how
Strategic Culture gets its funding as long as it does not turn it into an obvious or subtle propaganda outlet.
From what I see and read this is an aggregator – with editorials sometimes – and publishes or republishes a
wide spectrum from left to right, like Zuesse, Cloughly, Lazare, Crook, Cunningham, Madsen, Bridge, Madsen,
Luongo and also LaRouchians like Ehret. A fairly wide Range and therefore obviously quite balanced.
I cannot see any evidence in this range of different contributors to what Helmer describes:
"the Strategic Culture Foundation was designed as a platform for the promotion of Russian nationalism"
Maybe that statement reflects more his troubles with Russian officials, also I do not know how Helmer claims
on one hand he
" At the time, and still, he was banned from entering Russia by the Kremlin The reporter was me."
is not allowed to enter the RF but states on the top of his articles: by John Helmer, Moscow – what is it
now? Who is economical with the truth?
As to Consortium News – yes, they should have been more careful with checking their sources, but for me it is
important as an expat Canadian that someone like Freeland is permitted to actually represent Canada, which just
shows how pernicious the influence of right wing to Fascist Ukrainians is, especially in a province like
Alberta stretching into Ottawa.
With all due respect, you are completely missing the point or choosing to misconstrue it.
The attacks in Canada on the Consortium News report are based on its reliance on Russian sources that are
alleged to be connected to the Russian government. Strategic Culture Foundation promotes Russian nationalism
and is so hidden about its funding sources that that charge will likely stick. That means that the
Consortium News will have difficulty in court disproving that it was amplifying a Russian campaign,
particularly if Helmer's other contention is correct, that the supposed author isn't bona fide.
I must also point out, without naming names (because I don't want to waste time and energy documenting
the point) that some of the authors from Strategic Culture Foundation that you mention approvingly are ones
we would never link to, and are even loath to allow links to their works in comments because they have
serious and regular problems with accuracy (either actual facts or greatly overstating the implications of
their findings). And accordingly, we have not linked to Strategic Culture Foundation because it features too
many dodgy writers and we do not want to lead readers to view it as a reliable source.
In addition, you promote the fiction that anyone in Russia must be an official stooge. Help me. Helmer is
regularly writing pieces that embarrass the Russian government and its allies; he's been barred entry as
retribution. Had Consortium News written a piece that acknowledged Helmer as the source of the account, it
would have been extremely difficult to depict them as manipulated by Russian government allies.
I agree that if they had simply cited Helmer in the first place they would have a lot better libel
case. I also find it surprising that CN didn't even seem aware of Helmer's reporting on the subject.
You'd think that the thorough fact checking of the piece prior to publication would have turned that up.
Even without the citation though, it seems a quite a stretch to say that the entire CN organization is
"part of a cyber-influence campaign directed by Russia." That "part of" is what will cause problems for
CN I suspect. Could be another argument trying to determine what the meaning of "is" is. Perhaps CN
doesn't even care of they win the case as long as the publicity lets it be more widely known that the
facts of their story are accurate.
I also picked up the same thing Peter did though. I'd always assumed Helmer was resident in Russia
based on his byline and was a little surprised to find out that he was barred from the country.
The maddening thing is the corporate media can misreport stories, and deliberately so, and continue to
get away with it and they will tar and feather an alternative media outlet for a relatively minor mistake
that doesn't affect the true facts of the story at all. It would be nice if Helmer and CN could let
bygones be bygones and cooperate here to get the facts out before people like Freeland who do play fast
and loose with the truth are allowed to squash it and rise through the ranks even higher.
Ive only been reading it for a couple years, but I always felt Strategic Culture Foundation has good
articles from time to time. They're anti-imperial for sure, and have an occasional weird take on history (the
French Revolution was hijacked by the British Oligarchy, and that's when it got bloody), but overall it doesn't
have that pure propaganda feel.
I check it every day. Many of the writers whose articles are picked up do indeed have secure reputations
and articles that are widely republished throughout the leftysphere. And isn't that how the web works? The
opposite version would be the NYT where all those Judy Millers reign but are supposed to have credibility
because of their newspaper's (onetime) exalted reputation. The journalistic world has changed.
"The point isn't that Freeland is culpable in her grandfather's sins. Her sin is hiding them, and her reason
for doing so.
She agrees with Chomiak on turning Ukraine into the Greater Galicia it was Adolf Hitler's
objective to achieve between 1939 to 1945: that's to say, cleanse the territory of Jews, Poles and Russians by
killing them all
. Chomiak succeeded with the first two; he was then employed by the US Army on the third.
Freeland is keeping the plan in the family; they now have the Canadian government behind them"
Ever think that the Consortium News trusted a Russian entity named the Strategic Culture Foundation and a
Ukrainian reporter called Arina Tsukanova on purpose– KNOWING that they could be discredited? NOw the narrative
can be changed and Allows them to cover up the truth -- the big story is now not about Freeland knowing lying
about her grandfather and his Nazi connections -- but about a fake news outlet trying to defame her? This sounds
more like what is really going on here -- FYI when ever I see someone has been a Rhodes Scholar and they are in
politics or media -- it can only means one thing -- they are LIARS.
when did parry ever do something like that? never as far as i know, and at any rate freeland's past is
too well known to make this plausible, whether cn wins the libel suit or not.
Consortium News may come a cropper for not practicing due diligence with their sources but they might have
fun embarrassing Canadian outlets in court with quoting Canadian sources. The thing that bothers me is these
'patriots' like Chyrstia Freeland who are patriotic for another country but not where they live. You see the
same in America with all those Cubans in Florida who have helped warp American foreign policy to Cuba for
decade after decade.
With the Ukraine, it seems to be more intense. If you do not believe me, reflect on those Ukrainian-born
people like the Vindman brothers who are at the heart of the impeachment campaign against Trump. And they are
no the only ones. Think Marie Yovanovitch as another example. The Ukraine Diaspora in Canad is even more
extensive and some 1,359,655 Canadians have Ukrainian ancestry. And that is how you get a Chyrstia Freeland who
would literally accept a neo-nazi Ukraine with all that that implies-
It may help explain the bewildering popularity of the loathsome Freeland to point out that Canada has two
quite distinct groups of "Ukrainian" emigrants. One of the largest is Galician, not really Ukrainian. In the
midwest especially (for instance, Winnipeg) there is a Galician Ukrainian church. Other Ukrainians tend to be a
distinct community. I've found quite a disparity in what each group thinks of Freeland.
My issue with all this is the copying and reprinting without attribution to original source. It seems many
of our so-called "leftist" organs and web publishers are too ego-involved to stop promoting their own
"originality", the alternative being to cooperate and share sources and information while researching with
their pooled abilities and assets. The infighting over bona-fides has always been detrimental to the
achievement of goals which are (supposedly) shared and of common good for "the people". So, why this??
I'm sure a well-researched and sourced piece or two, coupled with a strong demand and pressure on the
National Archives to produce its information could well put both Canada and the US on a defensive to either
deny access (a poor PR choice) or produce embarrassing content. This requires far less ego, it seems to me.
John Helmer knows more about what is going on in Russia than any other
correspondent who writes in english. Originally from Australia, he went to grad school at Harvard and worked
for the Carter White House under Brzezinski. He has lived in Moscow for over 30 years and reads/speaks Russian.
He comprehends who the oligarchs and politicians are, and how their businesses and interests intersect and
collide. He has lived in the mideast. He is a teller of truth, and that definitely includes MH17, the Skripals,
the coup in Crimea, and the alleged gas poisonings in Syria.
A word about Strategic Culture.
I read it every day in the hope that I will see an article by Alastair Crooke.
Crooke is a former UK diplo and MI6 spy. His expertise is the mideast, and he is probably the best informed
english speaking person on this planet. E.g., knows more about Hezbollah
than any other writer. And he "tells it like it is". He is not a gossiper of FUKUS imperialism.
I think Crooke publishes at Strategic Culture because he not welcome as contributor in "western" media. If you
attempt to google his name for his latest article, you will not find it.
I have no real idea who supports the S C site, and I do not really care.
Leaving aside the bits about Helmer and attribution, this does raise an interesting point. Suppose I receive
an explosive story about a high elected official from Fresno Dan, who claims to have received it directly from
bare-chested Vladimir Putin via messages from the secret Kremlin antennae in his bunny slippers. But it turns
out to be well-supported with evidence that is independently and easily verifiable (i.e., true).
Do I (a) publish the story; (b) credit Fresno Dan as the source; (c ) mention bare-chested Vladimir and the
bunny slippers; or (d) any or all of the above?
It would seem rather silly not to publish if I think it's important and the story checks out. But will the
bit about Putin and the bunny slippers reduce my credibility if I mention it? And if I don't, what if somebody
else finds out and publishes that?
Technically the fact that the story is true does not preclude it from being part of an influence campaign on
the part of Russia. There are a great many true stories out there and media have broad discretion over which
ones they choose to give air time to. What if somebody alleges that Putin ordered the story shared because he
wanted attention drawn to it in Western media?
As Yves notes, the fact that CN had a more credible source available for the story (Helmer) and chose not to
cite him, which would have avoided most of these issues, would seem to be the own goal here.
Impeachment: Trump Team Nails Bidens, Burisma, And Obama's Hot-Mic Moment With Russia by
Tyler Durden Mon,
01/27/2020 - 20:05 0 SHARES
President Trump's defense team cut straight to the heart of the impeachment on Monday,
insisting that Democrats have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bidens didn't engage
in textbook corruption in Ukraine - and that President Trump's request to investigate it was
out of line.
Former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, a recent addition to the White House
communications team, walked the Senate through the entire malarkey for 30 minutes , including Hunter Biden's 'nepotistic at
best, nefarious at worst' board seat at Ukrainian gas giant Burisma.
"All we are saying is that there was a basis to talk about this, to raise this issue, and
that is enough," said Bondi, who noted that Hunter Biden was paid over $83,000 per month to sit
on Burisma's board even though he had zero experience in natural gas or Ukrainian relations
while his father was Vice President and in charge of Ukraine policy for the United States.
Trump attorney Eric Herschmann said that Democrats have been "circling the wagons" to
protect the Bidens - and are refusing to investigate the Bidens, claiming without conducting an
investigation that all allegations against them are 'debunked.'
Herschmann then laid into former President Obama, who was caught on a hot mic asking Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev for "space" until after his election .
One can only imagine what would happen if the Left & the media applied their
manufactured outrage to Obama's actions & statements.
Remember when Obama was caught asking Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for "space" until
after his election?
"... Taylor exaggerates what the conflict is about by saying that Ukraine is defending "the West." That's not true. Ukraine is defending itself. The U.S. does not have a vital interest in this conflict, but Taylor talks about it as if we do. He says that the relationship with Ukraine is "key" to our national security, but that is simply false. To say that it is key to our national security means that we are supposed to believe that it is crucially important to our national security. That suggests that U.S. national security would seriously compromised if that relationship weakened, but that doesn't make any sense. We usually don't even talk about our major treaty allies this way, so what justification is there for describing a relationship with a weak partner government like this? ..."
"... The op-ed reads like a textbook case of clientitis, in which a former U.S. envoy ends up making the Ukrainian government's argument for them ..."
