Was fake "whistleblower" (actually CIA informant) a part of Obama/Brennan "Trump Task force" ?
Without understanding the reality of Obama's coup in Ukraine
, there is no way of honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979.
Obama's 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but of different types
Threat inflation which Ukrainegate is a typical example relies on misrepresenting the facts, or presenting them in the most alarming
way possible. If another state is behaving in a way that our government doesn’t like, sometimes the mere fact that it is displeasing
is treated as proof of a dire threat. It doesn’t matter if the threat is a relatively minor, manageable one -- it has to be cast as
a threat to regional stability and “world order.” It doesn’t even matter if the U.S. and its allies are actually threatened by the behavior
in question, since the assumption that the US is a guarantor of “world order” dangerously makes any and every threat to anyone our problem.
The USA neoliberal elite in pursuing its dominance over the globe regularly invents bogeymen that the USA need to fight, and then wastes
decades and trillions of dollars in futile and avoidable conflicts. Which at the end leave ordinary Americans poorer, with less jobs,
and less secure than before.
As MIC lobbyists neocon aren’t interested in accurately assessing another state’s intentions. They always
look for ways to take relatively normal, self-interested behavior and make it seem especially sinister and extraordinarily dangerous.
Any attempt of the other state to defend its legitimate interests tendentiously is interpretedas proof of worst intentions that “require”
a massive military build-up, sanctions and containment strategy. This is the logic of Full Spectrum Dominance to which this MIC prostitutes
subscribe. Demonization of foreign leaders is a standard proactive. Neocons never consider the role that US and its allies in triggering
undesirable behavior. In there is not threat, the inflate invented them. As somebody puts it numerous mistresses for the personnel at
USA foreign bases need to be fed.
Any actions of the otherstate are blow out of proportion and CIA sponsored false flag operation are interpreted as the most credible
evidence of the nefarious intentions (MH17, Skripals poisoning, Russiagate, Ukrainegate) are the most recent examples here.John Glaser
and Christopher Preble have written an interesting
paper of the history and causes of threat inflation. They concluded that:
If war is the health of the state, so is its close cousin, fear. America's foreign policy in the 21st century serves as compelling
evidence of that. Arguably the most important task, for those who oppose America's apparently constant state of war, is to correct
the threat inflation that pervades national security discourse. When Americans and their policymakers understand that the United
States is fundamentally secure, U.S. military activism can be reined in, and U.S. foreign policy can be reset accordingly.
Threat inflation allows to manipulate public opinion and stifle dissent against foreign wars and military expansion. And the rules
of the game are such that no matter how ridiculous were the clams, neocons never pay the price (noneof originator of Iraq war lies went
to jail.)
As MIC and financial oligarchy ("bankers are originators of all wars") controls the government there is no political price for sounding
false alarms, no matter how ridiculous or over-the-top their warnings may be. This necessarily warps every policy debate, permitting
neocons to indulge in the most baseless speculation and fear-mongering, and in order to be taken "seriously" the skeptics often feel
compelled to pay lip service to the "threat" that has been wildly blown out of proportion. In many cases, the threat is not just inflated
but invented out of nothing. For example, neither Iraq in he past, not Iran in the present pose a threat to the United States, but areroutinely
cited asthe most significant threats that the USA faces. They are targets of the USA imperial expansionnota threats, in the same was
of the USA Department of Defense in reality more properly should be called the Departmentof Offence.
Since the dissolution of the USSR, neocons created their own ecosystem of think tanks and magazines. They employ "professional warmongers"
for promoting their fictions.That has nothing to do with an objective assessment of Iranian capabilities or intentions, and it is driven
pretty much entirely by a propaganda script that most politicians and policymakers recite on a regular basis. Take Iran's missile program,
for example. As John Allen Gay explains in a recent
article , Iran's missile program is primarily defensive in nature:
The reality is they're not very useful for going on offense. Quite the opposite: they're a primarily defensive tool -- and an
important one that Iran fears giving up. As the new Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report entitled "Iran Military Power" points
out, "Iran's ballistic missiles constitute a primary component of its strategic deterrent. Lacking a modern air force, Iran has embraced
ballistic missiles as a long-range strike capability to dissuade its adversaries in the region -- particularly the United States,
Israel, and Saudi Arabia -- from attacking Iran."
Iran's missile force is in fact a product of Iranian weakness, not Iranian strength.
Iran hawks need to portray Iran's missile program inaccurately as part of their larger campaign to exaggerate Iranian power and justify
their own aggressive policies. If Iran hawks acknowledged that Iran's missiles are their deterrent against attacks from other states,
including our government, it would undercut the rest of their fear-mongering.
Glaser and Preble identify five main sources of threat inflation by the USA neoliberal elite:
Expansive overseas of the USA commitments require an exaggerated justification to make those commitments seem necessary for our
security;
Decades of pursuing expansive foreign policy goals have created a class dedicated to providing those justifications and creating
the myths that sustain support for the current strategy;
There are vested interests that benefit from expansive foreign policy and seek to perpetuate it;
A built-in bias in neoliberal political system in favor of hawks gives another advantage to fear-mongers;
Media sensationalism and the level of control by the intelligence agencies of the USA MSM exaggerates dangers from foreign threats
and stokes public fear.
Threat inflation also thrives on the public's ignorance. Most Americans know little or nothing about another countries. So it is
much easier to convince them that a foreign government is aggressive and irrational. Or this or that "authoritarian regime" is a grave
threat to our democracy (which is on life support in view of the role of intelligence agencies in 2016 elections ;-), or our standard
of living (which are undermined not by foreign players butmultinationals andhired by them neoliberal stooges in government and Congress.
It goes without saying that the Congress is owned by banksters As Senator Durbin put it in 2009: “And the banks — hard to believe in
a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they
frankly own the place,” he said on
WJJG
1530 ‘s “Mornings with Ray Hanania.” Progress Illinois picked up the quote.
Dick Durbin Banks Frankly Own The Place HuffPost) .
Threat inflation also is the direct consequence of the Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine adopted by the USA neoliberal elite after
the dissolution of the USSR (Wolfowitz Doctrine.) The two feed off of
each other. When far-flung crises and conflicts are treated as if they are of vital importance to USA security, every minor threat to
some other country is transformed into an intolerable menace to America.
In reality the USA is very secure from any foreign threats. So fake threat are invented: neocon propagandamachine and necon factions
in Goverment and Congresstry to make other countries' internal problems seem essential to our national security. Ukraine is at most
a peripheral interest of the U.S., but to justify the policy of arming Ukraine we are
told by the more unhinged supporters
that this is necessary to make sure that we don't have to fight Russia "over here." Because the U.S. has so few real interests in most
of the world's conflicts, interventionists have to exaggerate what the U.S. has at stake in order to sell otherwise very questionable
and reckless policies. That is usually when we get appeals to showing "leadership" and preserving "credibility," because even the interventionists
struggle to identify why the U.S. needs to be involved in some of these conflicts. The continued pursuit of global "leadership" is itself
an invitation to endless threat inflation, because almost anything anywhere in the world can be construed as a threat to that "leadership"
if one is so inclined. To understand just how secure the U.S. really is, we need to give up on the costly ambition of "leading" the
world.
Threat inflation is one of the biggest threats to U.S. security, as it increases changes if nuclear confrontation with Russia and
China. It also drives fledging alliance between Russia and China which are worrying aboutextremely aggressive turn of the USA foreign
policy and its military interventions. The latter makes "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrinenot only absolute, but suicidal and their
promoters like Ciaramella, Fiona Hill and Vindman the real threat to the USA national security.Because it repeatedly drives the US to
take costly and dangerous actions and to spend exorbitant amounts on unnecessary wars and weapons.
The key question about Ciaramema leak is whether the USA should arm Ukraine and eventually bring it into NATO,or "Finladinize" it.In
reality arming Ukraine is a questionable idea, which can backfire. And withholding military aid was not a bad idea (although Trump quickly
reneged on it, when he started feelingthe heat).It might be better to use "Finlandization"
of Ukraine. Supplying it with additional weapons (as if it does not have enough leftovers from Soviet times)cost money and can only
increase casualties on both sides (which is probably what US strategists want in any case; with Ukrainian being pawn of the US geopolitical
ambitions in the region ) Javelins can be reverse engineered and supplied to forces that fight the US occupation forcesin Afghanistan
(and this not only Taliban; Northern alliance can also bebrought into the fight anytime; they might switch sides and start fighting
Americans). Ukraine also can sell if to the highest bidder including Islamists, who operate rather openly on the territory of Ukraine
(pro Islamist Chechens militia are fighting against separatists in Donetsk region)
The US spends close to 10% of its GDP on military, if the accounting is done properly. As half of the USA GPS is semi-parasitic FIRE
sector (the former IMF chief
economist Simon Johnson, have
argued that the increased power and influence of the financial services sector had fundamentally transformed the American polity, endangering
representative democracy itself through undue influence on the political system and
regulatory capture by the financial
oligarchy) the actual figure is probably closer to 25%. Or one
of each five discretionary dollar goes to military.The USA does not have those money and need to borrow and take them from pensioners,
poor people, infrastructure spending, andsocial programs.As Daniel Larison noted (Endless
War Degrades the Military The American Conservative, Dec 5 2019):
Our endless wars have been enormously costly. It is estimated that all of the wars of the last twenty years will end up costing
at least $6.4 trillion, and beyond that they have consumed our government’s attention and resources to the detriment of everything
else. Our political and military leaders perpetuate these wars, and the public has allowed them to do this, because they are still
laboring under the faulty assumption that the U.S. is being made more secure in the process. The reality is that endless wars are
undermining our security, weakening the military, and creating more enemies. They should be ended responsibly, but they must end.
Maybe it is time for the US to reduce its huge military spending, which creates mayhem in the world and take funds away from US imperial
programs like regime change operations in xUSSR countries and attempt to encircle Russia with NATO countries by bringing several xUSSR
countries into NATO.Russia threat to Europe is old neocon trick. In reality it was Europe that attacked Russia half dozen times in last
two centuries (Napoleon war, Crimea war, WWI, Intervention (when GB used poison gas on Russians), Nazi Germany invasion.And it was the
USA which committed and economic rape of Russia after the dissolution of the USSR.
NATO should have collapsed after the Soviet Union did. Only the parasitic Warfare State Nomenklatura in Washington created the Russia
= Soviet Union 2.0 meme because it needed an existential "enemy". Because that's where the money is for the MIC and where the power
and prestige are for the uniformed Hacks in the Pentagon and Brussels. The USA also uses NATO as leverage to stick its fat greasy thumb
into strictly European issues generally, e.g. Nord Stream 2.
Trump wants Europe to spend more on defense because more spending means more sales for the American defense contractors whether Europe
needs those weapons or not. That’s why the U.S. is indifferent to Saudi war crimes. And will bend over backwards for Erdogan. As long
as they continue to buy U.S. war toys. Ironically, Trump calls out the European countries in NATO, saying that they free ride. When
in fact Trump wants to increase the size of the hyper-bloated American military. Any American assets removed from Europe would be merely
relocated somewhere else with no savings to the American taxpayers. Trump’s crowing about "savings" is a complete illusion.
With the Soviet Union gone NATO is largely irrelevant. Russia doesn’t need to be “deterred” because it has absolutely no strategic
reason to invade any country in Europe. And a military incursion would completely wreck its commercial business with Europe.
If the U.S. butts out of trying to run Europe via coercion (enabled by dominance inside of NATO), the Europeans and Russians would
finally figure things out for themselves and formalize the complete reconciliation that should have occurred over 25 years ago. France
and the UK are nuclear weapon states. The EU has 11 times the money and 3.5 times the population of Russia. Our European allies can
take care of Russia themselves if they feel Russia was a threat. The Europeans don't spend more on defense because they don't believe
Russia is a threat to them. They already out spend Russia on defense and have a combined military force that is both larger and more
advanced than Russia's military.
Russia has no interest in Eastern Europe except as consumers for their commodities and products. The USSR saddled itself with subsidizing
E.Europe and Russia aren't about to repeat their mistake. You need to accept the world the way it really is and not they way Neocon
liars wish it was.
But the USA world dominance goals also means military dominance. That's why NATO will not be dissolved.
Vindman testimony (and Vindman is one of most plausible sources of the lead of Trump transcript to the whistleblower) recently shed
some light on the "Deep State" phenomenon. He saw Trump’s entire Ukraine policy as
insufficiently hardline and therefore unacceptable. The key question that arise from
his testimony is: "Is the democracy possible if powerful and out of control three letter agencies like CIA and NSA exist?"Probably not
as "deep state" sooner or later (usually sooner)makes surface state just an instrument for providing legitimacy of deep state rule and
hijacks all the decision-making.In a way they are the "Inner Party" about which Orwell have written its famous dystopia
1984. This phenomenon is reflected in the very term the Deep State.After
1954 the core of the deep state is intelligence agencies which became a political forces, king of Praetorian Guard, who is capable elects,
blackmail (Epstein) and even kill the Presidents (look at the role of CIA in the JFK assassination) and members of Congress. Spy on
them and block their initiatives (CIA behaviour in case of Congress investigating torture in Iraq)
The CIA brass and bureaucratic careerists from other agencies (especially the State Department)
are far from being merely obedient public servants dedicated to executing policies that elected officials and their high-level political
appointees have adopted. Such operatives have their own policy preferences, and they are not shy about pushing them, nor do they hesitate
to impede, undermine, or even sabotage policies they dislike.They are a the Inner Party, a neocons warmongers party within the each
party of USA political duopoly.
The CIA brass and bureaucratic careerists from other agencies (especially the State
Department) are far from being merely obedient public servants dedicated to executing policies that elected officials and their
high-level political appointees have adopted. Such operatives have their own policy preferences, and they are not shy about pushing
them, nor do they hesitate to impede, undermine, or even sabotage policies they dislike.They are a hidden party, a neocons warmongers
party within the USA political duopoly.
The CIA’s sabotage was not confined to policy regarding Mozambique. Later that decade, during delicate negotiations to achieve
a ceasefire and subsequent accord between Angola’s government and insurgent leader Jonas Savimbi, Shultz fumed that (emphasis added)
“right-wing staffers from Congress, fueled by information from the CIA,
were meddling—visiting Savimbi, trying to convince him that [Assistant Secretary of State Chester] Crocker and I would sell him out.”
Such behavior should debunk the notion that the CIA and other bureaucratic careerists are merely
obedient public servants dedicated to executing policies that elected officials and their high-level political appointees have adopted.
Such operatives have their own policy preferences, and they are not shy about pushing them, nor do they hesitate to impede or undermine
policies they dislike.
Perhaps even more troubling, deep state personnel in the CIA, Pentagon, and State Department seem
to have a distinct bias in favor of highly activist policies. CIA analysts and briefers regarded even the principal architect of
the Reagan Doctrine as insufficiently committed in southern Africa. There is a noticeable parallel to the current bureaucratic opposition
to Trump’s handling of Ukraine and Russia. The allegation that Trump has abandoned Kiev and pursues an appeasement policy toward
Russia is absurd. His support for Kiev has actually been far
more substantial than the approach the Obama administration adopted. Yet even that harder line is apparently not hard enough for
establishment career diplomats and their allies.
Treating such saboteurs as heroic patriots is both obscene and dangerous. The honorable course
for subordinates who disagree with a president’s policies is to resign and then express criticism. Adopting a termite strategy while
working in a presidential administration is profoundly unethical. For Congress and the media to praise bureaucratic subversion is
horridly myopic. The last thing defenders of a democratic republic should do is to encourage unelected—and in the case of the intelligence
agencies, deeply secretive—bureaucrats to pursue their own rogue policy agendas.
Eric Ciaramella, a young 33 old career CIA officer made a neckbreaking carrier. Without any substantial life experience and having
only academic credentials he got to the National security Council.The question how he got to such a high position at such a young age
is very interesting and deserves separate investigation independently of Ukrainegate saga.
Ciaramella was Ukraine director on the NSC during the end of the Obama administration and remained there during the early months
of the Trump administration, when he was briefly acting senior director for European and Russian affairs before the arrival of Fiona
Hill.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the current Ukraine director on the NSC, testified in a secret hearing held by the House Intelligence
Committee on Tuesday.
To understand any foreign country takes years and years, including as the necessary step spending of around decade inthe country.
and here we have 22 year old in key position of defining the USA Ukranian policy. Something does notcompute. That' looks like nepotism,
but then who is thisinfluential relative who propelled this young man into such a critical position, despite complete lack of qualification?
One would assume that a career diplomat with a multi-year (preferable close to a decade) tenure in Kiev (let's say a former ambassador)is
more appropriate for such a position, but Washington works in a very strangeway.
What is alarming is that Ciaramella has ties with Ukrainian emigrant community which compete with Polish émigrés in their level of
Russophobia.
According to the Conservative Tree house
Ciaramella worked closely with Democrat operative, Alexandra Chalupa in 2016 to advance the anti-Trump effort; and this year
Ciaramella worked closely with HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff’s staff to continue his efforts.
...Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah)left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017
amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He hassince returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
...Ciaramella huddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues
also held over from the Obama era whom Schiff’s office had recently recruited from the NSC. (Schiff is the lead prosecutor in the
impeachment inquiry.)
...Ciaramellaworked with a Democratic National Committee operative who
dug up dirt on
the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said.
The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign
to the Russian government.
A partisan CIA officer who secretly worked with Rep. Adam Schiff's Democratic staff before submitting a second-hand whistleblower
complaint has been revealed as Eric Ciaramella - who previously worked in the Obama administration with former VP Joe Biden and
former CIA Director John Brennan.
"Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House
knows. Even the president knows who he is," said former CIA analyst and Trump national security adviser Fred Fleitz, who added
"They’re hiding him because of his political bias."
"He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump," said one former NSC official on condition of anonymity.
Ciaramella, a registered Democrat and Obama White House holdover, "helped initiate the Russia "collusion"
investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election."
Ciaramella was detailed over to the National Security Council from the agency in the summer of 2015, working under
Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked closely with the former Vice President.
He worked with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa - inviting her to the White House. Chalupa, "a Ukrainian-American
who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government," writes Sperry (which
has been documented by Politico and journalist Lee Stranahan). "He knows her. He had her in the White House," said one former
co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.
Documents confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella in November 2015.
She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine.
Biden's office invited Ciaramella to an October, 2016 state luncheon hosted for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. "Other
invited guests included Brennan, as well as then-FBI Director James Comey and then-National
Intelligence Director James Clapper."
....
"He was moved over to the front office" to temporarily fill a vacancy, said a former White House official, where he "saw everything,
read everything," according to Sperry's report.
The official added that it soon became clear among NSC staff that Ciaramella opposed the new Republican president’s foreign
policies. “My recollection of Eric is that he was very smart and very passionate, particularly about Ukraine and Russia. That
was his thing – Ukraine,” he said. “He didn’t exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was the right thing
to do with Ukraine and Russia, and his views were at odds with the president’s policies.”
“So I wouldn’t be surprised if he was the whistleblower,” the official said.
In May 2017, Ciaramella went “outside his chain of command,” according to a former NSC co-worker, to send
an email alerting another agency that Trump happened to hold a meeting with Russian diplomats in the Oval Office the day after
firing Comey, who led the Trump-Russia investigation. The email also noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin had phoned the
president a week earlier. -RealClearInvestigations
So Ciaramella is another Obama holdover who thinks that he gets to decide what Trump does in Ukraine. Or that Trump had no right
to speak to the Russians in the Oval Office even though every other president has done that. This is what being president is all
about. Talking to foreign leaders about stuff important to each country. But apparently it's only bad when Trump does it because
of reasons. And he then should have told the world what they discussed. And released the transcripts of their talks even though no
president in history has been asked to do that. Alrighty then! New rules for just Trump. Next president can go back to being in charge
by his lonesome.
"I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed," said Tim Morrison, former NSC
Senior Director for European Affairs who was on the July 25 call between the two leaders.
Morrison also testified that the transcript of the phone call which was declassified and released by the White House "accurately
and completely reflects the substance of the call."
Morrison testified that Ukrainian officials were not even aware that certain military funding had been delayed by
the Trump administration until late August 2019, more than a month after the Trump-Zelensky call, casting doubt on allegations
that Trump somehow conveyed an illegal quid pro quo demand during the July 25 call.
This has always been the sticking point for why I think this impeachment is bogus. Ukraine did not know that
Trump had held up the military weapons being sold to them so how could it be quid pro quo? And why doesn't congress remember that
Obama's state department did not want them to have them because it risked ampimg up tensions with Russia? Why do people think it's
a good idea to let Ukraine become part of NATO? Talk about poking the Bear!
There is a long way to go in the impeachment process, and there are some very important issues still to be resolved. But as
the process marches on, a growing number of myths and falsehoods are being spread by partisans and their allies in the news media.
The early pattern of misinformation about Ukraine, Joe Biden and election interference mirrors closely the tactics used
in late 2016 and early 2017 to build the false and now-debunked narrative that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin colluded to hijack
the 2016 election.
Facts do matter. And they prove to be stubborn evidence, even in the midst of a political firestorm. So here
are the facts (complete with links to the original materials) debunking some of the bigger fables in the Ukraine scandal.
Myth: There is no evidence the Democratic National Committee sought Ukraine’s assistance during
the 2016 election.
The Facts: The Ukrainian embassy in Washington confirmed to me this past April that a Democratic
National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa did, in fact, solicit dirt on Donald Trump and Paul Manafort during the
spring of 2016 in hopes of spurring a pre-election congressional hearing into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. The embassy
also stated Chalupa tried to get Ukraine’s president at the time, Petro Poroshenko, to do an interview on Manafort with an
American investigative reporter working on the issue. The embassy said it turned down both requests.
Lots more to this article with lots of links that back up what John says. One goes to the NYS in 2015 where it discusses how Hunter
came to be on the Burisma board and what ByeDone did when he found out there was going to be an investigation into it. Oops..hate
it when facts get in the way of a great falsehood don't you?
Here's what you need to know about Eric Ciaramella:
1. Ciaramella Is a Ukraine Expert for the CIA Whose Background Matches Details About the Whistleblower Previously Reported
by The New York Times
Eric Ciaramella, 33, is a Ukraine expert and his background matches the biographical details
reported by The
New York Times and other media outlets about the whistleblower. According to The Times, the whistleblower is a CIA officer who
was detailed to work at the White House before returning to the CIA. The Times wrote, "His complaint suggested he was an analyst
by training and made clear he was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding
of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge of the law."
The whistleblower raised concerns that Trump had asked Zelensky during a July 2019 phone call to investigate former Vice President
and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden , and his
son, Hunter Biden . Trump is accused of forcing a quid
pro quo in which aid to Ukraine would only be released if an investigation was launched.
... ... ...
Ciaramella has worked for the Central Intelligence Agency for several years and was assigned to the White House during the end
of the Obama administration. He worked closely with Biden in his role as an expert on Ukraine. Ciaramella also has ties to Sean Misko,
a former NSC co-worker who now works for Representative Adam Schiff and the Intelligence Committee.
According to The New York
Times , the whistleblower first went to a CIA lawyer and then to an unnamed Schiff aide before filing the whistleblower complaint.
The aide told the whistleblower to follow the formal process, but conveyed some of the information he learned from him to Schiff,
without revealing his name, The Times reported.
"Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower
contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,"
said Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Schiff, told The Times.
The whistleblower's ties to Democrats, including Biden, Schiff, former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of Intelligence
James Clapper and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, have created controversy, with Trump and Republicans using his past
work with them in an attempt to discredit him. Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert told a local radio station in his home state of Texas
that many in Washington D.C. knew the whistleblower's identity, calling him a "staunch Democrat," and former "point person on Ukraine,"
who never called out corruption in the Eastern European country.
Ciaramella has been in the crosshairs of Republicans previously, after some on the far right tied him to the Obama-associated
"deep state" in 2017, accusing him of undermining Trump while he was working in the White House.
The whistleblower's attorneys have received more than
$220,000 in donations to a GoFundMe
campaign set up by the group Whistleblower Aid in support of his attorneys, Mark Zaid and Andrew Bakaj.
"A U.S. intelligence officer who filed an urgent report of government misconduct needs your help. This brave individual
took an oath to protect and defend our Constitution. We're working with the whistleblower and launched a crowdfunding effort to
support the whistleblower's lawyers," the GoFundMe states. "These whistleblowers took great personal risks, not for politics or
personal gain, but to defend our democracy. We need to have their backs."
The GoFundMe adds, "If we raise more than we need, Whistleblower Aid will use the money to help more brave whistleblowers stand
up to executive overreach."
2. Eric Ciaramella Grew Up in Connecticut,
Eric Ciaramella grew up in Prospect, Connecticut, as one of three children. He spent time attending Woodland Regional High School
in Beacon Falls, Connecticut, and then graduated from Chase Collegiate School, in Waterbury, Connecticut, in 2004, according to the
prep school's alumni magazine. After high school, Ciaramella attended Yale University, graduating in 2008 as a Russian and East European
studies major. In 2007, he was awarded a grant by the Yale
Macmillan Center for European Union Studies to "research on the perceptions of the EU among rural Italian residents."
... ... ...
Ciaramella also studied at Harvard University, focusing on Russia, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, according to the school's website.
He
received a grant in 2009 for research on "Language in the Public Sphere in Three Post-Soviet Capital Cities," Tbilisi, Georgia;
Yerevan, Armenia; Baku, Azerbaijan. Ciaramella was additionally a corresponding author for Harvard's Department of Linguistics
and wrote a paper in 2015 titled, "Structural ambiguity in the Georgian verbal noun."
Ciaramella worked at the World Bank after college,
according to a 2011 publication by the international financial institution. In the World Bank report, "Russia: Reshaping Economic
Geography," published in June 2011, Ciaramella is listed in the acknowledgments for making "important contributions" to the research.
On a now-deleted Linkedin profile, he described himself as being a "Consultant, Poverty Reduction/Economic Management" at World
Bank. Ciaramella also deleted his Facebook profile page and does not appear to have any other social media.
... ... ...
3. Ciaramella Was Detailed to the National Security Council at the White House in 2015 After Joining the CIA as an Analyst Focusing
on Ukraine & Russia
Eric Ciaramella joined the Central Intelligence Agency at some point during President Obama's second term. According to reports
by The Washington Post and The New York Times about the whistleblower, prior to Ciaramella being named, and online records, Ciaramella
was detailed to the White House to serve as a Ukraine expert with the National Security Council in 2015. He worked under National
Security Advisor Susan Rice. The NSC is made up of analysts and staffers from various intelligence agencies, including the CIA, who
are detailed to the White House for a period of time, before eventually returning to their parent agencies.