"... To support Ukraine is to support a rules-based international order that enabled major powers in Europe to avoid war for seven decades. It is to support democracy over autocracy. It is to support freedom over unfreedom. Most Americans do. ..."
"... These make for catchy slogans, but they are lousy policy arguments. This rhetoric veers awfully close to saying that you aren't on the side of freedom if you don't support a particular policy option. In my experience, advocates for more aggressive measures use rhetoric like this because the rest of their argument isn't very strong. It is possible to reject illegal military interventions of all governments without wanting to throw weapons at the problem. ..."
"... Taylor has set up the policy argument in such a way that there seems to be no choice, but the U.S. doesn't have to support Ukraine's war effort. He oversells Ukraine's importance to the U.S. to justify U.S. support, because an accurate assessment would make the current policy of arming their government much harder to defend. Ukraine isn't really that important to U.S. security and our security doesn't require us to provide military assistance to them. Of course, our government has chosen to do it anyway, but this is just one more optional entanglement that the U.S. could have avoided without jeopardizing American or allied security. ..."
ormer ambassador William Taylor wrote an op-ed on Ukraine in
an attempt to answer Pompeo's question about whether Americans care about Ukraine. It is not
very persuasive. For one thing, he starts off by exaggerating the importance of the conflict
between Russia and Ukraine to make it seem as if the U.S. has a major stake in the outcome:
Here's why the answer should be yes: Ukraine is defending itself and the West against
Russian attack. If Ukraine succeeds, we succeed. The relationship between the United States
and Ukraine is key to our national security, and Americans should care about Ukraine.
Taylor exaggerates what the conflict is about by saying that Ukraine is defending "the
West." That's not true. Ukraine is defending itself. The U.S. does not have a vital interest in
this conflict, but Taylor talks about it as if we do. He says that the relationship with
Ukraine is "key" to our national security, but that is simply false. To say that it is key to
our national security means that we are supposed to believe that it is crucially important to
our national security. That suggests that U.S. national security would seriously compromised if
that relationship weakened, but that doesn't make any sense. We usually don't even talk about
our major treaty allies this way, so what justification is there for describing a relationship
with a weak partner government like this?
The op-ed reads like a textbook case of clientitis, in which a former U.S. envoy ends up
making the Ukrainian government's argument for them. The danger of exaggerating U.S. interests
and conflating them with Ukraine's is that we fool ourselves into thinking that we are acting
out of necessity and in our own defense when we are really choosing to take sides in a conflict
that does not affect our security. This is the kind of thinking that encourages people to spout
nonsense about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." If we view
Ukraine as "the front line" of a larger struggle, that will also make it more difficult to
resolve the conflict. When a local conflict is turned into a proxy fight between great powers,
the local people will be the ones made to suffer to serve the ambitions of the patrons. Once
the U.S. insists that its own security is bound up with the outcome of this conflict, there is
an incentive to be considered the "winner," but the reality is that Ukraine will always matter
less to the U.S. than it does to Russia.
If this relationship were so important to U.S. security, how is it that the U.S. managed to
get along just fine for decades after the end of the Cold War when that relationship was not
particularly strong? As recently as the Obama administration, our government did not consider
Ukraine to be important enough to supply with weapons. Ukraine was viewed correctly as
being of
peripheral interest to the U.S., and nothing has changed in the years since then to make it
more important.
Taylor keeps repeating that "Ukraine is the front line" in a larger conflict between Russia
and the West, but that becomes true only if Western governments choose to treat it as one. He
concludes his op-ed with a series of ideological assertions:
To support Ukraine is to support a rules-based international order that enabled major
powers in Europe to avoid war for seven decades. It is to support democracy over autocracy.
It is to support freedom over unfreedom. Most Americans do.
These make for catchy slogans, but they are lousy policy arguments. This rhetoric veers
awfully close to saying that you aren't on the side of freedom if you don't support a
particular policy option. In my experience, advocates for more aggressive measures use rhetoric
like this because the rest of their argument isn't very strong. It is possible to reject
illegal military interventions of all governments without wanting to throw weapons at the
problem.
Taylor has set up the policy argument in such a way that there seems to be no choice, but
the U.S. doesn't have to support Ukraine's war effort. He oversells Ukraine's importance to the
U.S. to justify U.S. support, because an accurate assessment would make the current policy of
arming their government much harder to defend. Ukraine isn't really that important to U.S.
security and our security doesn't require us to provide military assistance to them. Of course,
our government has chosen to do it anyway, but this is just one more optional entanglement that
the U.S. could have avoided without jeopardizing American or allied security.
Bolton is pretty dangerous neocon scum... Now he tried to backstab Trump, so Trump gets what
he deserves as only complete idiot or a fully controlled puppet would appoint Bolton to his
Administration.
Breitbart
News , which would include the recently leaked manuscript of former National Security
adviser John Bolton.
The report describes the reviews as a "standard process that allows the NSC to review book
manuscripts, op-eds, or any other material for any classified material to be eliminated before
publication."
The New York Timesreported
Sunday evening that Bolton's draft book manuscript, which had been submitted to the NSC for
prepublication review on Dec. 30, alleged that President Trump told Bolton in August 2019
that he wanted to withhold security assistance to Ukraine until it agreed to investigate
former Vice President Joe Biden, among others.
It was not clear if the Times had seen the Bolton manuscript; its sources were
"multiple people" who "described Mr. Bolton's account of the Ukraine affair."
Bolton's lawyer, Chuck Cooper,
issued a statement in which he said: "It is clear, regrettably, from The New York Times
article published today that the prepublication review process has been corrupted ." He did
not confirm or deny the Times ' reporting on the content of the manuscript. -
Breitbart News
What a coincidence! While Alexander Vindman at the NSC testifies against Trump at the
House impeachment, the other brother (Yevgeny) appears to be in charge of clearing John
Bolton's book for publication.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman famously
testified against President Trump during House impeachment hearings in November, where he
admitted to violating the chain of command when he reported his concerns over a July 25 phone
call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky.
Nunes: Did you know that financial records show a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma,
routed more than $ 3 million to American accounts tied to Hunter Biden?
Vindman, whose job is to handle Ukraine policy: "I'm not aware of this fact." pic.twitter.com/6yFbWkufmH
Breitbart notes that the Vindman brothers have offices
across from each other at the NSC , and that the Wall Street Journal describes
Vindman as "an NSC lawyer handling ethics issues." Alexander Vindman, meanwhile, has said that
his brother was the " lead
ethics official " at the agency.
Meanwhile, looks like people are already distancing themselves from Bolton's claims that
President Trump explicitly linked Ukraine aid with an investigation into the Bidens.
"Today, January 27, 2020, we have a stunning update ==>>
After previously claiming no FBI records could be found related to Seth Rich, emails have
been uncovered. These emails weren't just from anybody. These emails were between FBI
lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two most corrupt individuals involved in the Russia
Collusion Hoax.
In a set of
emails released by Judicial Watch on January 22, 2020, provided by a FOIA request on
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, two pages on emails refer to Seth Rich:"
These guys are Ukrainian mob moles, sent here by their Ukie Jewish oligarchs when their
positions of privilege went into decline with the collapse of communism. Because its typical
for three first generation schmucks fresh off the immigrant boat to end up with two as
officers both working in the white house, and the third brother back in Ukie Euro land
controlling a major bank hip deep in all the scandal.
Think any investigative agency will touch it, don't **** with the mossad.
Nov 5, 2019In 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."
So why isn't Vindman doing contracts in North Alaska or deputy attache in Namibia tonight
until he gets passed over 3 times for promotion and forced to retire unless Durham can find
evidence of his guilt?
Speaking of Vindman, an Obama holdover, White House HR head, has prohibited Vindman's
removal from the NSC. He even gets a $30k raise and is permitted to serve out his term until
June. You can't make this **** up:
Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine supported comments made by Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT)
over whether former National Security Adviser John Bolton should testify in President Trump's
impeachment trial, after a manuscript of his upcoming book was leaked to the New York
Times which claims that President Trump explicitly linked a hold on Ukraine aid to an
investigation of the Bidens. "The reports about John Bolton's book strengthen the case for
witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues," said Collins.
JUST IN: GOP Sen. Susan Collins: "The reports about John Bolton's book strengthen the case
for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues." https://t.co/wDglFX1ipA
pic.twitter.com/DlSjXMfDsk
Collins echoed Monday comments by Romney, who said " it is increasingly apparent that it
would be important to hear from John Bolton ," adding that it is "increasingly likely" that
other GOP senators would join the 11th hour call.
... ... ...
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said " This looks like a marketing tactic to sell
books is what it looks like to me."
Sen. Blunt on John Bolton:
"I can't imagine that anything he would have to say would change the outcome of the final
vote. Might be interesting, might be an oversight question that Congress wants to take months
to pursue."
"I think Bolton is credible, he's a friend of mine."
What is the canary's purpose in life? Why, to sing, of course - at least from the human's
point-of-view.
What is the canary trap? Why, to catch humans who are singing like canaries.
The latest occult dish served up by Democratic Party spirit cookers in the impeachment
ritual is the release of "bombshell" news leaked to The New York Times late Sunday from a new
book by Mr. Trump's erstwhile National Security Advisor, John Bolton, purporting verbal
evidence of a quid pro quo in the Ukraine aid-for-investigations allegation. Better hold the
premature ejaculations on that one.
The canary trap is a venerable ploy of intelligence tradecraft for flushing out
info-leakers. You send slightly different versions of an info package to suspected leakers in a
leaky agency, and when the info materializes somewhere like The New York Times , you can tell
exactly which canary crooned the melody. In this case, the agency was the White House National
Security Council, the notorious nest of intriguers lately the haunts of impeachment stars Col.
Alexander Vindman and alleged "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella (on loan from the CIA, and now
back there). Another bird in that nest is Alexander Vindman's twin brother Col. Eugene
(Yevgeny) Vindman, a military lawyer posted as chief ethics counsel for the NSC, of all
things.
The info-package in this case was the manuscript of John Bolton's book, The Room Where It
Happened , relating his brief and tumultuous misadventures in Trumpland, slated for release
March 17. Someone in the White House chain of command ordered a security review of the
manuscript by the NSC -- a curious detail. Why there, of all places, given the recent exploits
of Ciaramella, Vindman & Vindman, Sean Misko, Abigail Grace, current or former NSC
employees now in the service of Adam Schiff's House Intel Committee, which kicked off the
latest mega-distraction from the nation's business? Why not give the manuscript to the Attorney
General's counsel, or some other referee to determine what in the book might qualify as
privileged communication between a president and a top national security advisor?
Well, before you go tripping off on a tear about the suspect loyalties of William Barr,
consider that the chief byproduct of the entire three-year RussiaGate flimflam and all its
subsequent offshoots by the Lawfare Resistance has been to completely undermine Americans'
faith in federal institutions, including the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA. Perhaps what we're seeing
is the convergence of two perfect setups.
Surely Adam Schiff thinks that testimony from John Bolton was his ace-in-the-hole to
corroborate the House's impeachment case. Maybe his staff (of former NSC moles) had a hand in
orchestrating the leaks from the NSC to The New York Times at exactly the right moment -- hours
before Mr. Trump's lawyers would begin to argue the main body of his defense in the Senate, to
produce an orgasmic gotcha . But what if Mr. Trump's lawyers and confidents were ahead of the
scheme and knew exactly when and how Mr. Schiff would call the play?