During his time with the National Security Council, Ciaramella also worked with then-Vice President Biden, who was working
closely on Ukraine issues at the end of Obama's time in office. Ciaramella is also
listed as a guest at a 2016 luncheon to honor the prime minister of Italy, along with Biden.
In November 2015, Ciaramella
is named as one of the officials
who attended a White House meeting with Ukrainian religious leaders, along with his boss,
Charles Kupchan . The Ukrainian religious leaders delivered
a letter appealing to President Obama for aid for their country. Ciaramella is listed as the "NSC Director for Ukraine." That position
is now held by Alexander Vindman , a key witness
in the impeachment inquiry, who listened to the call between President Trump and President Zelensky.
Ciaramella also has ties to former Democratic National Committee operative and opposition researcher
Alexandra Chalupa , a Ukrainian-American who has
been targeted by some conservatives as being behind an effort to accuse the Trump campaign of Russian collusion. Chalupa, then
with the National Democratic Ethnic Coordinating Committee, was also in attendance at the November 2015 meeting with Ukrainian religious
leaders, according to public records.
... ... ...
4. Ciaramella Remained at the NSC During the Earlier Months of the Trump Administration
Eric Ciaramella did not leave the
National Security Council at the end of the Obama administration. He remained in place during the first few months of the Trump White
House. The NSC staff was at a barebones level at the time after the resignation of Lt. General Michael Flynn, who had been Trump's
first National Security Adviser. Ciaramella worked on Eastern European issues along with another Obama administration holdover,
Fiona Hil l.
When Lt. General
H.R. McMaster was named Trump's new national security adviser, Ciaramella served as McMaster's personal aide. In the
summer of 2017, Ciaramella returned to the CIA, where he is still an active employee.
An email sent by Ciaramella while he was still assigned to the NSC was cited as a
footnote in Robert Mueller's
report on the Trump investigation. The email was titled "(5/10/17 Email, Ciaramella to Kelly et al.)," but details of the email
are not included in the redacted report.
... ... ...
Ciaramella is no stranger to drawing the ire of Trump supporters. He was named by the far-right as a supposed member of the "deep
state" in 2017 and was the subject of baseless accusations accusing him of leaking information to the media, simply because of
his ties to former members of the Obama administration, including ex-National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who has often been accused
of trying to undermine Trump.
His ties to Rice, Brennan, Clapper and Obama made him an easy target for the right. He was accused of leaking information
to the media about Michael Flynn's conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, without any evidence.
Ciaramella was also accused of being a major leaker while working with McMaster. Several far-right personalities waged an open
war on social media and on pro-Trump websites
against
McMaster during his time as national security adviser, constantly claiming he was undermining Trump and had too many former Obama
aides on his team. McMaster also worked with Abigail Grace and Sean Misko, both also Obama holdovers. Grace and Misko are now aides
to Rep. Schiff. McMaster's staffers were frequently accused of being
behind leaks
of embarrassing details about Trump's calls to foreign leaders. None of those accusations were ever proven.
... ... ...
Ciaramella was outed in a Medium article by the far-right figure Mike Cernovich in June 2017, claiming that the former Obama
aide wanted to "sabotage" Trump. Foreign Policy
wrote in
2017 , "The piece described Eric Ciaramella as 'pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia' and alleged, with no evidence, that he was
possibly responsible for high-level leaks. Cernovich wrote, "Nothing in his résumé indicates that Ciaramella will put America First.
His entire life arc indicates he will sabotage Trump and leak information to the press whenever possible."
... ... ...
Anonymity of the whistleblower is just atrick to put the patina of credibility on baseless accusations
It is interesting that neoliberal MSM call supply of sniper rifles, Javelin anti-tanks missiles (also affective against low flying
helicopters, etc) to be aid to Ukraine. Especially due to the fact that the majority of civilian victim of this civil war were residents
of Donbass on the territory controlled by separatists.Many woman with children among them. Pictures of killed by Ukrainian shell civilians
such as mother a child lying close to one another after Ukrainian army shell hit the park where they were strolling are devastating
and actually suggest that Kiev junta which came to power as the result of Nulandgate (aka "Revolution of Dignity") with the aid of US
money, far right nationalists bussed from Western Ukraine and football hooligans committed war crimes in the region.
Indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas is a war crime. Of source separatists are no angels, but Ukrainian authorizes, especially
Provisional government of Yatsenyuk Turchonoiv (and Yatsenyuk is a marionette personally selected by Nuland) has provable record of
war crimes in the region.Of course any civil war is extremely brutal and civilians suffer the most. Still in view of the real facts
whistleblower complain is just nonsense produced under some kind of intoxication by a rabid neocon mind.And withdrawing this aid is
actually a humanitarian gesture on the part of the Trump (which he in his usual style quickly reneged). Obama, who organized the coupe
d'état of 2014 actually never supplied Ukraine with suchweapons.
Also Ukrainian marionette regime in no way can exert "foreign influence" -- this is the country controlled by the USA embassy in
Kiev.
As Scott Ritter stated:
The whistleblower. A figure of great controversy, whose actions, manifested in an
11-page report
submitted to the Intelligence
Community Inspector General (ICIG) on August 12 alleging wrongdoing on the part of the president of the United States, jump-started
an ongoing impeachment process targeting Donald Trump that has divided the American body politic as no other issue in contemporary
time.
His identity has been cloaked in a shroud of anonymity which has proven farcical, given that his name is common knowledge throughout
the Washington-based national security establishment in whose ranks he continues to serve. While Trump
publicly calls for the identity of the whistleblower
to be revealed , the mainstream media has played along with the charade of confidentiality, and Congress continues to pretend
his persona is a legitimate national security secret, even as several
on-line publications have printed it , along with an extensive document trail sufficient to corroborate that the named man is,
in fact, the elusive whistleblower.
There is no legitimate reason for the whistleblower's identity to remain a secret. The Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence
Committee, Representative Adam Schiff , (D-CA) has cited statutory protections
that simply do not exist while using his authority as chairman to prohibit any probe by his Republican colleagues designed to elicit
information about the whistleblower's identity. "The whistleblower has a right, a statutory right, to anonymity," Schiff recently
opined during recent impeachment-related testimony. And yet The Washington Post, no friend of Trump, was compelled to assign
Schiff's statement
three "Pinocchios" , out of a scale of four, in rejecting the claim as baseless.
The myth of statutory protection for the whistleblower's identity has been aggressively pursued by his legal counsel,
Andrew Bakaj , the managing partner of the Compass Rose Legal Group,
which has taken on the whistleblower's case pro bono.
In a letter
to the president's legal counsel, Pat Cippolone, Bakaj demanded that Trump "cease and desist in calling for my client's identity",
claiming that the president's actions, undertaken via Twitter and in press briefings, constituted violations of federal statutes
prohibiting, among other things, tampering with a witness, obstruction of proceedings, and retaliating against as witness.
All of Bakaj's claims are contingent upon the viability of the whistleblower's status as a legitimate witness whose testimony
can, therefore, be tampered, obstructed or retaliated against. The legal foundation of the whistleblower's claims are based upon
the so-called Intelligence Community whistleblower statute
, 50 USC § 3033(k)(5), which stipulates the processes required to report and sustain an allegation of so-called "urgent concern"
to the U.S. intelligence community. An "urgent concern" is defined, in relevant part, as: "A serious or flagrant problem, abuse,
violation of the law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity
within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information, but does not include
differences of opinions concerning public policy matters."
The role of Atkinson in creating Ukrainegate
It was Michael K. Atkinson, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, who initiated an investigation of the complaint.
This investigation must be completed within a 14-day period mandated by the statute, during which time the ICIG "shall determine whether
the complaint or information appears credible."
While the statute is silent on the methodology to be used by the ICIG in making this determination,
Atkinson had
testified during his Senate confirmation hearing that, when it came to any investigation of a whistleblower complaint, "I will
work to ensure that ICIG personnel conduct investigations, inspections, audits, and reviews in accordance with Quality Standards
promulgated by CIGIE (Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency) to keep those activities free from personal,
external, and organizational impairments." The
CIGIE standard in question requires
that, "Evidence must be gathered and reported in an unbiased and independent manner in an effort to determine the validity of an
allegation or to resolve an issue."
In a
letter transmitting the whistleblower
complaint to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Atkinson stated that he had "determined that the Complainant (i.e.,
whistleblower) had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant's Letter and Classified
Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to
much of the material information provided in the Complainant's Letter and Classified Appendix."
However, when it came to assessing whether or not the whistleblower, in reporting the second-hand information provided to
him by White House persons familiar with the July 25 Trump-Zelensky phone call, had done so accurately, Atkinson did not review the
actual records of the telephone call, noting that he "decided that access to records of the telephone call was not necessary to make
my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible.'"
Atkinson declared that "it would be highly unlikely for the ICIG to obtain those records within the limited remaining time allowed
by statute," and opted to perform an investigation in violation of the very CIGIE standard he had promise to adhere to in his Senate
testimony. In short, no evidence was gathered by the ICIG to determine the validity of the whistleblower's allegation, and yet Atkinson
decided to forward the complaint to the DNI, certifying it as "credible."
The whistleblower statute allows the DNI seven days to review the complaint before forwarding it to the House Committee on Intelligence,
with comments if deemed appropriate. However, in reviewing the actual complaint, Joseph McGuire, the acting DNI who took over from
Dan Coats, who was fired by President Trump in early August, had questions about whether or not the matters it alleged fell within
the remit of the whistleblower statute, and rather than forwarding it to the House Intelligence Committee, instead sent it to the
Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel for legal review.
The Office of Legal Council, on September 3,
issued a legal opinion rejecting the ICIG's
certification of the whistleblower complaint as constituting an "urgent concern" under the law. "The complaint," the opinion read,
"does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does
not involve any member of the intelligence community. Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication
between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant received secondhand. The question is whether
such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of 'urgent concern' that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence
committees. We conclude that it does not. The alleged misconduct is not an 'urgent concern' within the meaning of the statute."
The role of Bakai
It is undelar hos wossleblower aquters Andrew Bakaj, as a pro-bono whistleblower attorney, but asome information suggest that he
was recommended to the wisslblower by Shiffstaffers.
As related in the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion, the Justice Department did, however, refer the matter to the Criminal Division
of the Department of Justice for appropriate review. After considering the whistleblower's complaint and classified annex, the Criminal
Division opted not to pursue charges, in effect determining that no crime had been committed.
Under normal circumstances, this would have concluded the matter of Trump's phone call with Zelensky, and the second-hand concerns
unnamed White House officials had reported to the whistleblower. But this was not a normal circumstance. Far from diffusing an improperly
predicated complaint, the failure of the acting DNI to forward the whistleblower complaint to the House Intelligence Committee, and
the concurrent legal opinion of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel rejecting the "urgent concern" certification of
the ICIG, opened the door for the whistleblower, through legal counsel, to reach out to the House Intelligence Committee directly.
The whistleblower followed procedures set forth in the whistleblower statute detailing procedures for a complaint, which had not
been certified as an "urgent concern," to be forwarded to Congress. The issue is that the matter was being treated by the ICIG, Congress
and the whistleblower's attorney's as an "urgent concern", a status that it did not legally qualify for.
On September 24, Bakaj sent a "
Notice
of Intent to Contact Congressional Intelligence Committees" to acting DNI McGuire providing "formal notice of our intent to contact
the congressional intelligence committees directly" on behalf of the whistleblower, identified only as "a member of the Intelligence
Community." Almost immediately, Schiff announced
via Twitter that "We have been informed by the whistleblower's counsel that their client would like to speak to our committee
and has requested guidance from the Acting DNI as to how to do so. We're in touch with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower's
testimony as soon as this week."
Thus was set in motion events which would culminate in impeachment proceedings against President Trump. On the surface, the events
described represent a prima facia case for the efficacy of statutory procedures concerning the processing of a whistleblower complaint.
But there were warning signs that all was not right regarding both the whistleblower himself, and the processes involved leading
to the whistleblower's complaint being presented to Congress.
How the whistleblower got to his former position in Trump administration
... As I shall show, such actions are treasonous on their face, and the extent to which this conduct has permeated the intelligence
community and its peripheral functions of government, including the National Security Council and Congress itself, will only be known
if and when an investigation is conducted into what, in retrospect, is nothing less than a grand conspiracy by those ostensibly
tasked with securing the nation to instead reverse the will of the American people regarding who serves as the nation's chief executive.
The key to this narrative is the whistleblower himself. Understanding who he is, and what role he has played in the events surrounding
the fateful July 25 telephone conversation, are essential to unravelling the various threads of this conspiracy.
Much has been made about the political affiliation of the whistleblower, namely the fact that he is
a registered Democrat
who
supports Joe Biden as the Democratic candidate for the 2020 presidential election. On the surface this information is not dispositive
-- the intelligence community is populated by thousands of professionals of diverse political leanings and affiliations, all of whom
have been trained to check their personal politics at the door when it comes to implementing the policies promulgated by the duly
elected national leadership.
Indeed, Inspector General Atkinson, while acknowledging in his assessment of the whistleblower's complaint an indication of possible
political bias on the part of the whistleblower in favor of a rival political candidate, noted that "such evidence did not change
my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible'". But when one reverse engineers the whistleblower's
career, it becomes clear that there in fact existed a nexus between the whistleblower's political advocacy and professional actions
that both influenced and motivated his decision to file the complaint against the president.
A Rising Star
Like most CIA analysts, the whistleblower
possessed a keen intellect born of stringent academic preparation
, which in the whistleblower's case included graduating from Yale University in 2008 with a degree in Russian and East European studies,
post-graduate study at Harvard, and work experience with the World Bank.
Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a contemporary colleague of the whistleblower, has provided an apt account for what is expected of a CIA
analyst. "The CIA is an intensely apolitical organization,"
Kendall-Taylor wrote . "As intelligence
analysts, we are trained to check our politics at the door. Our job is to produce objective analysis that the country's leaders can
use to make difficult decisions. We undergo rigorous training on how to analyze our own assumptions and overcome biases that might
cloud our judgement."
The training program Kendall-Taylor referred to is known as the
Career Analyst Program
(CAP) , a four-month basic training program run out of the CIA's in-house University, the
Sherman Kent School
, which "introduces all new employees to the basic thinking, writing, and briefing skills needed for a successful career. Segments
include analytic tools, counterintelligence issues, denial and deception analysis, and warning skills."
The
standards to which aspiring analysts such as the whistleblower were trained to meet were exacting, and included a requirement
to be "independent of political considerations," meaning the product produced should consist of objective assessments "informed by
available information that are not distorted or altered with the intent of supporting or advocating a particular policy, political
viewpoint, or audience." As an analyst, the whistleblower would have chosen a specific specialization, which in his case was as a
" Political Analyst " , charged with examining
"political, social, cultural, and historical information to provide assessments about foreign political systems and developments."
By the time the whistleblower completed his application process with the CIA, which requires a detailed background check, several
rounds of interviews, and final security and psychological evaluation before an actual offer of employment can be made, and by the
time he finished his basic analytical training, the U.S. had undergone a political and social revolution of sorts with the election
of Barack Obama as the 44 th president of the United States.
The whistleblower was assigned to the Office of Russian and Eurasian Analysis (OREA), within the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence,
at a time when U.S.-Russian policy was undergoing a radical transformation.
Under the guidance of Michael McFaul, President Obama's special advisor on Russia and the senior director of Russian and Eurasian
Affairs at the National Security Council, the Obama administration was seeking to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the
election of Dmitri Medvedev as Russia's president in 2008. Medvedev had succeeded Vladimir Putin, who went on to serve as prime minister.
Medvedev was a more liberal alternative to Putin's autocratic conservatism, and McFaul envisioned a policy "reset" designed to move
relations between the U.S. and Russia in a more positive trajectory.
As a junior analyst, the whistleblower worked alongside colleagues such as Andrea Kendall-Taylor, who joined OREA about the same
time after graduating from UCLA in 2008 with a PhD is Slavic and Eurasian studies. A prolific writer, Kendall-Taylor
wrote extensively on autocratic
leaders and Putin in particular . Her work was in high demand at both the CIA and NSC, which under the Obama administration had
undergone a massive expansion intended to better facilitate policy coordination among the various departments that comprised the
NSC.
The whistleblower had a front-row seat on the rollercoaster ride that was U.S.-Russian policy during this time, witnessing the
collapse of McFaul's Russian "reset," Putin's return to power in 2012, and the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine that led to the annexation
of Crimea and Russian support for rebels in the Donbas region.
During his tenure at OREA, the whistleblower obviously impressed his superiors, receiving several
promotions and, in July 2015, he detailed to the NSC staff at the Obama White House as the Director for Ukrainian Affairs. According
to a former CIA officer, any high-performing analyst who aspires to be promoted into the ranks of the Senior Intelligence Service
must, prior to that time, do a rotation as part of the overall policy community, which includes the NSC or another department, such
as Defense or State, as well as a tour within another directorate of the CIA.
NSC positions were originally intended for senior CIA analysts, at the GS-15 level, but waivers could be made for qualified GS-14
or "very strong" GS-13's (the whistleblower was a GS-13 at the time of his assignment at the NSC, a reflection of both his qualification
and the regard to which he was held by the CIA.) NSC assignments do not coincide with the political calendar -- detailees (as career
civil servants who are detailed to the NSC are referred) are expected to serve in their position regardless of what political party
controls the White House. When an opening becomes available (usually when another detailee's assignment has finished), prospective
candidates apply, and are interviewed by their senior management, who forward qualified candidates to another board for a final decision.
Assignments to the NSC are considered highly sought after, and while the process for application must be followed, the selection
process is highly political, with decisions being signed off by the director of the CIA. In the case of the whistleblower, his candidacy
would have been approved by both
Peter Clement , the director
of OREA, and John Brennan , the CIA director.
Into the Lion's Den
By the time the whistleblower arrived at the NSC, the NSC staff had grown into a well-oiled policy machine managing the entire
spectrum of Obama administration national security policy-making and implementation. The NSC staff operated in accordance with
Presidential Policy Memorandum (PPM) 1 , "Organization of
the National Security Council System", which outlined the procedures governing the management of the development and implementation
of national security policies by multiple agencies of the United States Government.
The vehicle for accomplishing this mission was the NSC Interagency Policy Committee (NSC/IPC). The NSC/IPCs were the main day-to-day
fora for interagency coordination of national security policy. They provided policy analysis for consideration by the more senior
committees of the NSC system and ensured timely responses to decisions made by the president. NSC/IPCs were established at the direction
of the NSC Deputies Committee and were chaired by the relevant division chief within the NSC staff.
The whistleblowers job was to develop, coordinate and execute plans and policies to manage the full range of diplomatic, informational,
military and economic national security issues for the countries in his portfolio, which included Ukraine. The whistleblower coordinated
with his interagency partners to produce internal memoranda, talking points and other materials for the National Security Advisor
and senior staff.
The whistleblower reported directly to Charles Kupchan
, the Senior Director for European Affairs on the NSC. Kupchan, a State Department veteran who had previously served on the NSC staff
of President Bill Clinton before turning to academia, in turn reported directly to Susan Rice, President Obama's national security
adviser.
When the whistleblower first arrived at the NSC, he volunteered for the Ukraine portfolio. Kupchan was impressed by the whistleblower's
work ethic and performance, and soon expanded his portfolio to include the fight against the Islamic State. The whistleblower was
aided by another organizational connection -- his colleague and mentor at OREA, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, had been selected to serve
in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as the d
eputy national intelligence officer for Russia and
Eurasia. Among Kendall-Taylor's responsibilities was to closely coordinate with the NSC staff on critical issues pertaining to Russia
and Ukraine.
The whistleblower's arrival at the NSC staff also coincided with the start of Trump's improbable candidacy for the presidency
of the United States. As 2015 transitioned into 2016, and it became apparent that Trump was the presumptive nominee for the Republican
Party, allegations about the Trump campaign colluding with Russia began to circulate within the interagency. Trump's electoral victory
in November 2016 , the shocked the
whistleblower, like everyone else on the NSC staff.
Politization of NSC under Obama
The NSC, while staffed with professionals who are supposed to be apolitical, was viewed by the White House as a partisan policy body
whose work not only furthered the interests of the United States, but also the political interests of the president.
As a professional intelligence analyst detailed to the NSC, the whistleblower was committed to a two-year assignment, extendable
to three years upon the agreement of all parties. President Obama's departure from the White House did not change this commitment.
According to NSC staffers who served in the White House at the time, the whistleblower, like many of his fellow detailees, had grown
attached to the policies of the Obama administration which they had fought hard to formulate, coordinate and implement. They viewed
these policies to be sacrosanct, regardless of who followed in the White House.
In doing so, they had committed the greatest sin that an intelligence professional could commit short of espionage -- they had
become political.
In December 2016, the whistleblower was, based upon his role as a leading Russian analysts advising Rice directly, more than likely
helping unmask Flynn's communications with Russians; a month later, he was working for Flynn, someone he had likely actively helped
conspire against, using the unfettered power of the intelligence community.
The Trump administration had inherited a national security decision-making apparatus that was bloated, and which fostered White
House micromanagement via the NSC. While the Obama NSC had proven able to generate a prolificate amount of "policy", it did so by
relying on a staff that had expanded to the largest in the history of the NSC, and at the expense of the various departments of government
that were supposed to be the originators of policy.
As the new national security adviser, Flynn let it be known from day one that there would be changes. One of his first actions
was to hire four new deputies
who centralized much of the responsibilities normally tasked to regional directors such as the whistleblower. Flynn was putting in
place a new level of bureaucracy that shielded professional detailees from top level decision makers.
Moreover, it recognized that the NSC, while staffed with professionals who are supposed to be apolitical, was viewed by the White
House as a partisan policy body whose work not only furthered the interests of the United States, but also the political interests
of the president. When Trump included his top political advisor, Bannon, on the list of people who would comprise the National Security
Council (normally limited to cabinet-level officials), it sent shockwaves through the national security establishment, which accused
Trump of politicizing what they claimed was an apolitical process.
But the reality was that the NSC had always functioned as a partisan decision-making body. Its previous occupants may have tried
to temper the level to which domestic politics intruded on national security decision-making, but its presence was an unspoken reality.
All Trump did by seeking to insert Bannon into the mix was to be open about it.
Like the other professional detailees who comprised 90 percent of the NSC staff and were expected to remain at their posts as
part of a Trump administration, the whistleblower was dismayed by the changes.
Some accounts of the early days of the Trump NSC indicate that the whistleblower was defensive of the Ukraine policies he had
helped craft during his tenure at the NSC.
When his immediate superior, Kupchan (a political appointee) departed the NSC, the whistleblower was temporarily elevated to the
position of senior director for Russia and Eurasia until a new replacement could be found. (Flynn had
reached out to Fiona Hill
, a former national intelligence officer for Russia under the administration of George W. Bush, to take this job; Hill had accepted,
but would not be available until April.)
According to persons familiar with his work at the NSC during the Trump administration, the whistleblower's frustration and anger
soon led to acts of resistance designed to expose, and undermine public confidence in President Trump.
The role of McCaster in preseving Obama holdout and unleashing a series of leaks
When Fiona Hill arrived in April 2017 to assume her responsibilities, the whistleblower was not sent back to CIA. Instead McMaster,
who had come to know the whistleblower during his first month as national security adviser,
appointed him to serve as his personal assistant . The whistleblower moved from his desk next door in the Executive Office Building,
where most NSC staffer work, to the West Wing of the White House, a move which gave him direct access to every issue that crossed McMaster's
desk. Leaks followed:
The new job, however, did nothing to diminish the disdain the whistleblower had for Trump. Indeed, the proximity to the seat of
power may have served to increase the concern the whistleblower had about Trump's stewardship. On May 10, President Trump played
host to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Kislyak. During the now-infamous meeting, Trump spoke about
the firing of former FBI Director Jim Comey; a sensitive Israeli intelligence source related to the ongoing fight against ISIS in
Syria; and alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
As McMasters' assistant, the whistleblower was privy to the readout of the meeting, and was so alarmed by what he had seen that
he sent an email to John Kelly , who at that time was serving
as director of the Department of Homeland Security, detailing the president's actions and words. All materials relating to this meeting
were collected and
secured in the NSC's top secret codeword server ; the only unsecured data was that contained in the whistleblower's email. When
the media subsequently reported on the details of Trump's meeting with the Russians, the White House condemned the "leaking of private
and highly classified information" which undermined "our national security."
According to a NSC staffer who worked in the White House at the time, an internal investigation pointed to the whistleblower's
email as the likely source of the leak, and while the whistleblower was not directly implicated in actually transmitting classified
information to the press, he was criticized for what amounted to unauthorized communication with an outside agency, in this case
the Department of Homeland Security. When his initial two-year assignment terminated in July 2017, the White House refused to
authorize a one-year extension (a courtesy offered to the vast majority of detailees).
The whistleblower had become a liability,
publicly smeared by right-wing bloggers and subjected to death threats. He was released from the NSC and returned to the CIA,
where he resumed his role as a Eurasian analyst. Shortly after the whistleblower left the NSC, the full transcripts of President
Trump's January 28, 2017 conversations with the leaders of Mexico and Australia were leaked to the press. While several colleagues
in the NSC believed that the whistleblower was behind the leaks, McMaster refused to authorize a formal investigation which,
if evidence had been found that implicated the whistleblower, would have effectively terminated his career at the CIA.
It is at this juncture the saga of the whistleblower should have ended, avoiding the turn of events which ended up labeling him
with the now famous (or infamous) appellation. However, in June 2018 the whistleblower's colleague, Kendall-Taylor, ended her assignment
as the deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia.
An announcement was made to fill the vacancy , and
the whistleblower applied.
Despite having left the NSC under a cloud of suspicion regarding the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, and even
though his anti-Trump sentiment was common knowledge among his colleagues and superiors, the whistleblower was picked for a position
that would put him at the center of policy formulation regarding Russia and Ukraine, and the sensitive intelligence that influenced
such. His appointment would have been approved by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coates.
Vindman role in creating thewissleblower compaign
The whistleblower's concerns about President Trump and Ukraine predated the July 25, 2019 telephone call, and mirrored those expressed
by Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, both in chronology and content,
provided during his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee . According to
an account published in T
he Washington Post, sometime after being informed by Vindman of the July 25 Trump-Zelensky telephone call, the whistleblower
began preparing notes and assembling information related to what he believed was untoward activity vis-à-vis Ukraine on the part of
President Trump and associates who were not part of the formal Ukraine policy making process. He made numerous telephone calls to U.S.
government officials whom he knew from his official work as the deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Because
much of the information he was using was derived from classified sources, or was itself classified in nature, the whistleblower worked
from his office, using a computer system approved for handling classified data.
The whistleblower was well versed in the collaborative functions of the deputy national intelligence officer position, having
worked with Kendall-Taylor during his time at the NSC. He began to develop professional relationships with a number of individuals,
including the new director of Ukraine at the NSC, Army Lieutenant Colonel
Alexander Vindman . Vindman had extensive experience regarding Ukraine and had been detailed to the NSC from the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. The two soon appeared to share a mutual concern over President Trump's worldview of both Russia and Ukraine, which deviated
from the formal policy formulations promulgated by the interagency processes that both Vindman and the whistleblower were involved
in.
The whistleblower's concerns about President Trump and Ukraine predated the July 25, 2019 telephone call, and mirrored those expressed
by Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, both in chronology and content,
provided during his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee . While Vindman was critical of President Trump's deviation
and/or failure to conform with policy that had been vetted through proper channels (i.e., in conformity with PDD 4), he noted that,
as president, "It's his prerogative to handle the call whichever way he wants."
Vindman took umbrage at the non-national security topics brought up by the president, such as investigating former Vice President
Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, regarding their relationship with a Ukrainian energy company,
Burisma Holdings , and other references to the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
According to Vindman, it was this aspect of the telephone call Vindman believed to be alarming, and which he subsequently related
to an authorized contact within the intelligence community. While Vindman remained circumspect about the identity of the intelligence
community official he communicated with about his concerns over Trump's Ukraine policy, the fact that the chairman of the House Intelligence
Committee refused to allow any discussion of this person's identity strongly suggests that it was the whistleblower who, as the deputy
national intelligence officer for Russia and Ukraine, would be a logical, and fully legitimate, interlocuter.
According to
an account published in T
he Washington Post, sometime after being informed by Vindman of the July 25 Trump-Zelensky telephone call, the whistleblower
began preparing notes and assembling information related to what he believed was untoward activity vis-à-vis Ukraine on the part
of President Trump and associates who were not part of the formal Ukraine policy making process. He made numerous telephone calls
to U.S. government officials whom he knew from his official work as the deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia.
Because much of the information he was using was derived from classified sources, or was itself classified in nature, the whistleblower
worked from his office, using a computer system approved for handling classified data.
Off Limits
From the perspective of security, the whistleblower's work was flawless. There was one problem, however; investigating the actions
of the president of the United States and officials outside the intelligence community who were carrying out the instructions of
the president was not part of the whistleblower's official responsibilities.
Indeed, anything that whiffed of interference in domestic American politics was, in and of itself, off limits to members of the
intelligence community.
Robert Gates, a long-time CIA analyst and former CIA director, had warned about this possibility
in a speech he delivered to the CIA in March 1992 on the issue of the politicization of intelligence. "National intelligence
officers", Gates noted, "are engaged in analysis and -- given their frequent contact with high-level policymakers -- their work is
also vulnerable to distortion."
There was no greater example of politicized distortion than the rabbit hole the whistleblower had allowed himself to fall into.
From Gates' perspective, the whistleblower had committed the ultimate sin of any intelligence analyst -- he had allowed his expertise
to become tarnished by political considerations.
Worse, the whistleblower had crossed the threshold from advocating a politicized point of view to becoming political -- that is,
to intervene in the domestic political affairs of the United States in a manner which influenced the political future of a sitting
president of the United States.
Once he had assembled his notes, he sought out staffers on the House Intelligence Committee for guidance on how to proceed. Schiff,
the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, had hired two former members of the Trump NSC staff who had served at the same
time as the whistleblower.
One, Abigail Grace, had worked at the NSC from 2016-2018, covering U.S.-Chinese relations. Grace was hired by Schiff in February
2019 for the express purpose of investigating the
Trump White House. A second NSC veteran was
hired in August 2019, around the same time that the whistleblower was preparing his complaint. That staffer was none other than
Sean Misko, the whistleblowers friend and fellow anti-Trump collaborator.
Both Misko and the whistleblower departed the NSC in 2017 under a cloud. Misko went on to work for the
Center for New American Security , a self-described bipartisan think tank set
up by two former Obama administration officials, Michèle Flournoy and Kurt M. Campbell, before being recruited by Schiff. It is not
known if Misko was one of the House Intelligence staffers the whistleblower approached, or if there had been any collaboration between
the whistleblower and Misko about the nature of the complaint prior to Misko being recruited by Schiff.
After conferencing with the House Intelligence Committee staffers, the whistleblower sought legal counsel. He reached out to a
lawyer affiliated with Whistleblower Aid , a group of national security
lawyers who came together in September 2017 -- eight months after the inauguration of President Trump -- to
encourage w histleblowers within the U.S. g overnment to come out agains Trump , and provide legal and financial assistance to
anyone that chose to do so. One of Whistleblower Aid's founding members was a lawyer named Mark Zaid.
In the days following Trump's swearing in as president, Zaid turned to Twitter to send out messages supportive of a "coup" against
Trump that would lead to the president's eventual impeachment. The identity of the lawyer who met with the whistleblower is not known.
However, this lawyer referred the whistleblower to Bakaj, a fellow member of Whistleblower Aid, who took on the case and provided
procedural guidance regarding the preparation of the complaint. Bakaj later brought on Zaid and another lawyer, Charles McCullough,
with close ties to Senator Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, to assist in the case.
On August 12, the whistleblower completed his complaint, and forwarded it to the intelligence community inspector general, thereby
setting in motion events that produced weeks of hearings before the House Intelligence Committee that will very likely result in
Trump's impeachment.
Shielded from Questions
While the whistleblower, through counsel, had expressed a desire to testify before the House Intelligence Committee about the
issues set forth in his complaint, he was never called to do so, even in closed-door session. The ostensible reason behind this failure
to testify was the need to protect his anonymity, a protection that is not contained within the relevant statutes governing whistleblower
activities within the intelligence community.
Later, as witnesses were identified from the content of the whistleblower's complaint and subpoenaed to testify before the House
Intelligence Committee, both Schiff and Bakaj indicated that the whistleblower's testimony was no longer needed, since the specific
issues and events covered in his complaint had been more than adequately covered by the testimony of others.
But the apparent reason Schiff and Bakaj refused to allow the whistleblower to testify, or to be identified, was to avoid
legitimate questions likely to be asked by Republican committee members.
Namely, what was a deputy national intelligence officer of the U.S. intelligence community doing investigating activities
of a sitting president? Who, if anyone, authorized this intervention in U.S. domestic political affairs by a CIA official? How
did the whistleblower, who had a history of documented animosity with the Trump administration that included credible allegations
of leaking sensitive material to the press for the express purpose of undermining the credibility of the president, get selected
to serve as a deputy national intelligence officer? Who signed off on this assignment? What was the precise role played by the whistleblower
in unmasking the identities of U.S. citizens in 2016, during the Trump transition?
Did the whistleblower maintain his friendship with Misko after leaving the NSC in July 2017? Did the whistleblower collaborate
with Misko to get the House Intelligence Committee to investigate the issues of concern to the whistleblower before his complaint
was transmitted to the ICIG? Who did the whistleblower meet on the House Intelligence staff? What did they discuss? Who was the lawyer
the whistleblower first met regarding his intent to file a complaint? Did the whistleblower have any contact with Whistleblower Aid
prior to this meeting?
Answers to these questions, and more, would have been useful in understanding not only the motives of the whistleblower in filing
his complaint -- was he simply a concerned citizen and patriot, or was he part of a larger conspiracy to undermine the political
viability of a sitting president? There is no doubt that Congress has a constitutional right and obligation to conduct proper oversight
of the operations of the executive branch, and to hold the president of the United States accountable if his conduct and actions
are deemed unworthy of his office. Whether or not the facts surrounding the July 25, 2019 telephone call between Trump and Zelensky
constitute grounds for impeachment is a political question for Congress to decide.
Update (1745ET): President Trump just took a minute away from the campaign trail to weigh in
on the 'coming out' of Miles Taylor, the formerly "anonymous" op-ed writer and self-proclaimed
leader of the internal White House #resistance,
"Who is Miles Taylor?" President Trump wrote, before recounting Taylor's association with
various adversaries of the administration. He added that "they should fire, shame, and punish
everybody associated with this FRAUD on the American people" - a group that would presumably
include some members or former members of his own inner circle, as well as the editors of the
NYT.
A photo of Taylor and Trump has been circulating on Twitter since before Trump published his
tweet, and we imagine Trump's response to the inevitable reporter question will be his usual
"so what?".
Meanwhile, CNN has reportedly decided not to fire Taylor, even though he lied on air to one
of the network's anchors (anderson cooper, clip below) despite being a paid employee of the
company.
It's still unclear what Google's response will be.
* * *
Roughly two years have passed since an anonymous Trump Administration insider
published an op-ed - then later, a whole book - warning Americans how President Trump was a
danger to the nation, primarily due to his "lack of character".
Well, on Wednesday afternoon, with six days left until the big day, the MSM and their
political operative allies, orchestrated the public coming-out of Miles Taylor, a former senior
official within Trump's Homeland Security Department who, before today, was best known as the
first former senior administration official to endorse Joe Biden for president.
In the year since Taylor has left the White House, he has parlayed his national security
bona fides (which were burnished during a stint working for Dick Cheney in the Bush White
House) into a top job working for Google, as well as a lucrative contract to appear as a
talking head on CNN and...did we mention the book deal?
Shortly following a teaser from George Conway, who called his fellow conservative Republican
a "true patriot"....
...Buzzfeed Ben - excuse us, Ben Smith - the former top man at Buzzfeed who left that
struggling media company to take the coveted job as the NYT's media columnist (a position
formerly held by both Brian Stelter and, before him, the legendary American media reporter
David Carr), was the first to confirm Taylor's identity, followed by a tweet from Taylor
acknowledging that it was all true.
Taylor published a statement on his reasoning for "why I'm no longer 'anonymous'" via his
new Medium page, which is strange, considering he now works for CNN, technically. In the
statement, Taylor wrote that Trump "sees personal criticism as subversive" followed by a Teddy
Roosevelt quote condemning those who say the president must not be criticized as "not only
unpatriotic and servile, but...morally treasonable to the American public." Later in the piece,
he quoted Abraham Lincoln.
Though Taylor acknowledged that he has been a life-long Republican, and that he "wanted this
president to succeed", he said Trump is "a man without character", and "his personal defects
have resulted in leadership failures so significant that they can be measured in lost American
lives."
More than two years ago, I published an anonymous opinion piece in The New York Times about
Donald Trump's perilous presidency, while I was serving under him. He responded with a short
but telling tweet: "TREASON?" Trump sees personal criticism as subversive. I take a different
view.
As Theodore Roosevelt wrote, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about
him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant,
about him than about anyone else." We do not owe the President our silence. We owe him and the
American people the truth. Make no mistake: I am a Republican, and I wanted this President to
succeed. That's why I came into the Administration with John Kelly, and it's why I stayed on as
Chief of Staff at the Department of Homeland Security. But too often in times of crisis, I saw
Donald Trump prove he is a man without character, and his personal defects have resulted in
leadership failures so significant that they can be measured in lost American lives.
I witnessed Trump's inability to do his job over the course of two-and-a-half years.
Everyone saw it, though most were hesitant to speak up for fear of reprisals. So when I left
the Administration I wrote A Warning, a character study of the current Commander in Chief and a
caution to voters that it wasn't as bad as it looked inside the Trump Administration -- it was
worse. While I claim sole authorship of the work, the sentiments expressed within it were
widely held among officials at the highest levels of the federal government. In other words,
Trump's own lieutenants were alarmed by his instability.
Much has been made of the fact that these writings were published anonymously. The decision
wasn't easy, I wrestled with it, and I understand why some people consider it questionable to
levy such serious charges against a sitting President under the cover of anonymity. But my
reasoning was straightforward, and I stand by it. Issuing my critiques without attribution
forced the President to answer them directly on their merits or not at all, rather than
creating distractions through petty insults and name-calling. I wanted the attention to be on
the arguments themselves. At the time I asked, "What will he do when there is no person to
attack, only an idea?" We got the answer. He became unhinged. And the ideas stood on their own
two feet. To be clear, writing those works was not about eminence (they were published without
attribution), not about money (I declined a hefty monetary advance and pledged to donate the
bulk of the proceeds), and not about crafting a score-settling "tell all" (my focus was on the
President himself and his character, not denigrating former colleagues). Nevertheless, I made
clear I wasn't afraid to criticize the President under my name. In fact, I pledged to do so.
That is why I've already been vocal throughout the general election. I've tried to convey as
best I can -- based on my own experience -- how Donald Trump has made America less safe, less
certain of its identity and destiny, and less united. He has responded predictably, with
personal attacks meant to obscure the underlying message that he is unfit for the office he
holds. Yet Trump has failed to bury the truth.
Why? Because since the op-ed was published, I've been joined by an unprecedented number of
former colleagues who've chosen to speak out against the man they once served. Donald Trump's
character and record have now been challenged in myriad ways by his own former Chief of Staff,
National Security Advisor, Communications Director, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense,
Director of National Intelligence, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and others he
personally appointed. History will also record the names of those souls who had everything to
lose but stood up anyway, including Trump officials Fiona Hill, Michael McKinley, John Mitnick,
Elizabeth Neumann, Bob Shanks, Olivia Troye, Josh Venable, Alexander Vindman, and many more. I
applaud their courage. These are not "Deep Staters" who conspired to thwart their boss. Many of
them were Trump supporters, and all of them are patriots who accepted great personal risks to
speak candidly about a man they've seen retaliate and even incite violence against his
opponents. (I've likewise experienced the cost of condemning the President, as doing so has
taken a considerable toll on my job, daily life, marriage, finances, and personal safety.)