It's actually inconceivable that that Mr. Trump's team did not know this play was coming. Do
you suppose they didn't know that Mr. Bolton had written a book on contract for Simon &
Schuster, and much more? After all, a president has access to information that even a sedulous
bottom-feeder like Mr. Schiff just doesn't command. Maybe the canary trap is only the prelude
to a booby trap -- and remember, boobies are much larger birds than canaries. Maybe, despite
prior protestations about not calling witnesses, the Bolton ploy will actually be an excuse for
Mr. Trump's defense team to run the switcheroo play and accede to the calling of witnesses.
Perhaps they are not afraid of what Mr. Bolton might have to say in the 'splainin' seat.
Perhaps what he has to say turns out to be, at least, the proverbial nothingburger with mayo
and onion, or, at worst, a perfidious prevarication motivated by ill-will against the employer
who sacked him ignominiously. Perhaps Mr. Trump's lawyers are longing for the chance to haul in
some witnesses of their own, for instance the "whistleblower." It is also inconceivable that
the actual progenitor of this mighty hot mess would not be called to account in the very forum
that his ploy was aimed to convoke.
And from the unmasked "whistleblower," the spectacle would proceed straightaway to Adam
Schiff himself in the witness chair. That will be an elongated moment of personal
self-disfigurement not seen in American history since William Jennings Bryan was left
blubbering in the courtroom at Dayton, Tennessee, 1925, after he spearheaded the malicious
prosecution of John Scopes for teaching evolution in a high school biology class or the moment
of national wonder and nausea in June 1954 when Army Chief Counsel Joseph Welch rose from his
chair and asked witch-hunting Senator Joseph McCarthy, "At long last, have you left no sense of
decency?"
In a deeply imperfect world, California's 28th congressional district has produced a true
marvel: the perfect scoundrel. Adam Schiff has been hurling false accusations and retailing
mendacious narratives for three years. He deserves the most public disgrace that can possibly
be arranged, on nationwide television, with all his many media enablers at CNN and MSNBC having
to call the play-by-play. Then the nation needs to expel him from the House of Representatives.
And then, maybe, the USA can get on with other business.
Update (0130ET) : The word of the day is "Shredded" - as in, several Republicans have
described the White House counsel's presentation as having shredded House Democrats'
impeachment arguments.
"... Former Ukrainian Prime Minister and now leader of the opposition party "Batkivshchyna" Yulia Tymoshenko on the ZIK TV channel announced the beginning of the process of "liquidation" of Ukraine. According to her, since independence, the country has fallen under external "curatorship", lost its suvereignity and turned into an object that "everyone uses as they want". ..."
"... "We must recognize that this period of independence, when we had to live with our intellect, our science, our reason, our interests, we lost, replacing all this with advice from the outside," the former Prime Minister was quoted by RIA Novosti. ..."
"... "It is surprising that Yulia Tymoshenko, who made a huge effort to establish external curatorship and earned very solid funds (or at least she was given the opportunity to earn), today, being an outsider, made the right statement. It seems that she understands that this is the only way to return to Ukrainian politics. After all, people's patience is not unlimited, " a member of the Federation Council, Franz Klintsevich, told the newspaper VZGLYAD when commenting on the former Prime Minister's statement. ..."
"... The small managerial experience of Zelensky and Goncharuk (who, as you know, almost lost the post of Prime Minister because of a rather ridiculous story) became a trump card for Tymoshenko. On the eve of the parliamentary elections, she called for protecting the country from the incompetence of the future President. The former head of the government responded immediately to the recent request for Goncharuk's resignation: "This power must be removed, starting with the incompetent President and ending with every incompetent official he brought in." ..."
"... "By and large, the differences between Tymoshenko and Zelensky are stylistic. At its core, one or the other represents the interests of various oligarchic groups." ..."
"... It is clear why Tymoshenko decided to earn points on the protests against the lifting of the moratorium on land sales. According to a survey conducted last October by the Ukrainian sociological service "Rating", 53% of Ukrainians opposed the lifting of the moratorium, and a much larger number (69%) opposed the sale of land to foreigners. ..."
"... "The West needs Ukraine only as an anti-Russia, no more." ..."
Ukraine came under external supervision, everyone uses it as they want, Yulia Tymoshenko
said. And although the big words relate to the entire period of Ukraine's independence, the
critical attack has a specific addressee-President Zelensky. Experts note that Tymoshenko has
no reason to act as a fighter against external management, and Ukraine itself has no chance of
an independent policy for many years of loan payments.
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister and now leader of the opposition party "Batkivshchyna" Yulia
Tymoshenko on the ZIK TV channel announced the beginning of the process of "liquidation" of Ukraine. According to her, since
independence, the country has fallen under external "curatorship", lost its suvereignity and turned into an object that "everyone
uses as they want".
"We must recognize that this period of independence, when we had to live with our intellect,
our science, our reason, our interests, we lost, replacing all this with advice from the
outside," the former Prime Minister was quoted by RIA Novosti. At the moment, Ukraine
has entered the stage when its leadership will either draw conclusions and put an end to this
state of Affairs, or will allow the country to be completely deprived of resources and
property, Tymoshenko concluded.
"It is surprising that Yulia Tymoshenko, who made a huge effort to establish external
curatorship and earned very solid funds (or at least she was given the opportunity to earn),
today, being an outsider, made the right statement. It seems that she understands that this is
the only way to return to Ukrainian politics. After all, people's patience is not unlimited, "
a member of the Federation Council, Franz Klintsevich, told the newspaper VZGLYAD when
commenting on the former Prime Minister's statement.
In Tymoshenko's statement, which may look like an Epiphany or remorse, the key words are
"resources" and "property," experts say. "Yulia Vladimirovna in this case continues to develop
her main political theme-opposition to the opening of the land market," Ukrainian political
analyst Vasyl Stoyakin told the newspaper VZGLYAD.
Back in December, Batkivshchyna, together with nationalists from the Svoboda party, launched
a protest campaign that continued last week. The reason was the adoption by the Verkhovna Rada
of the bill, according to which the sale of agricultural land is allowed from October 1, 2020.
"This topic remains the main one for Tymoshenko, and she continues to work actively in this
direction," Stoyakin said. The political scientist believes that we should not expect any
far-reaching consequences of the ex-Prime Minister's loud statement.
But it is obvious that the current President should be considered the addressee of the
accusation, although it mentions the entire period of Ukrainian independence. "Naturally, this
is largely addressed to Vladimir Zelensky, who has the government of Alexey Goncharuk, who does
not understand a damn thing about the economy. Who now manages the Ukrainian economy, in
General, it is completely unclear-people like Goncharuk absolutely can not manage anything, " -
said Stoyakin.
The small managerial experience of Zelensky and Goncharuk (who, as you know, almost lost the
post of Prime Minister because of a rather ridiculous story) became a trump card for
Tymoshenko. On the eve of the parliamentary elections, she called for protecting the country
from the incompetence of the future President. The former head of the government responded
immediately to the recent request for Goncharuk's resignation: "This power must be removed,
starting with the incompetent President and ending with every incompetent official he brought
in."
In previous and current statements of Tymoshenko, the interests of oligarchic structures in
their struggle against other structures that support the "Zelensky team" are primarily
overlooked, says TV host Vladimir Solovyov.
"By and large, the differences between Tymoshenko and Zelensky are stylistic. At its core,
one or the other represents the interests of various oligarchic groups."
The conflict between Tymoshenko and Zelensky is not in relation to the land, but in the
clash of interests of these groups. For this type of politician, what matters is not what will
happen to the land, but who will get it, " Solovyov told the VZGLYAD newspaper. "It's just that
Yulia Tymoshenko has been in this business for a long time, has been integrated into it for a
long time, and can already rightfully be considered an oligarch herself," the source explained.
- Zelensky is still only gaining financial capital, while political capital is already a
problem: there is a position, and he is losing authority at a high rate."
It is clear why Tymoshenko decided to earn points on the protests against the lifting of the
moratorium on land sales. According to a survey conducted last October by the Ukrainian
sociological service "Rating", 53% of Ukrainians opposed the lifting of the moratorium, and a
much larger number (69%) opposed the sale of land to foreigners.
However, as noted by critics, Tymoshenko looks quite strange in the role of the main fighter
with the sale of Ukrainian black soil. After all, in 2008, it was under her leadership that the
Cabinet of Ministers introduced a draft law on the land market to the Parliament. This document
was supposed to lift the moratorium on purchase and sale and allow the purchase of land plots
not only for Ukrainian, but also for foreign citizens. The bill was withdrawn already under
Yanukovych by the government of Mykola Azarov, but before that, Tymoshenko's Cabinet did quite
a lot to simplify the sale of land.
For example, in 2009, the simplified procedure for registration of acts of tranfere of the
land ownership was declared in force indefinitely. "In General, the flexible attitude of
Ukrainian politicians to the land issue is quite a funny story. They often change their
position, " said Vladimir Solovyov.
However, Vasily Stoyakin is sure, "Tymoshenko wasn't going to open the land market and to
achieve entry of the land law into force". "This was a requirement of the International
monetary Fund to get a loan. The bill was developed solely to meet the requirements of the IMF,
" the Ukrainian expert explained.
But this may just indicate that Tymoshenko at least did not protest against the external
management of Ukraine – in this case, from the IMF. Also, as Vladimir Solovyov noted, "I
would like to remind you that Yulia Tymoshenko once led the so-called campaign to NATO. "By and
large, this was already the surrender of most of the sovereignty," Solovyov said.
Back in January 2008, Prime Minister Tymoshenko, together with President Viktor Yushchenko
and the speaker of the Rada, who was then Arseniy Yatsenyuk, sent an official statement to the
NATO headquarters of the Ukrainian authorities about joining the action Plan for membership in
the Alliance.
Tymoshenko did not retreat from her Pro-NATO line. The Batkivshchyna leader, mentioned by
Solovyov, led the" campaign "to the Alliance, in particular, during the 2014 election campaign,
when she called for an immediate referendum on joining NATO to "protect against
aggression".
"I would like to remind you that Yulia Tymoshenko has long and confidently surrendered the
economic sovereignty of Ukraine," Solovyov stated.
By the way, we note that Tymoshenko's "patriot" was criticized for surrendering Ukrainian
economic sovereignty in the early 2010s, including by the "Party of regions" (which is now
considered to be almost the "fifth column of the Kremlin"). It is indicative of the statement
made in 2013 by the people's Deputy-regional Yaroslav Sukhoi in a comment to Ukrainian Pravda:
"High gas prices for Ukraine, which we inherited from Yulia Tymoshenko, kill national
sovereignty and bring the country to its knees. Yulia Tymoshenko's gas agreement of 2009
contradicts national interests."
On this subject
Exposing George Soros makes him look stupid
What Zelensky changed in Ukraine for the year
Ukraine's vice-Prime Minister played on Zelensky's weakness
The fact that Tymoshenko has now raised the idea of fighting external governance is her last
attempt to "jump on the outgoing train" of Ukrainian politics and restore her reputation,
Senator Franz Klintsevich believes. "I do not think that it is able to "save Ukraine" or solve
the problems of Ukrainian citizens, " the source added.
The very statement of the former Prime Minister can be characterized by the phrase "late
caught on", said in turn Vladimir Solovyov. In the winter of 2018, ex-Minister of economy of
Ukraine Viktor Suslov stated on the NewsOne TV channel: Ukraine's foreign exchange reserves are
mainly formed at the expense of external loans, and if Kiev ceases to cooperate with the IMF,
it will no longer receive support from the European Union and other international partners. The
situation has not changed since then.
But the fact that Tymoshenko raised the issue of withdrawing from external Western control
indicates that such a public request exists in Ukraine, Klintsevich said. Ukrainian society has
already had the opportunity to make sure that Western curation has not brought anything
formally independent Ukraine – "all Ukrainian products, except raw materials, the West
does not need, there is no hope that these products will get to the European market," the
Senator said. Klintsevich sure:
"The West needs Ukraine only as an anti-Russia, no more."
On the other hand, participation in the Eurasian structures-the EEU and other associations
of CIS countries-could revive the Ukrainian economy, which is in constant crisis, the source
said. "The only way to save Ukraine is to restore relations with Russia," Klintsevich said. In
his opinion, "Zelensky's team began to send signals about the desirability of restoring
relations with Russia." "But this does not mean that the current Ukrainian government will get
rid of the influence of American curators," the Senator concluded.
Democratic lawmakers are continuing to lay out their case for removing the president from office in the final day of opening arguments
by Democrats in the historic impeachment trial of President Trump. Republicans will begin their opening arguments on Saturday. The
Senate trial comes a month after the House impeached Trump for withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine as part
of an effort to pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate Trump's political rival, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
On Thursday, House impeachment manager Jerrold Nadler made the case that a president can be impeached for noncriminal activity. During
another part of Thursday's proceedings, House impeachment manager Congressmember Sylvia Garcia relied on polls by Fox News
to make the case that President Trump decided to target Joe Biden after polls showed the former vice president could beat Trump in
2020.
For more on the impeachment trial, we're joined by Marjorie Cohn, professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and the
former president of the National Lawyers Guild. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical
Issues .
TRANSCRIPT
AMY GOODMAN : We turn now to the historic impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump. Democratic
lawmakers are continuing to lay out their case for removing the president from office. Today marks the final day of a 24-hour opening
argument by the Democrats. Republicans begin their opening arguments Saturday. The Senate impeachment trial comes a month after the
House impeached Trump for withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine as part of an effort to pressure the Ukrainian
president to investigate Trump's political rival, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. On Thursday, House impeachment manager
Jerrold Nadler made the case that a president can be impeached for noncriminal activity.
REP . JERROLD NADLER : No one anticipated that a president would stoop to this misconduct, and Congress has passed no specific
law to make this behavior a crime. Yet this is precisely the kind of abuse that the Framers had in mind when they wrote the impeachment
clause and when they charged Congress with determining when the president's conduct was so clearly wrong, so definitely beyond
the pale, so threatening to the constitutional order as to require his removal.
AMY GOODMAN : During his presentation, Judiciary chair in the House Jerrold Nadler relied in part on past statements made by key
supporters of President Trump.
REP . JERROLD NADLER : And I might say the same thing of then-House manager Lindsey Graham, who, in President Clinton's trial,
flatly rejected the notion that impeachable offenses are limited to violations of established law. Here is what he said.
REP . LINDSEY GRAHAM : What's a high crime? How about if an important person hurt somebody of low means? It's not very scholarly,
but I think it's the truth. I think that's what they meant by high crimes. Doesn't even have to be a crime.
REP . JERROLD NADLER : In Attorney General Barr's view, as expressed about 18 months ago, presidents cannot be indicted or
criminally investigated, but that's OK, because they can be impeached. That's the safeguard. And in an impeachment, Attorney General
Barr added, the "President is answerable for any abuses of discretion" and may be held "accountable under law for his misdeeds
in office."
AMY GOODMAN : Senator Lindsey Graham reportedly left the Senate chamber shortly before Congressman Nadler played the clip of him
from Bill Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999. During another part of Thursday's proceedings, House impeachment manager Congresswoman
Sylvia Garcia relied on polls by Fox News to make the case that President Trump decided to target Joe Biden after polls showed
the former vice president could beat Trump in 2020.
REP . SYLVIA GARCIA : It wasn't until Biden began beating him in the polls that he called for the investigation. The president
asked Ukraine for this investigation for one reason and one reason only: because he knew he would -- it would be damaging to an
opponent who was consistently beating him in the polls, and therefore it could help him get re-elected in 2020. President Trump
had the motive, he had the opportunity and the means, to commit this abuse of power. If we allow this gross abuse of power to
continue, this president would have free rein -- free rein -- to abuse his control of U.S. foreign policy for personal interests.
And so would any other future president. And then this president and all presidents become above the law.
AMY GOODMAN : House Intelligence chair, House manager Adam Schiff -- he's the lead House impeachment manager -- ended the long
day of oral arguments.
REP . ADAM SCHIFF : It doesn't matter how good the Constitution is. It doesn't matter how brilliant the Framers were. It doesn't
matter how good or bad our advocacy in this trial is. It doesn't matter how well written the oath of impartiality is. If right
doesn't matter, we're lost. If the truth doesn't matter, we're lost. The Framers couldn't protect us from ourselves, if right
and truth don't matter. And you know that what he did was not right.
AMY GOODMAN : To talk more about the impeachment trial of President Trump, we go to San Diego, California, where we're joined
by Marjorie Cohn, professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. She's the former president of the National Lawyers Guild.
Her most recent book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues .
Welcome to Democracy Now! , Marjorie Cohn. Start off by assessing the Democrats' case so far for the removal of President
Trump.
MARJORIE COHN : Well, yes, Amy. The Democratic managers, the House managers, have laid out a meticulous case for abuse of power
and obstruction of Congress. And many of these Republican senators who are listening, who have to sit in their chairs for eight hours
a day without talking, without using cellphones, are a captive audience. And many of them have never heard this before. They didn't
follow the case that was made in the House. And this case is so powerful and so deep that Schiff said at the end -- Adam Schiff said
at the end, "You know he's guilty. The question is: Will you remove him?"
Now, these senators, the Republicans, have walked in lockstep with Donald Trump. They are what Frank Rich would call Vichy Republicans,
Vichy being the government in France, in Nazi-occupied France, who were doing Hitler's bidding. They walk in lockstep with him, and
there is almost no chance that they're not going to acquit him. But what Adam Schiff was trying to get across was, they are going
to be on the wrong side of history, because what Donald Trump does -- and he does this consistently -- is to put his own personal
interest ahead of the national interest. And that's something that they all have to grapple with.
Now, one of the things that they focused on yesterday was to refute the allegations that the Bidens did something wrong and therefore
there was merit in Trump's, basically, demand that Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, investigate what they did with the Burisma
company. And what the Democrats were trying to do is to take the wind out of the sails of the Republican case by bringing it up first.
And what the Republicans have said now -- and this is the defense team, Donald Trump's defense team -- is that, "Well, now that they've
opened the door, now that the managers have opened the door, we're going to make that probably a focus" of their defense.
Now, what they did in the House was to focus mainly on process, whereas the managers, the Democrats, focused on the facts and
laid out this roadmap to prove abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. What the Republicans did was to focus on process: "Donald
Trump was denied due process" -- which he wasn't. He was invited to come and didn't participate. Many process arguments. It's unclear
to me, Amy, how the Republicans, how the defense, Donald Trump's defense, is going to take up two or three days -- and they've said
now it's probably going to be two days -- in addition to meeting the Biden -- talking about the Biden issue, because they're going
to really harp on that. It's not clear what they're going to do. They're going to harp on process.
But the thing that's really important about this is not so much that -- he's not going to be found guilty. There's no doubt about
that. The American people are watching. They're following this. And just like during Watergate, when people were riveted to the television,
that is going to be reflected, I believe, in the election. The polls are already showing that people, the majority of American people,
think he should be removed. A huge majority think he did something unethical. And a sizable majority think he did something illegal.
So, this is really, really important, even though ultimately he won't be removed.
AMY GOODMAN : And if he is found guilty, is he automatically removed?
MARJORIE COHN : The Constitution provides that the Senate is to determine his guilt and removal. So it's really part of the same
thing, and therefore -- and this is what Adam Schiff was trying to get at -- even though all or most of the Republicans know in their
heart of hearts that he's guilty, they don't think he should be removed. And so, therefore, they will probably, in all probability,
vote not guilty. But, yes, conviction means removal. That's not going to happen.
AMY GOODMAN : You said that the senators have to sit there for eight hours. In fact, that's not what's happening. Is that right?
I mean, to be very clear, the Republicans are controlling the frame of the TV image. It's no longer, you know, C- SPAN on the floor
of the Senate or the House, so you can't see what's actually happening behind the scenes. But you have Tennessee Republican Senator
Blackburn. She's got books that she's reading. You have Thom Tillis. I believe he got up and he went into the press gallery to hang
out there for a while. And, of course, Lindsey Graham, when Congressmember Nadler played the clip of him saying exactly the opposite
of what he's saying now, that it has to be a crime that President Trump has committed, according to the criminal code, saying the
opposite during Clinton's trial, he reportedly was not in the Senate chamber.
MARJORIE COHN : Yes, that's true. There were a handful of senators who were not there, who were coming and going. But the bulk
of them are listening to, if not all of it, most of it. They just can't get away from it. They are not allowed to have cellphones,
which is probably really difficult for them. And, yes, they do get up and leave and come back, and we're not seeing that, but most
of them are hearing most of this very airtight case, really.
AMY GOODMAN : Can you talk about exactly what President Trump has been impeached for, these two articles of impeachment? And if
you think -- I mean, just look at the title of your book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues
. You have long focused on the issue of war crimes and U.S. presidents guilty of them. The narrow framing of this impeachment?
MARJORIE COHN : Yes. Well, Nancy Pelosi resisted for many, many months mounting impeachment, an impeachment proceeding in the
House. And there are many different grounds that he could have been impeached for: violation of the emoluments clause, corruption
and war crimes, as you said, most recently killing Soleimani in violation of the U.N. Charter, in violation of the War Powers Resolution.
But when the whistleblower complaint came out and it became so clear what Trump had done with strong-arming Zelensky to mount --
not to mount investigations necessarily, but to announce that he was mounting investigations into Trump's political rival, Joe Biden
and this discredited theory that Ukraine had meddled in the 2016 election, Nancy Pelosi understood that this was an airtight case.
It was narrow. It was clear. People could get their brains around it.
And so we have these two articles of impeachment. Abuse of power and quid pro quo , this for that, dirt for dollars --
I think is one of the phrases that we hear -- that Trump really believed that because we've been so good to Ukraine, Ukraine owes
us. He really does not understand how foreign policy works. It's all about making a business deal, making himself look good. So,
this dirt for dollars -- in other words, if Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, announced an investigation against the Bidens, that
would tarnish Biden, who was leading him in the polls at that time, and help Trump's re-election. Patently illegal, a patent abuse
of power. And then the second article of impeachment is obstruction of Congress. And in an unprecedented move -- no president ever
before has done this, a president facing impeachment, even judges facing impeachment, haven't totally stonewalled the House of Representatives,
not producing one document in response to subpoenas, forbidding all officials of the executive branch from testifying. And this is
a direct violation of the Constitution's command that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. That
means it's not up to the president to decide whether he's going to cooperate with it.