These public servants were not intimidated. And you shouldn't be either. As descendants of
revolutionaries, honest dissent is part of our American character, and we must reject the
culture of political intimidation that's been cultivated by this President. That's why I'm
writing this note -- to urge you to speak out if you haven't.
While I hope a few more Trump officials will quickly find their consciences, your words are
now more important than theirs. It's time to come forward and shine a light on the discord
that's infected our public discourse. You can speak loudest with your vote and persuade others
with your voice. Don't be afraid of open debate. As I've said before, there is no better screen
test for truth than to see it audition next to delusion. This election is a two-part
referendum: first, on the character of a man, and second, on the character of our nation.
That's why I'm also urging fellow Republicans to put country over party, even if that means
supporting Trump's Democratic opponent. Although former Vice President Joe Biden is likely to
pursue progressive reforms that conservatives oppose (and rest assured, we will challenge them
in the loyal opposition), his policy agenda cannot equal the damage done by the current
President to the fabric of our Republic. I believe Joe Biden's decency will bring us back
together where Donald Trump's dishonesty has torn us apart.
Trump has been exactly what we conservatives always said government should NOT be:
expansive, wasteful, arbitrary, unpredictable, and prone to abuses of power. Worse still, as
I've noted previously, he's waged an all-out assault on reason, preferring to enthrone emotion
and impulse in the seat of government. The consequences have been calamitous, and if given four
more years, he will push the limits of his power further than the "high crimes and
misdemeanors" for which he was already impeached.
Trust me. We spent years trying to ameliorate Trump's poor decisions (often unsuccessfully),
many of which will be back with a vengeance in a second term. Recall, this is the man who told
us, "When somebody's president of the United States, the authority is total." I believe more
than ever that Trump unbound will mean a nation undone -- a continued downward slide into
social acrimony, with the United States fading into the background of a world stage it once
commanded, to say nothing of the damage to our democratic institutions.
I was wrong, however, about one major assertion in my original op-ed. The country cannot
rely on well-intentioned, unelected bureaucrats around the President to steer him toward what's
right. He has purged most of them anyway. Nor can they rely on Congress to deliver us from
Trump's wayward whims. The people themselves are the ultimate check on the nation's chief
executive. We alone must determine whether his behavior warrants continuance in office, and we
face a momentous decision, as our choice about Trump's future will affect our future for years
to come. With that in mind, he doesn't deserve a second term in office, and we don't deserve to
live through it.
Removing Trump will not be the end of our woes, unfortunately. While on the road visiting
swing states for the past month, it's become clear to me how far apart Americans have grown
from one another. We've perpetuated the seemingly endless hostility stoked by this divisive
President, so if we really want to restore vibrance to our civic life, the change must begin
with each of us, not just with the occupant of the Oval Office. Fortunately, past generations
have lit the way toward national reconciliation in even harder times.
On the brink of a civil war that literally split our nation in two, Abraham Lincoln called
on the people not to lose sight of one other. He said in his Inaugural Address:
We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it
must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every
battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land,
will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the
better angels of our nature.
Heed Lincoln's words. We must return to our founding principles. We must rediscover our
better angels. And we must reconcile with each other, repairing the bonds of affection that
make us fellow Americans.
Mere minutes after Taylor's big coming-out, the online backlash began. Even members of the
'#resistance' slammed Taylor for his involvement in executing Trump's child-separation policy,
and for waiting this long to speak up.
As it turns out, Google execs reportedly misled their own employees when they insisted that
Taylor wasn't involved with the child-separation policy, an issue that ranks as Trump's
paramount sin among denizens of Silicon Valley.
Many also complained about the NYT hyping up the identity of the "anonymous" insider to try
and suggest that he was a top-level staffer, prompting speculation about Rex Tillerson, John
Kelly or even James Mattis. Trump's current chief of staff Mark Meadows,
And journalist Judd Legum with the extended version of that explanation, in which he
denounces "Anonymous" as little more than a grifter, who played a "critical role" in the family
separation policy, now working to parlay his brief time in the Trump Administration into a
quick buck.
Some were incredulous that Taylor left the administration and now works for Google and
CNN.
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-18&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1321546046363721728&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fanonymous-author-outs-himself-liberal-media-immediately-slams-him-child-separating&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
With Taylor now outed as a child prison guard, as we have no doubt he will be branded by the
left, we imagine Google will need to make a statement at some point about whether Taylor will
continue on in his role, or be...fired.
play_arrow Unknown User , 58 minutes ago
A typical Neoliberal incapable of comprehending loyalty and ready to sellout anyone for a
dollar.
Everybodys All American , 1 hour ago
This little man operates like a CIA agent. I'd be shocked if that's not the case. He
actually said he believes in Joe Biden's' decency. No one in their right mind is saying that
...
gmrpeabody , 50 minutes ago
Biden's decency..? Now THAT'S funny...
JLee2027 , 1 hour ago
Just another one who betrayed his country for bucks and fame. Hope it was worth it.
Perseus-Reflected , 1 hour ago
Looks like a latte-drinking little b!tch to me.
aspen1880 , 58 minutes ago
he "identifies" with bish
chelydra , 4 minutes ago
The epitome of an effete, preening dandy.
hot sauce technician , 1 hour ago
Everything the biden campaign is doing seems to backfire on it.
LVrunner , 58 minutes ago
Should be giving away puppies soon like Hilary did at this point.
Redhotfill , 1 hour ago
Working for Google, CNN, Book deal yeah Pay Offs! Surprised no Netflx stock options.
44magnum , 1 hour ago
Or a seat on the board
mrslippryFIST , 1 hour ago
The year isnt over yet.
OGAorSAD , 1 hour ago
And we care why? Should be a headline with Section 230 being repealed, and multiple
indictments of Biden's, Clinton's, and Obama's
nope-1004 , 54 minutes ago
Never heard of him.
The fact that he's a documented public liar and democrat makes complete sense though.
mrslippryFIST , 1 hour ago
Hah, little beta cuck didn't get his 15mins so he outs himself to get his 15 mins of
fame.
This is what participation ribbons gives you.
Willie the Pimp , 1 hour ago
What else would you expect from an obvious jizz guzzler? The LGBT have destroyed the
USSA.
pictur3plane , 1 hour ago
SOY BOY NOTHING BURGER.
JRobby , 52 minutes ago
Oh! Look! He shops at Amazon!!!
Pop this prick and dump him in a landfill
Friedrich not Salma , 54 minutes ago
DNC probably asked him to reveal himself to eat up Teevee time and distract from Hunter's
story.
Md4 , 53 minutes ago
Zactly.
Where's Hunter?
Boxed Merlot , 31 minutes ago
...Where's Hunter?...
Chillin with Mr. Corzine? You remember that guy don't you? He's another GS Vice President
and Mr. Obama's prized confidant in his financial wizardry that ripped off his "investors" to
the tune of frn1B and slunk out of the public eye.
Who are these people? Look at the way they dress. Look at the smug arrogant look on their
faces.
They are caught in a bubble and are totally divorced from reality.
It should be requirement of every individual who enters government to spend at least one
year unclogging apartment building sewer stoppages.
Having a basic grasp of reality and a first hand look at where sewage actually goes is
vital to a healthy reality based outlook on life.
Peace
Salsa Verde , 1 hour ago
Scumbags gonna scum.
EnoughBS21 , 56 minutes ago
How's it feel, little traitor? You threw Trump under the bus and now your "new friends"
are tossing you away.
A Mister nobody!
Md4 , 54 minutes ago
And was " anonymous".
Credible?
44magnum , 1 hour ago
Trump has no character and Biden is senile.
So he picks Biden and the whore? She is definitely a character.
I am more equal than others , 1 hour ago
Judging character from afar. It is an amazing skill that has never existed.
novictim , 46 minutes ago
On the scales of justice, Trump is light as a feather while these Leftist
infiltrator-traitors and grifters, China-stooges and bribe takers, are lead weights on the
American Republic. There is no parallel to the corruption that has been revealed about the
Russia-Collusion hoax and now the truth about Biden's sale of US' China-policy in return for
the CCP padding the Biden family nest egg.
Watergate has nothing on these latest scandals. And Trump comes away from all of this like
a shining star.
JmanSilver.Gold , 44 minutes ago
Just another leftwing swamprat.
Floki_Ragnarsson , 46 minutes ago
So this weasel turd creates the problem, whines about it, and then makes a book deal, bags
a CNN job, etc?
Obviously a slimy Democrud.
Teamtc321 , 51 minutes ago
***** shadow man talks about character? Typical Demshelvic POS.
Joe Biden is burning down.
zerozerosevenhedgeBow1 , 1 hour ago
Ahh... Wallet before country, honor and integrity. I see a trend of "Public Service".
Delete his security clearance before he tries to change genders, because politically then you
probably couldn't afterwards.
Hipneck911 , 45 minutes ago
So a minor level DHS obama holdover who is a lifelong democrat-donated to Obamas
campaign-and probably had all of maybe ONE meeting where the President was present. AKA
typical leftist LOSER.
Imagine That , 1 hour ago
Big fuss about a chicken-sh*t nobody, who the world will forget before he changes his silk
panties.
Pvt Joker , 45 minutes ago
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies"
Yeah, Imma say this guy and any one who thinks like him is my enemy.
Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 47 minutes ago
You had me till Vindman.................... you're an operative .....................
Blaster09 , 55 minutes ago
Another POS!!!
lwilland1012 , 1 hour ago
Give people enough time, and they will always show you their true colors. Just watch and
listen.
novictim , 42 minutes ago
But the election is on Tuesday. Millions have already voted.
The MSM has betrayed every American in ways unthinkable just a decade ago.
Dindu Nuffins , 45 minutes ago
Not worth changing the news cycle from the laptop. No one cares who this rat is,
undifferentiated as he is from the many others.
President Trump has gotten rid just about everyone in this article I found 3 years ago
> The ATLANTIC COUNCIL is funded by BURISMA, GEORGE SOROS OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATION &
others. It was a CENTRIST, MILITARISTIC think tanks,now turned leftist group
> JOE BIDEN extorted Ukraine to FIRE the prosecutor investigating BURISMA, HUNTER's
employer.
> LTC VINDMAN & FIONA HILL met MANY TIMES with DANIEL FRIED of the ATLANTIC
COUNCIL. FIONA HILL is a former CoWorker of CHRISTOPHER STEELE !
> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH is connected to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, is PRAISED in their
documents, gave Ukraine a "do not prosecute" list, was involved in PRESSURING Ukraine to not
prosecute GEORGE SOROS Group.
> BILL TAYLOR has a financial relationship with the ATLANTIC COUNCIL and the US UKRAINE
BUSINESS COUNCIL (USUBC) which is also funded by BURISMA.
> TAYLOR met with THOMAS EAGER (works for ADAM SCHIFF) in Ukraine on trip PAID FOR by
the ATLANTIC COUNCIL. This just days before TAYLOR first texts about the "FAKE" Quid Pro Quo
!
> TAYLOR participated in USUBC Events with DAVID J. KRAMER (JOHN MCCAIN advisor) who
spread the STEELE DOSSIER to the media and OBAMA officials.
> JOE BIDEN is connected to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, he rolled out his foreign policy
vision while VP there, He has given speeches there, his adviser on Ukraine, MICHAEL CARPENTER
(heads the Penn Biden Center) is a FELLOW at the ATLANTIC COUNCIL.
> KURT VOLKER is now Senior Advisor to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, he met with burisma
When intelligence honchos became politicians the shadow of Lavrentiy Beria emerge behind
them. while politization of FBI create political police like Gestapo, politization of CIA is much
more serious and dangerous. It creates really tight control over the country by shadow
intelligence agency. In a sense CIA and the cornerstone of the "deep state"
Former CIA Director John Brennan personally edited a crucial section of the intelligence
report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and assigned a political ally to take a
lead role in writing it after career analysts disputed Brennan's take that Russian leader
Vladimir Putin intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump clinch the White House,
according to two senior U.S. intelligence officials who have seen classified materials
detailing Brennan's role in drafting the document.
John Brennan, left, with Robert Mueller in 2013: The CIA director's explosive conclusion in
the ICA helped justify continuing Trump-Russia "collusion" investigations, notably Mueller's
probe as special counsel. AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews
The explosive conclusion Brennan inserted into the report was used to help justify
continuing the Trump-Russia "collusion" investigation, which had been launched by the FBI in
2016. It was picked up after the election by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who in the end
found no proof that Trump or his campaign conspired with Moscow.
The Obama administration publicly released a declassified version of the report -- known as
the "Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent Elections
(ICA)" -- just two weeks before Trump took office, casting a cloud of suspicion over his
presidency. Democrats and national media have cited the report to suggest Russia influenced the
2016 outcome and warn that Putin is likely meddling again to reelect Trump.
The ICA is a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing investigation into the origins
of the "collusion" probe. He wants to know if the intelligence findings were juiced for
political purposes.
RealClearInvestigations has learned that one of the CIA operatives who helped Brennan draft
the ICA, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, financially supported Hillary Clinton during the campaign and
is a close colleague of Eric Ciaramella,
identified last year by RCI as the Democratic national security "whistleblower" whose
complaint led to Trump's impeachment, ending in Senate acquittal in January.
John Durham: He is said to be using the long-hidden report on the drafting of the ICA as a
road map in his investigation of whether the Obama administration politicized intelligence.