And now, of course, we move to the Senate trial. We have moved to the Senate trial. And the first day of the trial was filled
with pretrial motions, 11 motions, by the House managers for the testimony of four witnesses and the production of documents from
a number of government agencies. Two of those witnesses are John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney. Mick Mulvaney said very incriminating
things about the president, admitting the quid pro quo . And John Bolton, who left on bad terms, left the White House on bad
terms, he says he's prepared to testify if he's subpoenaed. Now, Trump is very, very threatened by Bolton's testimony. And, you know,
what Trump thinks comes right out in his tweets. There's no guessing what he's thinking. And most recently he said he doesn't want
Bolton to testify because "Bolton knows how I feel about these matters," and it's a national security threat. And he said, "We didn't
leave on the best of terms." And he's terrified about what Bolton will say.
Now, In the pretrial motions, the Republicans, to a person, walked in lockstep with Trump in tabling the whole issue of whether
or not witnesses would be allowed, these four witnesses or any witnesses, and whether documents could be subpoenaed, until after
six days of argument, opening arguments, by the two parties, by the House managers and by the defense, and 16 hours of questioning
by the senators. It's like in Alice in Wonderland : first the trial, then the evidence. So we have the opening statements,
and then we have the questions by senators. And then, are we going to have evidence? Looks like we may not. Looks like they may prevent
witnesses from testifying, although they have made noises about wanting one of the Bidens to testify, to bolster this spurious theory
that they did something wrong. The Bidens have been completely exonerated by everybody who has examined what happened during this
time in Ukraine, when Joe Biden was acting as vice president consistent with American policy -- very, very different from what Trump
is accused of.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, let me stick with the Bidens for a minute. I want to read from today's New York Times , the
front page . "Joseph R.
Biden Jr. called an octogenarian voter a 'damn liar' and challenged him to a push-up contest. He dismissed a heckler as an 'idiot.'
He commanded the news media to focus on President Trump instead of the overseas business dealings of his son, Hunter Biden, demanding
of one reporter, 'Ask the right question!' For Mr. Biden, the stream of questions about his son touches on a vulnerability for his
candidacy and presents a fine line for him to navigate. At issue is an unsubstantiated theory pushed by Mr. Trump that Mr. Biden
took action in Ukraine as vice president in order to help his son, who at the time held a lucrative position as a board member of
Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company."
So, I mean, let's talk about this for a minute. You know, some have speculated this is a real crisis, the impeachment trial, at
this time, because, you know, four senators can't be out on the campaign trail, the leading senators in the Senate, Senator Sanders
and Senator Elizabeth Warren, so Biden is out there along with Buttigieg in Iowa at this key moment. But it could also be a liability
for Biden, as he is now open to questions from both Iowans and reporters about what actually happened, not necessarily about what
Vice President Biden did. But what about his son, Hunter Biden, on the board of Burisma? If you can talk about what the accusations
are and also, significantly, this whole issue of reciprocal witnesses, the idea that the Republicans could call Hunter Biden to testify?
Clearly, Biden is getting very nervous about this, too.
MARJORIE COHN : He is, Amy. And yes, this could cut both ways. People will be very defensive of Biden and say, you know, he's
being unfairly attacked, he's been cleared, he didn't do anything wrong. And on the other hand, some people will think, "Well, where
there's smoke, there's fire." And this doesn't look good. Biden, Joe Biden, was vice president at the same time that Hunter Biden
was on the board of Burisma, this very, very lucrative position. But Biden was vice president at the time, and he -- consistent with
the Obama administration's policy, he was pressuring Ukraine to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor, because the U.S. policy was to oppose
corruption in Ukraine. And so, really, in that context, Biden did not do anything wrong. However, that doesn't mean that the fact
that he is in this position -- was in this position, and his son was on the board of Burisma, is going to raise some questions. Where
there's smoke, there's fire. There will be people who will not support Biden for that reason. On the other hand, he may well benefit
from being on the defensive by Donald Trump.
Now, if there are witnesses allowed at all -- and I highly doubt it -- I can't imagine that the Republicans would not push to
subpoena one or both of the Bidens. And then it's going to become a mini trial, a trial within a trial, where it's going to focus
on what Biden did or didn't do. Did he do something improper? Was Trump justified in asking Zelensky to mount an investigation of
Joe Biden? And so, I think this is going to be very interesting. And certainly, the Republicans, Trump's defense, are going to go
deeply into the appearance of impropriety with Biden and his son. It remains to be seen whether one or both of the Bidens will actually
be called to testify, and whether any witnesses, for that matter, will be called to testify.
AMY GOODMAN : And, very quickly, this whole issue that Republicans are raising, if the witness issue is going to be -- this impeachment
trial could go on for months, because it will go to court. Now, interestingly, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts,
is right in the room. He's presiding over this trial. So, where does he weigh in on this? And is this true?
MARJORIE COHN : I don't see this being hung up in the courts. I think it will be resolved in the Senate. Chief Justice John Roberts
is in a very, very delicate position. I'm sure he would rather be anywhere than where he is, presiding over this Senate trial, which
the Constitution provides for. And he really doesn't have much power. One of the amendments that the House managers proposed in their
pretrial motions was to allow Chief Justice John Roberts to determine whether any prospective witness's testimony would be relevant
to the issues. And the Republicans voted that down. Now, even if they had allowed that to happen and he had served that function,
any ruling that John Roberts makes could be overruled by 51 senators. So, it's really kind of a ceremonial role that he plays. He
is not going to take an active role. He's going to follow what Chief Justice Rehnquist did during the Clinton impeachment trial and
really call balls and strikes, for the first time, which is what Roberts promised to do during his confirmation hearings as Supreme
Court justice. And, of course, that is not the case at all.
AMY GOODMAN : Marjorie Cohn, I want to thank you for being with us, professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former
president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, member
of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical
Issues .
While I agree that the removal of Trump might be slightly beneficial (Pence-Pompeo duo initially will run scared), this Kabuki
theater with Schiff in a major role is outright silly.
Adam Schiff physically resembles a typical prosperity theology preacher -- a classic modern American snake oil salesman. And
with his baseless accusations and the fear to touch real issues , he is even worse than that -- he looks outright silly even for
the most brainwashed part of the USA electorate ;-)
As he supported the Iraq war, he has no right to occupy any elected office. He probably should be prosecuted as a war criminal.
Realistically Schiff should be viewed as yet another intelligence agency stooge, a neocon who is funded by military contractors
such as Northrop Grumman, which sells missiles to Ukraine.
The claim that Trump is influenced by Russia is a lie. His actions indicate that he is an agent of influence for Israel, not
so much for Russia. Several of his actions were more reckless and more hostile to Russia than the actions of the Obama administration.
Anyway, his policies toward Russia are not that different from Hillary's policies. Actually, Pompeo, in many ways, continues Hillary's
policies.
The claim that the withdrawal of military aid from Ukraine somehow influences the balance of power in the region was a State
department concocted scam from the very beginning. How sniper rifles and anti-tank missiles change the balance of power on the
border with the major nuclear power, who has probably second or third military in the world.? They do not.
They (especially sniper rifles) will definitely increase casualties of Ukrainian separatists (and will provoke Russian reaction
to compensate for this change of balance and thus increase casualties of the Ukrainian army provoking the escalation spiral ),
but that's about it. So more people will die in the conflict while Northrop Grumman rakes the profits.
They also increase the danger of the larger-scale conflict in the region, which is what the USA neocons badly wants to impose
really crushing sanctions on Russia. The danger of WWIII and the cost of support of the crumbling neoliberal empire with its outsize
military expenditures (which now is more difficult to compensate with loot) somehow escapes the US neocon calculations. But they
are completely detached from reality in any case.
I think Russia can cut Ukraine into Western and Eastern parts anytime with relative ease and not much resistance. Putin has
an opportunity to do this in 2014 (risking larger sanctions) as he could establish government in exile out of Yanukovich officials
and based on this restore the legitimate government in Eastern and southern region with the capital in Kharkiv, leaving Ukrainian
Taliban to rot in their own brand of far-right nationalism where the Ukraine identity is defined negatively via rabid Russophobia.
His calculation probably was that sanctions would slow down the Russia recovery from Western plunder during Yeltsin years and,
as such, it is not worth showing Western Ukrainian nationalists what level of support in Southern and Eastern regions that they
actually enjoy.
My impression is that they are passionately hated by over 50% of the population of this region. And viewed as an occupying
force, which is trying to colonize the space (which is a completely true assessment). They are viewed as American stooges, who
they are (the country is controlled from the USA embassy in any case).
And Putin's assessment might be wrong, as sanctions were imposed anyways, and now Ukraine does represent a threat to Russia
and, as such, is a huge source of instability in the region, which was the key idea of "Nulandgate" as the main task was weakening
Russia. In this sense, Euromaidan coup d'état was the major success of the Obama administration, which was a neocon controlled
administration from top to bottom.
Also unclear what Dems are trying to achieve. If Pelosi gambit, cynically speaking, was about repeating Mueller witch hunt
success in the 2018 election, that is typical wishful thinking. Mobilization of the base works both ways.
So what is the game plan for DemoRats (aka "neoliberal democrats" or "corporate democrats" -- the dominant Clinton faction
of the Democratic Party) is completely unclear.
I doubt that they will gain anything from impeachment Kabuki theater, where both sides are afraid to discuss real issues like
Douma false flag and other real Trump crimes.
Most Democratic candidates such as Warren, Biden, and Klobuchar will lose from this impeachment theater. Candidates who can
gain, such as Major Pete and Bloomberg does not matter that much.
While baseless House claims definitely can be shred, the fact that Trump abused his office
remains.
Notable quotes:
"... Dems do not want Schiff and the whistleblower. So while they publicly say they want witnesses, privately they do not. But they do want to hang the blame on the republicans when Trump is acquitted, noting that this whole process was unfair to the dems (forget the President, he doesn't deserve fairness anyway). As victims, they should recapture some of their losses at the 2020 polls. ..."
Update (0130ET) : The word of the day is "Shredded" - as in, several Republicans
have described the White House counsel's presentation as having shredded House Democrats'
impeachment arguments.
"In two hours, the White House counsel entirely shredded the case by the House managers,"
said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) in a statement to reporters. "What we saw today was factually
relevant ... and (we) saw there were a lot of half-truths from the House managers and, frankly,
pushed by the media."
Rep. Elise Stafanik (R-NY) offered similar comments - saying "It took less than two hours to
completely shred and eviscerate Adam Schiff's failed case for impeachment," adding "There is no
case for impeachable offenses here. And it took less than two hours to do so. I think the
American people understand that."
While Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) said "3 days of Democrat arguments were just shredded 2
hours."
Rep. Adam Schiff, meanwhile, says the White House counsel is trying to "deflect" away from
Democrats' claims that President Trump abused his office, according to The Hill .
"After listening to the President's lawyers opening arguments, I have three observations:
They don't contest the facts of Trump's scheme. They're trying to deflect, distract from, and
distort the truth. And they are continuing to cover it up by blocking documents and witnesses,"
Schiff tweeted on Saturday.
After listening to the President's lawyers opening arguments, I have three
observations:
They don't contest the facts of Trump's scheme.
They're trying to deflect, distract from, and distort the truth.
And they are continuing to cover it up by blocking documents and witnesses.
Update (1130ET) : Trump's lawyers began their opening arguments Saturday by
slamming Democrats for having "no evidence" to support their argument that Trump's conduct with
Ukraine warrants impeachment and removal.
"They're asking you not only to overturn the results of the last election but, as I've said
before, they're asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that's
occurring in approximately nine months," said White House counsel Pat Cipolline, adding "I
don't think they spent one minute of their 24 hours talking to you about the consequences of
that for our country."
Cipollone began on Saturday by reading directly from the transcript of the July 25 phone
call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky - claiming Democrats
misrepresented it. In particular, the White House counsel played a clip of House Intelligence
Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) reading a 'parody' of the call .
The use of the clip is likely to satisfy Trump. The president spent the days after Schiff
made the comments calling for the congressman's resignation and suggesting he committed
treason. Even months after the September hearing, Trump continues to bring up Schiff's
comments in interviews when railing against the impeachment proceedings.
Trump in his call with Zelensky asked the foreign leader to investigate a debunked theory
about 2016 election interference and to probe Joe Biden and his son Hunter's dealings in
Ukraine. The call triggered a rare intelligence community whistleblower complaint claiming
that Trump solicited foreign interference in a U.S. election, with the complaint being a key
piece of evidence in the Democrats' impeachment case. -
The Hill
Following Saturday arguments, Trump's lawyers will pick up again on Monday.
***
After three days of "why" , here comes the "why not" ...
Beginning at 10am ET, White House lawyers began their defense of the President on Day 5 of
the Senate Impeachment Trial.
The Trump lawyers are expected to speak for upwards of three hours after Democrats wrapped
up their opening arguments on Friday night.
A member of the legal team, Jay Sekulow, referred to Saturday's session as "a trailer" of
"coming attractions" for next week's sessions.
Like how debunked used to mean something that had been thoroughly investigated and proven
to be false, while now it means something never looked into... that democrats don't want
looked into.
I don't have a partisan dog in this fight... I just hope America wins. That said, I do
agree that the WH attorneys shredded the flimsy, highly tendentious Dumocratic Party case...
testimony was focused and entirely relevant...this whole farce must be put to bed immediately
by the Senate... and MAYBE the Congress might try to address unfolding crises on many fronts
(though I doubt they have the smarts or integrity to do so)
I started watching at 42:00 and it was all over for Schiff by 2:38:00. Less than 2 hours
to completely gut 3 days and 21 hours of bullSchiff Every American who has critical thinking
ability and isn't completely deranged should watch this.
It's so great the way every democrat has said "We need witnesses!".
Bolton, Mulvaney--and they will raise executive privilege, which will have to be newly
litigated in the impeachment context.
For how long? Now that the House has rushed the process and left this mess for the Senate,
they don't care how long it takes, expecially if it leads to a continuing impeachment during
the 2020 election.
Do they really want witnesses? Because Trump really wants Biden, Schiff, and the
whistleblower. On the first day of counsel's argument, did you hear white house counsel say
"Schiff is a fact witness" and say how even Schiff started by saying "We have to hear from
the whistleblower" before it was revealed that he was all tied up with the whistleblower.
Dems do not want Schiff and the whistleblower. So while they publicly say they want
witnesses, privately they do not. But they do want to hang the blame on the republicans when
Trump is acquitted, noting that this whole process was unfair to the dems (forget the
President, he doesn't deserve fairness anyway). As victims, they should recapture some of
their losses at the 2020 polls.
"... Anonymouse sauces (sic) are stating that the FBI conducted electronic surveillance on ALL Republican Presidential candidates in the 2016 election on Obama's instructions who was briefed each week on the surveillance. ..."
"... In other news, the GAO has declined to publish an internal audit report that details that the level of waste in federal spending has dropped from 20% under Obama to 15% of all federal spending under Trump... ..."
"... Either way--- Drump or some Dum candidate--- America is screwed. ..."
"... Even if true, no murders are attributed to Trump even by his nuttiest enemies. He would have a long way to go to reach the depths of the Bushes and the Clintons. ..."
"... It is fascinating watching the partisan blame game when practically every single one of them up there, regardless of spot or stripe, voted for and supports arming Ukraine. ..."
All the usual suspects are praising Adam Schiff's marathon two-and-a-half-hour Senate speech
on Wednesday to the skies.
Neocon columnist Jennifer Rubin
calls it "a grand slam" in the Washington Post.
Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin
describes it as "dazzling" on CNN.
Hillary Clinton: "Every American should watch this"
John Legend: "This is brilliantly argued and so compelling. Watch if you have time. Call
your senators. Everyone says the outcome is predetermined. But make sure your senators hear
from you if you're moved by this. Thank you, Congressman Schiff, for standing up for what's
right."
Debra Messing: " I am in tears. Thank you Chairman Schiff for fighting for our
country."
New York Times columnist Gail Collins says it
was "a great job" and that Schiff is "a rock star" for pulling it off.
But in fact it was the opposite
a fear-mongering, sword-rattling harangue that will not only raise tensions with Russia
for no good reason, but sends a chilling message to dissidents at home that if they deviate
from Russiagate orthodoxy by one iota, they'll be driven from the fold.
What is that orthodoxy?
It's that Russia invaded poor innocent Ukraine in 2014, that it interfered in the US
presidential election in 2016 in order to hurt Hillary Clinton and propel Donald Trump into
the White House, and that it's now trying to smear Joe Biden merely because he had allowed
his son to take a high-paying job with a notorious Ukrainian oligarch at a time when he was
supposedly heading up the Ukrainian anti-corruption effort.
As Schiff put it with regard to Donald Trump's famous July 25 phone call urging Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into Biden's activities:
"This investigation was related to a debunked conspiracy theory alleging that Ukraine not
Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. This narrative propagated by the Russian
intelligence services contends that Ukraine sought to help Hillary Clinton and harm
then-candidate Trump . This tale is also patently false and, remarkably, it is precisely the
inverse of what the US intelligence community's unanimous assessment was that Russia
interfered in the 2016 election in sweeping and systemic fashion in order to hurt Hillary
Clinton and help Donald Trump."
So even though the Financial Times
reported during the 2016 election campaign that the threat of a Trump victory was spurring
"Kiev's wider political leadership to do something they have never attempted before: intervene,
however indirectly, in a US election," articles like that are now down the memory hole because
Schiff says they're Russian propaganda that US intelligence agencies have determined to be
false.
The same goes for arguments that it's actually NATO's aggressive expansion to the east that
has led to a needless buildup of tensions, not Russia's drive to the west. Recent examples
include an article in the National Interest
arguing that NATO has "empowered some of the most historically anti-Russian elements in
that region – Ukrainian Banderites [i.e. followers of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera],
Polish nationalists, Balkan Islamists" – elements that, not unreasonably, have sparked
Russia's worst fears – or one in the Nation stating that NATO's drang nach osten is
"the primary cause for the new and very dangerous Cold War."
Articles like those are verboten as well because they go counter to the new line that Russia
is entirely to blame. Declared Schiff:
"Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become the de facto proving
ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century will become defined
by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the legitimacy of state
institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The Kremlin showed boldly
in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not stay in Ukraine.
Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will do so
again."
As for Biden, a New York Times editorial said about his son's unfortunate new job back in
2015:
"Sadly, the credibility of Mr. Biden's [anti-corruption] message may be undermined by the
association of his son with a Ukrainian natural-gas company, Burisma Holdings, which is owned
by a former government official suspected of corrupt practices . Burisma's owner, Mykola
Zlochevsky, has been under investigation in Britain and in Ukraine. It should be plain to
Hunter Biden that any connection with a Ukrainian oligarch damages his father's efforts to
help Ukraine. This is not a board he should be sitting on ."
We must all put such sentiments behind us now Russia is seeking to "weaponize" such
information, according to Schiff, and deploy it "against Mr. Biden just like it did against
Hillary Clinton in 2016 when Russia hacked and released emails from her presidential campaign."
If Russia wants to weaponize it, then it's best for the rest of us not to breathe a word of it
lest people think we've been weaponized as well.
Bottom line: we must impeach Trump, according to Schiff's epic presentation, not only
because he's overstepped his proper constitutional bounds, but because he's part of a grand
Russian conspiracy to spread disinformation, undercut US security, undermine faith in US
intelligence agencies, and "remake the map of Europe by dent of military force." In order to
counter this all-encompassing threat, it is our patriotic duty to do the opposite by believing
the CIA and redoubling US defense. If anyone tells us that Biden was guilty of a flagrant
conflict of interest, we must stop up our ears because that's what Moscow wants us to think. If
anyone says that the entire Russian-interference narrative is just a silly conspiracy theory
based on a paucity of facts and an abundance of paranoid speculation, we must do likewise
because it's just the Kremlin trying to worm its way into our minds.
When in doubt, just remember to bleat: America good, Russia baa-aa-aad.
But while it would be nice to dismiss this as a joke, it's not. Schiff's emergence as leader
of the Democratic impeachment drive means that the party is re-grouping along the most
retrograde Cold War lines. As reckless and appalling as Trump's behavior is in the Persian
Gulf, the emerging Democratic worldview is shaping up as no less extreme. Because it sees
Russia as mounting a multi-pronged offensive, the clear implication is that the US must respond
in kind. This means more troops deployments, more forces mobilized to counter Russian threats
from Venezuela to the Middle East, more TV talking heads going on and on about this or that
Kremlin conspiracy, and more labelling of people like Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein as Russian
assets.
Remember, this is the Los Angeles neocon who
backed the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, and Saudi Arabia's unprovoked war
against Yemen, an assault that, since March 2015, has cost
100,000 lives and brought half the country to the brink of starvation. He supported Obama's
war in Libya and called for the establishment of a no-fly zone in Syria and relies on arms
manufacturers and military contractors for major
financial support .
But while Bernie supporters may have thought that Democrats were edging away from such
views, they're plainly in the wrong. Schiff's new-found prominence shows that the neocons are
back in the saddle. Impeachment advocates should be careful of what they wish for because the
anti-Trump forces are turning out to be no less dangerous than those helping him to remain.
What a dumb headline. Every single politician in D.C. is a deep state stooge. Every.
Single. One. None of them are even a little bit better than any of the others. Grow up.
"Recreational intoxication - with the strongest pot ever grown, strength-intensified by
over 50 years of applied horticultural science." Heavy users of the "recreational pot" are psychos. "Recreational psychosis" - courtesy of your state government
It does seem that the impeachment is helping Trump and Bernie as Bernie is taking a clear
lead. The Dems badly wanted to impeach Trump and this Ukraine thing was the first viable
option after the Mueller report failure. It was a poor choice for the Dems because of Joe
Biden's involvement. It got worse when Biden and other Dems say that no one ever thought that
the kid's board position was an issue even though Obama administration people brought it
up.