Department of Justice via AP
The two officials said Brennan, who openly supported Clinton during the campaign, excluded
conflicting evidence about Putin's motives from the report , despite objections from some
intelligence analysts who argued Putin counted on Clinton winning the election and viewed Trump
as a "wild card."
The dissenting analysts found that Moscow preferred Clinton because it judged she would work
with its leaders, whereas it worried Trump would be too unpredictable. As secretary of state,
Clinton tried to "reset" relations with Moscow to move them to a more positive and cooperative
stage, while Trump campaigned on expanding the U.S. military, which Moscow perceived as a
threat.
These same analysts argued the Kremlin was generally trying to sow discord and disrupt the
American democratic process during the 2016 election cycle. They also noted that Russia tried
to interfere in the 2008 and 2012 races, many years before Trump threw his hat in the ring.
"They complained Brennan took a thesis [that Putin supported Trump] and decided he was
going to ignore dissenting data and exaggerate the importance of that conclusion, even though
they said it didn't have any real substance behind it," said a senior U.S intelligence
official who participated in a 2018 review of the spycraft behind the assessment, which
President Obama ordered after the 2016 election.
He elaborated that the analysts said they also came under political pressure to back
Brennan's judgment that Putin personally ordered "active measures" against the Clinton campaign
to throw the election to Trump, even though the underlying intelligence was "weak."
Adam Schiff: Soon after the Democrat took control of the House Intelligence Committee, its
review of the drafting of the intelligence community assessment was classified and locked in a
Capitol basement safe. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
The review, conducted by the House Intelligence Committee, culminated in a lengthy report
that was classified and locked in a Capitol basement safe soon after Democratic Rep. Adam
Schiff took control of the committee in January 2019.
The official said the committee spent more than 1,200 hours reviewing the ICA and
interviewing analysts involved in crafting it, including the chief of Brennan's so-called
"fusion cell," which was the interagency analytical group Obama's top spook stood up to look
into Russian influence operations during the 2016 election.
Durham is said to be using the long-hidden report, which runs 50-plus pages, as a road map
in his investigation of whether the Obama administration politicized intelligence while
targeting the Trump campaign and presidential transition in an unprecedented investigation
involving wiretapping and other secret surveillance.
The special prosecutor recently interviewed Brennan for several hours at CIA headquarters
after obtaining his emails, call logs and other documents from the agency. Durham has also
quizzed analysts and supervisors who worked on the ICA.
A spokesman for Brennan said that, according to Durham, he is not the target of a criminal
investigation and "only a witness to events that are under review." Durham's office did not
respond to requests for comment.
The senior intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss
intelligence matters, said former senior CIA political analyst Kendall-Taylor was a key member
of the team that worked on the ICA. A Brennan protégé, she donated hundreds of
dollars to Clinton's 2016 campaign, federal records show. In June, she gave $250 to the Biden
Victory Fund.
Andrea Kendall-Taylor: A Brennan protégé, she donated hundreds of dollars to
Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, and recently defended the ICA in a
"60 Minutes" interview . "60 Minutes"/YouTube
Kendall-Taylor and Ciaramella entered the CIA as junior analysts around the same time and
worked the Russia beat together at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. From 2015 to 2018,
Kendall-Taylor was detailed to the National Intelligence Council, where she was deputy national
intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Ciaramella succeeded her in that position at NIC,
a unit of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that oversees the CIA and the
other intelligence agencies.
It's not clear if Ciaramella also played a role in the drafting of the January 2017
assessment. He was working in the White House as a CIA detailee at the time. The CIA declined
comment.
Kendall-Taylor did not respond to requests for comment, but she recently defended the ICA as
a national security expert in a CBS "60 Minutes" interview on Russia's election activities,
arguing it was a slam-dunk case "based on a large body of evidence that demonstrated not only
what Russia was doing, but also its intent. And it's based on a number of different sources,
collected human intelligence, technical intelligence."
But the secret congressional review details how the ICA, which was hastily put together over
30 days at the direction of Obama intelligence czar James Clapper, did not follow longstanding
rules for crafting such assessments. It was not farmed out to other key intelligence agencies
for their input, and did not include an annex for dissent, among other extraordinary departures
from past tradecraft.
Eric Ciaramella: The Democratic national security "whistleblower," whose complaint led to
President Trump's impeachment, was a close colleague of Kendall-Taylor. It's not clear if
Ciaramella also played a role in the drafting of the January 2017 assessment.
whitehouse.gov
It did, however, include a two-page annex summarizing allegations from a dossier compiled by
former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. His claim that Putin had personally
ordered cyberattacks on the Clinton campaign to help Trump win happened to echo the key finding
of the ICA that Brennan supported. Brennan had
briefed Democratic senators about allegations from the dossier on Capitol Hill.
"Some of the FBI source's [Steele's] reporting is consistent with the judgment in the
assessment," stated the appended summary, which the two intelligence sources say was written
by Brennan loyalists.
"The FBI source claimed, for example, that Putin ordered the influence effort with the aim
of defeating Secretary Clinton, whom Putin 'feared and hated.' "
Steele's reporting has since been discredited by the Justice Department's inspector general
as rumor-based opposition research on Trump paid for by the Clinton campaign. Several
allegations have been debunked, even by Steele's own primary source, who confessed to the FBI
that he ginned the rumors up with some of his Russian drinking buddies to earn money from
Steele.
Former FBI Director James Comey told the Justice Department's watchdog that the Steele
material, which he referred to as the "Crown material," was incorporated with the ICA because
it was "corroborative of the central thesis of the assessment "The IC analysts found it
credible on its face," Comey said.
Christopher Steele: His dossier allegations were summarized in a two-page annex to the
ICA, but dissenting views about the Kremlin's favoring Hillary Clinton over Trump were
excluded. Victoria Jones/PA via AP
The officials who have read the secret congressional report on the ICA dispute that. They
say a number of analysts objected to including the dossier, arguing it was political innuendo
and not sound intelligence.
"The staff report makes it fairly clear the assessment was politicized and skewed to
discredit Trump's election," said the second U.S. intelligence source, who also requested
anonymity.
Kendall-Taylor denied any political bias factored into the intelligence.
"To suggest that there was political interference in that process is ridiculous," she
recently told NBC News.
Her boss during the ICA's drafting was CIA officer Julia Gurganus. Clapper tasked Gurganus,
then detailed to NIC as its national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia, with
coordinating the production of the ICA with Kendall-Taylor.
They, in turn, worked closely with NIC's cybersecurity expert Vinh Nguyen, who had been
consulting with Democratic National Committee cybersecurity contractor CrowdStrike to gather
intelligence on the alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer
system. (CrowdStrike's president has
testified he couldn't say for sure Russian intelligence stole DNC emails, according to
recently declassified transcripts.)
Durham's investigators have focused on people who worked at NIC during the drafting of the
ICA, according to recent published reports.
No Input From CIA's 'Russia House'
The senior official who identified Kendall-Taylor said Brennan did not seek input from
experts from CIA's so-called Russia House, a department within Langley officially called the
Center for Europe and Eurasia, before arriving at the conclusion that Putin meddled in the
election to benefit Trump.
"It was not an intelligence assessment. It was not coordinated in the [intelligence]
community or even with experts in Russia House," the official said. "It was just a small
group of people selected and driven by Brennan himself and Brennan did the editing."
The official noted that National Security Agency analysts also dissented from the conclusion
that Putin personally sought to tilt the scale for Trump. One of only three agencies from the
17-agency intelligence community invited to participate in the ICA, the NSA had a lower level
of confidence than the CIA and FBI, specifically on that bombshell conclusion.
The official said the NSA's departure was significant because the agency monitors the
communications of Russian officials overseas. Yet it could not corroborate Brennan's preferred
conclusion through its signals intelligence. Former NSA Director Michael Rogers, who has
testified that the conclusion about Putin and Trump "didn't have the same level of sourcing and
the same level of multiple sources," reportedly has been cooperating with Durham's probe.
The second senior intelligence official, who has read a draft of the still-classified House
Intelligence Committee review, confirmed that career intelligence analysts complained that the
ICA was tightly controlled and manipulated by Brennan, who previously worked in the Obama White
House.
N
Brennan's tight control over the process of drafting the ICA belies public claims the
assessment reflected the "consensus of the entire intelligence community." His unilateral role
also raises doubts about the objectivity of the intelligence.
In his defense, Brennan has pointed to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report that
found "no reason to dispute the Intelligence Community's conclusions."
"The ICA correctly found the Russians interfered in our 2016 election to hurt Secretary
Clinton and help the candidacy of Donald Trump," argued committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner,
D-Va.
"Our review of the highly classified ICA and underlying intelligence found that this and
other conclusions were well-supported," Warner added.
"There is certainly no reason to doubt that the Russians' success in 2016 is leading them
to try again in 2020, and we must not be caught unprepared."
Brennan, ex-Obama homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco and ex-national intelligence
director James Clapper, interviewed by Nicolle Wallace of MSNBC, right, at a 2018 Aspen
Instutute event. Aspen
Institute
However, the report
completely blacks out a review of the underlying evidence to support the Brennan-inserted
conclusion, including an entire section labeled "Putin Ordered Campaign to Influence U.S.
Election." Still, it suggests elsewhere that conclusions are supported by intelligence with
"varying substantiation" and with "differing confidence levels." It also notes "concerns about
the use of specific sources."
Adding to doubts, the committee relied heavily on the closed-door testimony of former Obama
homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco, a close Brennan ally who met with Brennan and his
"fusion team" at the White House before and after the election. The extent of Monaco's role in
the ICA is unclear.
Brennan last week pledged he would cooperate with two other Senate committees investigating
the origins of the Russia "collusion" investigation. The Senate judiciary and governmental
affairs panels recently gained authority to subpoena Brennan and other witnesses to
testify.
Several Republican lawmakers and former Trump officials are clamoring for the
declassification and release of the secret House staff report on the ICA.
"It's dynamite," said former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz, who reviewed the staff report while
serving as chief of staff to then-National Security Adviser John Bolton.
"There are things in there that people don't know," he told RCI.
"It will change the dynamic of our understanding of Russian meddling in the election."
However, according to the intelligence official who worked on the ICA review, Brennan
ensured that it would be next to impossible to declassify his sourcing for the key judgment on
Putin. He said Brennan hid all sources and references to the underlying intelligence behind a
highly sensitive and compartmented wall of classification.
He explained that he and Clapper created two classified versions of the ICA – a highly
restricted Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information version that reveals the sourcing,
and a more accessible Top Secret version that omits details about the sourcing.
Unless the classification of compartmented findings can be downgraded, access to Brennan's
questionable sourcing will remain highly restricted, leaving the underlying evidence
conveniently opaque, the official said.
The ICA is a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing investigation into the
origins of the "collusion" probe. He wants to know if the intelligence findings were
juiced for political purposes.
No, you think? We fought all of WWII in less time than it takes to make the first
indictments of these ******* traitors. And that assumes they will happen EVENTUALLY,
which they won't.
lay_arrow
NoDebt , 1 hour ago
Used to be it would take somewhere from a couple months to a couple years for
conspiracy theory to be proven conspiracy fact around here.
Now it's four years and counting. Pretty soon it will be a decade or more. Then....
who really cares? Once you've successfully stretched something out that long who really
gives a **** anyway?
If the government finally admitted that Oswald didn't really shoot JFK and that it was
some CIA ***** from the grassy knoll, would you really care at this point? If the
government admitted that there really were aliens in Area 51, would your world really be
rocked by that revelation at this point? Something a little more contemporary, you say?
Fine. What about WTC 7? If conspiracy theories were all confirmed on that one would you
really have a hard time sleeping tonight?
On a long enough timeline everyone stops giving a **** about the truth.
y_arrow
Md4 , 2 hours ago
" The explosive conclusion Brennan inserted into the report was used to help justify
continuing the Trump-Russia "collusion" investigation, which had been launched by the FBI
in 2016. It was picked up after the election by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who in
the end found no proof that Trump or his campaign conspired with Moscow."
While wasting thirty million dollars...and two focking years of our
lives...
ay_arrow
NoDebt , 1 hour ago
It's not even done yet, man. Clock is still running. Four years and counting, end to
end. If Trump gets a second term, eight years, minimum. And as he leaves office they will
still be threatening indictments "any day now". And nobody will even remember why any of
this started, nor care.
I already don't care.
4 play_arrow
Politinaut , 46 minutes ago
Brennan and all of those involved, must pay.
z530 , 57 minutes ago
Unless the classification of compartmented findings can be downgraded, access to
Brennan's questionable sourcing will remain highly restricted, leaving the underlying
evidence conveniently opaque, the official said.
Complete 100% ********. Trump can declassify anything he wants, at anytime, for any
reason. If I were him, I would order everything related to Crossfire declassified
tomorrow, sit back and watch the fireworks.
y_arrow
wee-weed up , 1 hour ago
Brennan is TRUE deep-state scum.
My most fervent desire is to see that holier-than-thou...
lyin' Obozo-Hitlery protector, frog marched...
straight to prison on national TV...
And then forced to sing like a Canary.
1 play_arrow
Md4 , 1 hour ago
"He explained that he and Clapper created two classified versions of the ICA – a
highly restricted Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information version that reveals the
sourcing, and a more accessible Top Secret version that omits details about the
sourcing.
Unless the classification of compartmented findings can be downgraded, access to
Brennan's questionable sourcing will remain highly restricted, leaving the underlying
evidence conveniently opaque, the official said."