The more interesting trial which no one is covering is Hunter Biden's child support trial.
He is refusing to turn over his financials. This should be a huge story.
Did he file taxes?
How many foreign companies were sending him money?
Was he reporting all of the income from Burisma and the other companies? I suspect not
because I think he was sending a cut to his father for "getting" him the work.
BREAKING NEWS: Anonymouse sauces (sic) are stating that the FBI conducted electronic
surveillance on ALL Republican Presidential candidates in the 2016 election on Obama's
instructions who was briefed each week on the surveillance.
These anonymouse sauces also stated that there has been no surveillance of ANY of the
Democrat Presidentail candidates in 2019-2020.
Apparently, the Republican party has been unwilling to maintain the levels of cash bribes,
payments in kind etc to senior FBI employees that were paid by the Obama administration.
In other news, the GAO has declined to publish an internal audit report that details that
the level of waste in federal spending has dropped from 20% under Obama to 15% of all federal
spending under Trump...
I made a Google search about something else and I ran into a half dozen different posts
about Shiff having Anthony Bourdain murdered because Bourdain saw Shiff rape and murder a 10
year old African American boy in a snuff video. I think Shiff is creepy and probably a
pervert but this was a little much even with my low opinion of Shiff. Has this been
debunked?
The Schiff fan club are all Killary dead enders and liberal neoCons... they're sore at
Putin 'cause he wouldn't let Obama openly start a bloodbath in Syria the war Dubya did in
Iraq- Afghanistan. Obama and Killary had to use ISIS instead to annihilate some ME countries
to lock down US Global Hegemony.
Adding insult to injury, Drump slam dunked their idol, Killary, in the 2016 election,
which just wasn't on the dance card.
Either way--- Drump or some Dum candidate--- America is screwed.
All these are civil cases Trump lost but won't go to jail, because owning a corporation
allows you to commit crimes and not be charged criminally.
Trump admitted on the Access Hollywood tape that he sexually assaulted women.
22 women have since come forward to say that Trump sexually assaulted them, including his
first wife who said in a divorce deposition that Trump raped her.
Then there are the decades of tax evasions documented in the New York Times.
And the insurance scam documented by Michael Cohen's testimony before Congress.
Campaign law violations
witness tampering
obstruction
selling out America to foreign
There are also 14 on going investigations against Trump as well, but they can't charge
Trump in any of those yet, because he is a sitting president.
Even if true, no murders are attributed to Trump even by his nuttiest enemies. He would
have a long way to go to reach the depths of the Bushes and the Clintons.
It is fascinating watching the partisan blame game when practically every single one of
them up there, regardless of spot or stripe, voted for and supports arming Ukraine.
Nevertheless, after listening to what Shiff and Nadler said yesterday I conclude that if
Trump is re-elected the claim will be made that he stole the election with the help of Russia.
This is silly, his actions indicate that he is an agent of influence for Israel, not
Russia.
Call me Turcopolier. I stand here where ignorant armies clash by night and hope to be saved
to tell the tale in November. pl
After being held captive for three days while House Democrats litigated their impeachment
case against President Trump, House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) enraged Senate
Republicans last night during his closing remarks when he referred to an anonymously sourced
media report that they would face retribution from the White House if they voted to convict the
president.
"CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that key senators were warned,
'Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.' I don't know if that's true,"
said Schiff, challenging GOP lawmakers to vote with "moral courage" instead of caving to their
party.
GOP senators are heard yelling "that's not true" when House manager Adam Schiff cites a
CBS report claiming Pres. Trump told them their heads "will be on a pike" if they voted
against him. pic.twitter.com/wrXI4KhGPR
-- Alex Salvi (@alexsalvinews) January 25, 2020
Schiff's 'pike' comment enraged several moderate Republicans - who Democrats desperately
need on their side for a vote on whether to call witnesses in the trial.
"I thought he was doing fine with [talking about] moral courage until he got to the 'head on
a pike.' That's where he lost me," said one such Senator, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), adding "He's a
good orator. ... It was just unnecessary."
Adam Schiff, the liberal hero of impeachment, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
military-industrial complex and a fervent exponent of permanent war.
o some Democrats and journalists, Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) is a hero. All over the
internet, people are thanking him for defending the Constitution, hoping he'll run for
president someday. After his performance during this week's impeachment hearing, the worship
was especially intense; a letter writer to the New York Times called it
"brilliant" and a "tour de force," while the conservative Washington Times made
fun of all the blue-checked Twitter accounts losing their objectivity in ecstatic praise. As
the face of the impeachment effort, especially for liberals disengaged from the election
process, Schiff represents a glimmer of hope for domestic regime change.
We'd like to be on his side. After all, he's working hard to take down Donald Trump, one of
the worst presidents in American history. But let's not get carried away in fandom. Schiff is a
dangerous warmonger, and his efforts to fuel paranoia about Russia only serve to feed that
agenda. It would be admirable if Schiff's impeachment crusade was limited to Trump's
corruption. But something else drives him: he wants a proxy war in Ukraine with Russia, and he
has for some time.
Adam Schiff physically resembles a prosperity preacher. That is to say, he looks like a
classic dodgy American salesman, but with a beatific glow of righteousness. This creepily
wholesome look lends a corny Cold War ambiance to his constant fulmination about "the
Russians." It's hard not to listen to him without thinking of Allen Ginsberg's 1956 poem
"America":
America, it's them bad Russians
Them Russians, them Russians and them Chinamen.
And them Russians.
Assuring us that he is aware, actually, of what century this is, Schiff
said in 2015 , "Now, we're not seeing the same bipolar world we had between communism and
capitalism." (Phew!) He then added, "But we are seeing a new bipolar world, I think, where you
have democracy versus authoritarianism." Schiff has not viewed this as a mere contest of ideas:
he constantly advocated for Obama to impose tougher sanctions on Russia and give more weapons
to Ukraine.
Although delicately opposed to violence in some contexts -- he's a vegan! -- this isn't the
only war Schiff has championed. He supported the Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya wars, greater US
intervention in Syria, as well as the Saudi war with Yemen (although he has, in the past year,
turned against the latter adventure, seeming to draw the line at sawing up journalists with
bonesaws -- he is a moderate after all, plus very popular with the media), and he has
voted for nearly every possible increase in the defense budget.
As Jacobin
's own Branko Marcetic observed two years ago , Schiff's bellicosity is extensively funded
by arms manufacturers and military contractors. A Ukrainian arms dealer named Igor Pasternak
held a $2,500 per head fundraiser for Schiff in 2013, as the late Justin Raimondo reported
in a terrific analysis on Antiwar.com in 2017, at a time when Ukraine was desperately trying to
counter the Obama administration's disinterest in funding its war with Russia. Despite that
disinterest, the State Department approved some very profitable dealings for Pasternak in
Ukraine after that fundraiser.
And that's only one example. In the current cycle, donations from the war industry have
continued to flood his coffers. Many come from employees of firms with extensive Department of
Defense contracts, including Radiance Technologies and Raytheon. PACs representing the defense
industry also make a robust showing among Schiff's contributors, according to data on Open
Secrets.org; companies funneling money to Schiff -- sorry, contributing to those PACs
-- include Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Radiance, and others, including
L3Harris Technologies (which
got in big trouble with the State Department in September and had to pay $13 million in
penalties for illegal arms dealing).
Guess what these companies want? War with Ukraine. Why wouldn't they? Last
October, the United States approved a $39 million sale of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, a
joint contract between Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. The previous year, Ukraine bought $37
million worth of missiles from the same two companies. As a missile-maker, Zacks Equity
Research has noted, Northrop Grumman also benefits richly from conflict in Ukraine, as missiles
are heavily used in cross-border wars.
Despite his enthusiastic support for state violence and cozy ties to the makers of deadly
weaponry, Schiff, an Alexander Hamilton–quoting windbag, doesn't have much crossover
appeal to the sort of people who put "These Colors Don't Run" stickers on their trucks. His
impeachment crusade only seems to reinforce Trump's support among the faithful; at this
writing, 93 percent of Republicans oppose the president's removal from office.
Welcome to the #Resistance.
Liza Featherstone is a columnist forJacobin, a freelance journalist,
and the author ofSelling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Workers' Rights at
Wal-Mart.
This article was originally published by "Jacobin" -
These swine care nothing about truth--their only object is to create a "narrative" (which
used to be known as a "line of ********") to brainwash what few followers can still stomach
it and cover their moral bankruptcy and crimes.
Schiff is a GD fascist. And a ******* liar. He claims Trump would "cheat again" in 2020.
Huh? Does this prick have problems dealing with reality? Seriously, did the Mueller Report
not happen in his mind? I don't think I've ever seen someone who believes so much that's just
not true. And he's indignant about his own fucked up version of "facts" that are lies. He
needs to just go and be with Satan.
Clearly he didn't awe anyone, but part of the show is to refer to this flop as a sparkling
whimsical glory of magical historical spiffyness, by the most grandest superb stunning genius
man ever to be televised, ever. Ever.
Video and a transcript of former OPCW engineer and
dissenter Ian Henderson's UN testimony appears at the end of this report.
A former lead investigator from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) has spoken out at the United Nations, stating in no uncertain terms that the scientific
evidence suggests there was no gas attack in Douma, Syria in April 2018.
The dissenter, Ian Henderson, worked for 12 years at the international watchdog
organization, serving as an inspection team leader and engineering expert. Among his most
consequential jobs was assisting the international body's fact-finding mission (FFM) on the
ground in Douma.
He told a UN Security Council session convened on January 20 by Russia's delegation that
OPCW management had rejected his group's scientific research, dismissed the team, and produced
another report that totally contradicted their initial findings.
"We had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred," Henderson said, referring
to the FFM team in Douma.
The former OPCW inspector added that he had compiled evidence through months of research
that "provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack."
Western airstrikes based on unsubstantiated allegations by foreign-backed jihadists
Foreign-backed Islamist militants and the Western
government-funded regime-change influence operation known as the White Helmets accused the Syrian government of
dropping gas cylinders and killing dozens of people in the city of Douma on April 7, 2018.
Damascus rejected the accusation, claiming the incident was staged by the insurgents.
The governments of the United States, Britain, and France responded to the allegations of a
chemical attack by launching airstrikes against the Syrian government on April 14. The military
assault was illegal under international law, as the countries did not have UN
authorization.
Numerous OPCW whistleblowers and leaks challenge Western government claims
In May 2019, an internal
OPCW engineering assessment was leaked to the public. The document, authored by Ian
Henderson, said the "dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders" in Douma
"were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder having
been delivered from an aircraft," adding that there is "a higher probability that both
cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from
aircraft."
After reviewing the leaked report, MIT professor emeritus of Science, Technology and
International Security Theodore Postol told The Grayzone, "The evidence is overwhelming that
the gas attacks were staged." Postol also accused OPCW leadership of overseeing "compromised
reporting" and ignoring
scientific evidence .
WikiLeaks has published
numerous internal emails from the OPCW that reveal allegations that the body's management staff
doctored the Douma report.
As the evidence of internal suppression grew, the OPCW's first director-general, José
Bustani, decided to speak out. "The convincing evidence of irregular behavior in the OPCW
investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already
had," Bustani stated.
"I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official
reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now,
although very disturbing," the former OPCW head concluded.
OPCW whistleblower testimony at UN Security Council meeting on Douma
On January 20, 2020, Ian Henderson delivered his first in-person testimony, alleging
suppression by OPCW leadership. He spoke at a UN Security Council
Arria-Formula meeting on the fact-finding mission report on Douma.
( Video of the session follows at the bottom of this article, along with a full
transcript of Henderson's testimony .)
China's mission to the UN invited Ian Henderson to testify in person at the Security Council
session. Henderson said in his testimony that he had planned to attend, but was unable to get a
visa waiver from the US government. (The Trump administration has repeatedly blocked access to
the UN for representatives from countries that do not kowtow to its interests, turning
UN visas into a political weapon in blatant violation of the international body's
headquarters agreement .)
Henderson told the Security Council in a pre-recorded video message that he was not the only
OPCW inspector to question the leadership's treatment of the Douma investigation.
"My concern, which was shared by a number of other inspectors, relates to the subsequent
management lockdown and the practices in the later analysis and compilation of a final report,"
Henderson explained.
Soon after the alleged incident in Douma in April 2018, the OPCW FFM team had deployed to
the ground to carry out an investigation, which it noted included environmental samples,
interviews with witnesses, and data collection.
In July 2018, the FFM published its
interim report , stating that it found no evidence of chemical weapons use in Douma. ("The
results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected
in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties," the
report indicated.)
"By the time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we
had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred," Henderson told the Security
Council.
After this inspection that led to the interim report, however, Henderson said the OPCW
leadership decided to create a new team, "the so-called FFM core team, which essentially
resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had been on the team deployed to
locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings and analysis."
Then in March 2019, this new OPCW team released a final report, in which it claimed that
chemical weapons had been used in Douma.
"The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with
what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments," Henderson
remarked at the UN session.
"The report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis in
the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering, and/or
ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what was
understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma [FFM] team, in July 2018,"
Henderson stated.
The former OPCW expert added, "I had followed up with a further six months of engineering
and ballistic studies into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support
for the view that there had not been a chemical attack."
A former OPCW inspection team leader and engineering expert told the UN Security Council
that their investigation in Douma, Syria suggested no chemical attack took place. But their
findings were suppressed and reversed
The US government responded to this historic testimony at the UN session by attacking
Russia, which sponsored the Arria-Formula
meeting.
Acting US representative Cherith
Norman Chalet praised the OPCW, aggressively condemned the "Assad regime," and told the UN
that the "United States is proud to support the vital, life-saving work of the White Helmets"
– a US and UK-backed organization that collaborated extensively with ISIS and al-Qaeda
and have been involved in
numerous executions in Syrian territory occupied by
Islamist extremists .
The US government has a long history of pressuring and manipulating the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the George W. Bush
administration threatened José Bustani, the first director of the OPCW, and pressured
him to resign.
In 2002, as the Bush White House was preparing to wage a war on Iraq, Bustani made an
agreement with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein that would have permitted OPCW inspectors
to come to the country unannounced for weapons investigations. This infuriated the US
government.
Then-Under Secretary of State John
Bolton told Bustani in 2002 that US Vice President Dick " Cheney wants
you out ." Bolton threatened the OPCW director-general, stating, "You have 24 hours to
leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways
to retaliate against you We know where your kids live."
Attacking the credibility of Ian Henderson
While OPCW managers have kept curiously silent amid the scandal over their Douma report, an
interventionist media outlet called Bellingcat has functioned as an outsourced press shop,
aggressively defending the official narrative and attacking its most prominent critics,
including Ian Henderson.
Bellingcat is funded by the US government's
regime-change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and is part of an initiative
bankrolled by the British Foreign Office.
Supporters of the OPCW's apparently doctored final report have relied heavily on Bellingcat
to try to discredit the whistleblowers and growing leaks. Scientific expert Theodor Postol, who
debated Higgins, has noted that
Bellingcat "have no scientific credibility at any level." Postol says he even suspects that
OPCW management may have relied on Bellingcat's highly dubious claims in its own compromised
reporting.
Higgins has no expertise or scientific credentials, and even The
New York Times acknowledged in a highly sympathetic piece that "Higgins attributed his
skill not to any special knowledge of international conflicts or digital data, but to the hours
he had spent playing video games, which, he said, gave him the idea that any mystery can be
cracked."
In his testimony before the UN Security Council, Ian Henderson stressed that he was speaking
out in line with his duties as a scientific expert.
Henderson said he does not even like the term whistleblower and would not use it to describe
himself, because, "I'm a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider
this a legitimate and appropriate forum to explain again these concerns."
Russia's UN representative added that Moscow had also invited the OPCW director-general and
representatives of the organization's Technical Secretariat, but they chose not to participate
in the session.
Video of the UN Security Council session on the OPCW's Douma report
Ian Henderson's testimony begins at 57:30 in this official UN video :
Transcript: Testimony by OPCW whistleblower Ian Henderson at the UN Security Council
"My name is Ian Henderson. I'm a former OPCW inspection team leader, having served for about
12 years. I heard about this meeting and I was invited by the minister, councilor of the
Chinese mission to the UN. Unfortunately due to unforeseen circumstances around my ESTA visa
waiver status, I was not able to travel. I thus submitted a written statement, to which I will
now add a short introduction.
I need to point out at the outset that I'm not a whistleblower; I don't like that term. I'm
a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider this a legitimate and
appropriate forum to explain again these concerns.
Secondly, I must point out that I hold the OPCW in the highest regard, as well as the
professionalism of the staff members who work there. The organization is not broken; I must
stress that. However, the concern I have does relate to some specific management practices in
certain sensitive missions.
The concern, of course, relates to the FFM investigation into the alleged chemical attack on
the 7th of April in Douma, in Syria. My concern, which was shared by a number of other
inspectors, relates to the subsequent management lockdown and the practices in the later
analysis and compilation of a final report.
There were two teams deployed; one team, which I joined shortly after the start of field
deployments, was to Douma in Syria; the other team deployed to country X.
The main concern relates to the announcement in July 2018 of a new concept, the so-called
FFM core team, which essentially resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had
been on the team deployed to locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings
and analysis.
The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with
what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments. And by the
time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we had serious
misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred.
What the final FFM report does not make clear, and thus does not reflect the views of the
team members who deployed to Douma -- in which case I really can only speak for myself at this
stage -- the report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis
in the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering,
and/or ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what
was understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma team, in July 2018.
In my case, I had followed up with a further six months of engineering and ballistic studies
into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support for the view that there
had not been a chemical attack.
This needs to be properly resolved, we believe through the rigors of science and
engineering. In my situation, it's not a political debate. I'm very aware that there is a
political debate surrounding this.
Perhaps a closing comment from my side is that I was also the inspection team leader who
developed and launched the inspections, the highly intrusive inspections, of the Barzah SSRC
facility, just outside Damascus. And I did the inspections and wrote the reports for the two
inspections prior to, and the inspection after the chemical facility, or the laboratory complex
at Barzah SSRC, had been destroyed by the missile strike.
That, however, is another story altogether, and I shall now close. Thank you."
The deep state clearly is running the show (with some people unexpected imput -- see Trump
;-)
Elections now serve mainly for the legitimizing of the deep state rule; election of a
particular individual can change little, although there is some space of change due to the power
of executive branch. If the individual stray too much form the elite "forign policy consensus" he
ether will be JFKed or Russiagated (with the Special Prosecutor as the fist act and impeachment
as the second act of the same Russiagate drama)
But a talented (or reckless) individual can speed up some process that are already under way.
For example, Trump managed to speed up the process of destruction of the USA-centered neoliberal
empire considerably. Especially by launching the trade war with China. He also managed to
discredit the USA foreign policy as no other president before him. Even Bush II.
>This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
> Posted by: Circe | Jan 23 2020 17:46 utc | 36
Hmmm, I've been hearing the same siren song every four years for the past fifty. How is it
that people still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of
murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?
Bureaucracies are reactionary and conservative by nature, so any new and more repressive
policy Trumpy wants is readily adapted, as shown by the continuing barbarity of ICE and the
growth of prisons and refugee concentration camps. Policies that go against the grain are
easily shrugged off and ignored using time-tested passive-aggressive tactics.
One of Trump's insurmountable problems is that he has no loyal organization behind him
whose members he can appoint throughout the massive Federal bureaucracy. Any Dummycrat whose
name is not "Biden" has the same problem. Without a real mass-movement political party to
pressure reluctant bureaucrats, no politician of any name or stripe will ever substantially
change the direction of US policy.
But the last thing Dummycrats want is a real mass movement, because they might not be able
to control it. Instead Uncle Sam will keep heading towards the cliff, which may be coming
into view...
The amount of TINA worshipers and status quo guerillas is starting to depress me.
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE to believe A politician will/can change anything and give your consent to
war criminals and traitors?
NO person(s) WILL EVER get to the top in imperial/vassal state politics without being on the
rentier class side, the cognitive dissonans in voting for known liars, war criminals and
traitors would kill me or fry my brain. TINA is a lie and "she" is a real bitch that deserves
to be thrown on the dump off history, YOUR vote is YOUR consent to murder, theft and
treason.
DONT be a rentier class enabler STOP voting and start making your local communities better
and independent instead.
The amount of TINA worshipers and status quo guerillas is starting to depress me. <-
Norway
Of course, There Is Another Way, for example, kvetching. We can boldly show that we are
upset, and pessimistic. One upset pessimists reach critical mass we will think about some
actions.
But being upset and pessimistic does fully justify inactivity. In particular, given the
nature of social interaction networks, with spokes and hubs, dominating the network requires
the control of relatively few nodes. The nature of democracy always allows for leverage
takeover, starting from dominating within small to the entire nation in few steps. As it was
nicely explained by Prof. Overton, there is a window of positions that the vast majority
regards as reasonable, non-radical etc. One reason that powers to be invest so much energy
vilifying dissenters, Russian assets of late, is to keep them outside the Overton window.
Having a candidate elected that the curators of Overton window hate definitely shakes the
situation with the potential of shifting the window. There were some positive symptoms after
Trump was elected, but negatives prevail. "Why not we just kill him" idea entered the window,
together with "we took their oil because we have guts and common sense".
From that point of view, visibility of Tulsi and election of Sanders will solve some
problems but most of all, it will make big changes in Overton window.
"... Watched it. YouTube censored your "graphic content " because you clearly and " graphically " describe the truth. They can't handle the truth. ..."
"... According to SenBlackburn, Lt Vindman is the whistleblowers's handler. ..."
DEEP STATE and the mockingbirds are in FULL PANIC from where I am sitting. In this video
the new dig starts at about 10 minutes in but I also go over the fact that my last video
was very sneakily taken down!
Zer -- edge art (you'll have to replace letters & remove "0"s because if I don't take them
out I will probably get censored:
https://www.zer----e.com/geopolitical...
Imagine being on a jury and being told you will only be allowed to hear what the
prosecution has to say, because the prosecution doesn't want you to hear what the
defense team has to say.