One of the most important objectives going forward from all this... has to be the
dismantling of the whole apparatus of security classification.
All of it must be overhauled and restructured.
We simply cannot have a regime of intelligence security so rigorous, as to be clearly
used as a means of tyrannizing the very nation it's supposed to serve.
No enemy on earth is worth that...
play_arrow
bkwaz4 , 1 hour ago
Rational people have always understood that any Russian or Chinese meddling in the
2016 election was done to get Hillary elected so that influence could be purchased
through the Clinton Foundation.
The criminals involved need to be executed.
ay_arrow
Max21c , 1 hour ago
So its the usual situ of all lies and distortions and more lies on top of still more
lies... all more lies made up by the secret police and Washington Gestapo...
ay_arrow
St. TwinkleToes , 1 hour ago
It's a small circle of friends at CIA with Brennan protégé, Andrea
Kendall-Taylor and NSA with Eric Ciaramella, the Democratic national security
"whistleblower," who are sleeping with their bosses for advancement and or given head
service to closet LGBTiQNPWXYZ government heads.
Their job literally "sucks" in order to exist.
_arrow
mikka , 2 hours ago
When this sort of thing happens in Russia, China etc., there is a purge, because the
country is more important than its actors. Not in USSA: because of the so called
"democracy", the usurpers get away with it, allowing them not only to survive but also to
try again when conditions improve.
lay_arrow
Max21c , 31 minutes ago
It is interesting to see some of the criminal activities of the rats, vermin, and scum
in the CIA Gestapo & FBI Gestapo and Pentagon Gestapo possibly coming to light... One
or two rays of light and all the cockroaches in the criminal gangs of "national security"
and the state security apparatus of the banana republic and police state start scurrying
about in a frenzy for awhile...
3 play_arrow
Max21c , 47 minutes ago
Notice how all these Nazis and NeoNazis such as Brennan, Steele, Clapper, Schiff,
Warner, Lisa Monaco, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, James Comey, Julia Gurganus,
Vinh Nguyen, Obama, Biden, Clinton are all elite gangsters, crooks, criminals and
hoodlums with ties to the Ivy League, CNN, MSNBC, CBS 60 Minutes, the Aspen Institute,
the secret police community, the Gestapo community, the intelligence community, the CFR,
Elite Think Tanks, the puppet press and official media and numerous other parts of the
criminal underworld of Washingtonian and their secret police & NeoNazi Gestapo...
They're all just gangsters like in any third world banana republic and police state...
just like all the rest of the goons and thugs and criminals in Washington DC..
y_arrow
GoldHermit , 58 minutes ago
If Brennan is not public enemy number one, he's certainly in the top 5.
Max21c , 45 minutes ago
Washington DC runs thick with animals and gangsters just like Brennan... he's common
to the criminal culture of the US government and the criminal culture and criminal nature
of US government officials and Washingtonians... They're all the same and they're all
Nazis and NeoNazis... US elites and Washingtonians are no different than the Soviet KGB,
East German Stasi, Nazi Gestapo or Nazi Waffen SS... just a pack of criminals the rob,
terrorize and persecute people... US government is just one big criminal network and
crime syndicate... all they do is rob people, cheat people, persecute people and
terrorize people... It's a Washingtonian thing and a US government thing...
play_arrow
rtb61 , 1 hour ago
Of course the Russian government favoured the Clintons, they had a ton of evidence of
corruption on them, they released that tape to prove it to them. They know every single
little thing the Klinton Krime Klan did in the Ukraine, everything, they had them cold,
anything they wanted the Clintons would have complied, they still would of course have
demanded to be paid.
Right now both China and Russia prefer the Clinton Corporation Party, they are much
easier to pay off. Too many heads in the Republican Party, too many pay offs, much easier
with the Clinton Foundation Party, the party the Klinton Krime Klan sold to the
corporations, calling it the Democrats is a lie, it is the Clinton Foundation Party,
selling governments to the highest bidder not just yours but with regime change any
country you choose.
It all keeps coming out for political theatre but yet, no even a hint of an arrest let
alone an actual prosecution. Good for votes from the stupids I suppose.
2 play_arrow
williambanzai7 , 1 hour ago
Brennan is a moron. A moron who takes orders from a gaggle of Marxists and a Former
Nazi.
TahoeBilly2012 , 1 hour ago
His little fake aristocratic tone is hilarious. As if a muslim Irish American was some
sort of delicate flower.
y_arrow 1
Patmos , 14 minutes ago
Tragically ironic how the CIA has in large part become the thing it was at least in
theory supposed to help protect against: Tyranny.
2 play_arrow
Soloamber , 34 minutes ago
Isn't it ironic that a report covering a political coup on a presidential campaign and
subsequent attack on an
elected President can't be divulged because it is considered "political ".
Durham reports to Barr and they know the truth will never come to light if Biden wins
.
What they choose to ignore is they work for and are obligated to protect the public
interest .
Not the Democrats , not the Republicans .
It's either that or they are just protecting their old boy netwirk .
Take your pick .
ay_arrow
Md4 , 2 hours ago
"The Obama administration publicly released a declassified version of the report --
known as the "Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Activities and Intentions in
Recent Elections (ICA)" -- just two weeks before Trump took office, casting a cloud of
suspicion over his presidency. Democrats and national media have cited the report to
suggest Russia influenced the 2016 outcome and warn that Putin is likely meddling again
to reelect Trump.
The ICA is a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing investigation into the
origins of the "collusion" probe. He wants to know if the intelligence findings were
juiced for political purposes."
Or... outright lies known by Blo to be lies?
Sounds like conjured red meat deliberately fed to the leftist House machine...
1 play_arrow
ComradePuff , 10 minutes ago
When I was getting my masters in 2017 at MGIMO, my instructors were as often diplomats
and politicians as they were professors. One, a member of Duma, told us that it was funny
they way the Americans were spinning the collusion angle, because the general consensus
at the Kremlin was that Clinton was preferable to Trump as she was known and they
understood how to deal with her, while Trump seemed like a loose cannon. I was the only
American in the class (in the whole school at that point) and he was not even talking to
me, so clearly this was just general knowledge here.
edit: The CIA must suck at their jobs if there was disagreement, because I learned
that in the first week without using a single bribe, rent boy, honey trap or fake
mustache. That or the CIA just lies, as they do with everything else. Most likely a mix
of both.
y_arrow
amanfromMars , 40 minutes ago
Have you ever thought on what kind of vital explosive intelligence, on the extremely
precarious state of the certainly not United States of America, the likes of a Russia or
a China receives whenever they can freely read, listen and see any/all of the fabricated
tales and phantom trails fed to media main streams ...... for, of course, they would know
immediately whenever such is reported and widely shared, it be wilfully untrue and
decidedly designedly false ..... and they be confronted by weak pathological liars in
international executive offices of a failed state, or a rapidly failing state in well
self-publicised terminal decline ..... for a fast approaching resulting death by suicide
‽ .
And what does it also tell one and all about the equally perverse and parlous state of
the national intelligence quotient of Five Eyes allies, whenever they be by virtue of
either their unquestioning support or deafening silence on such matters, no more than
co-conspirators on a similar sinister path.
Are they themselves incapable of better thinking for greater tinkering? Do they need
it to be freely provided by ..... well, what would they be? Private Contractors/Pirate
Operations/Alien Facilities/Out of this World Utilities?
You can surely be in no doubt that they certainly need something radically different,
considering the plain enough, destructive path that they be currently on, using what they
presently have.
play_arrow
Soloamber , 48 minutes ago
Clintons . They already had a business relationship .
Clintons pay to play was well known .
Strange how "donations " have dropped 90% after she blew the election .
ay_arrow
Mini-Me , 2 hours ago
When does Durham get off his arse and do his damn job?
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman - who was
accused of being coached by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff during
testimony when he told House committees that he "did not think it was proper" for President
Trump to ask Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky to investigate former VP Joe Biden during a
July 25 phone call - is retiring from the US Army after over 21 years, according to
CNN .
Vindman has endured a "campaign of bullying, intimidation, and retaliation" spearheaded by
the President following his testimony in the impeachment inquiry last year, according to his
attorney, Amb. David Pressman. -
CNN
Last November, Vindman 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, in which Trump requested an investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter over
corruption.
Vindman, a NSC Ukraine expert (who was asked three times to become their Defense Minister), claimed he
had no idea that Burisma, a natural gas company which paid Hunter to sit on its board, routed
over $3 million to accounts tied to Hunter Biden .
... ... ...
Vindman fell under scrutiny during the impeachment - and has been accused of leaking
knowledge of the July 25 call with Zelensky to the whistleblower whose complaint (after
consulting with Adam Schiff's office) sparked Trump's impeachment.
This arrogant and clueless neocon got only part of he deserved. He decided to play big
politics and was burned, although not as badly as he should be. So far he escaped prison.
Notable quotes:
"... History will remember him as an incompetent, arrogant, office gossip ..."
"... ! Both he and his brother should have been charged with mishandling classified information! ..."
Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman , a key impeachment witness
against President Trump , retired from the
Army Wednesday, with his lawyer citing "a campaign of bullying, intimidation and retaliation"
for cutting short his military career.
... ... ...
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., last Thursday announced her intention to block Senate confirmations for
1,123 senior U.S. Armed Forces promotions until Defense Secretary Mark
Esper confirms he will not block the "expected and deserved" promotion for
Vindman , an Iraq war veteran.
Duckworth, also an Iraq War veteran who served as a helicopter pilot, accused Trump of
trying to politicize the armed forces.
nlocker Leader 23s
Good riddance to traitorous rubbish. See ya, MR. Vindman.
RustynFL Leader 24s
The House of Representatives' sham impeachment inquiry was an act of political revenge
a) for losing the 2016 presidential election, and b) for impeaching Bill Clinton. It's as
simple as that. V. looked like he had trouble remembering what he was told to say. Wasn't
three rehearsals enough? He lied when he called it a "demand.' What demand? No demand.
"Favor." V didn't follow the chain of command. Then lies about it being a busy day. NO. He
was told what to say and who to go to. No officer can trust a subordinate that leaks, goes
public, etc for political or personal gain. No one trusts a man that should be charged with
sedition.
ᴅᴇsᴛʀᴜᴄᴛɪᴠᴇ-ᴀʟᴛʀᴜɪsᴛs
Leader 26s
That next chapter should be prison.
useyourhead19 Leader 31s
Bullying like doing everything possible to undermine a presidency
IveSeenthisbefore Leader 46s
This is a traitor! A very bad person who never accepted President Trump in his
heart.
RobertKearney45 Leader 1m
History will remember him as an incompetent, arrogant, office gossip of classified imformation! Both he and his brother should have been charged with mishandling classified
information!
oldmarine83 Leader 1m
Well now that that lying sack of poo is leaving, he can take that job of Defense
Minister of Ukraine. That's want he wants. Hopefully he will renounce his citizenship in
America and not receive a penny in retirement pay if he take that position in a foreign
country. Don't need people like him in the military. Need to sack EVERY Democrat in Congress.
And any Obama holdovers. Let them know what the unemployment line is like and how it works.
Cut the "retirement" pay also, since they REALLY HAVE NEVER WORKED since they went to the
house or senate.
nlocker Leader 16s ArizonaConservative738
Vindman broke the chain of command, leaked classified information, and helped the Dems
try to overthrow the President. He deserves prison.
"... The Democrats did not want Adam Schiff to have to answer questions about the whistleblower, and they don't want the whistleblower's identity to be officially revealed. Such things do not contribute to the greatest cause of our time, the destruction of Donald Trump. ..."
"... The whole point of having the House impeachment investigation proceed from the House Intelligence Committee, headed by Adam Schiff, was to send the signal that Trump is unacceptable to the nefarious powers that make up the Deep State, especially the intelligence agencies, especially the CIA. ..."
"... What a world, then, when OP Democrats are cheering on John Bolton, hoping again for a savior to their sacred resistance cause, and meanwhile they aren't too excited about Rand Paul's intervention. For sure, it is a sign that a "resistance" isn't real when it needs a savior; it's not as if the French Resistance sat back waiting for Gen. de Gaulle. In any case, in the procession of horrible reactionary figures that Democrats have embraced, Bolton is probably the worst, and that's saying quite a lot. ..."
"... People are even talking about "getting used to accepting the help of the CIA with the impeachment," and the like. (I realize I'm being repetitious here, but this stuff blows my mind, it is so disturbing.) At least they are recognizing the reality -- at least partially; that's something. But then what they do with this recognition is something that requires epic levels of TDS -- and, somehow, a great deal of the Left is going down this path. ..."
"... The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars. Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business. Trump is not an asset. ..."
"... Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were, lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the world to see. This cannot be undone. ..."
First , the whistleblower was ruled out as a possible witness -- this was
essentially done behind the scenes, and in reality can be called a Deep State operation, though
one exposed to some extent by Rand Paul. This has nothing to do with protecting the
whistleblower or upholding the whistleblower statute, but instead with the fact that the
whistleblower was a CIA plant in the White House.
That the whistleblower works for the CIA is a matter of public record, not some conspiracy
theory. Furthermore, for some time before the impeachment proceedings began, the whistleblower
had been coordinating his efforts to undermine Trump with the head of the House Intelligence
Committee, who happens to be Adam Schiff. It is possible that the connections with Schiff go
even further or deeper. Obviously the Democrats do not want these things exposed.
... ... ...
In this regard, there was a very special moment on January 29, when Chief Justice John
Roberts refused to allow the reading of a question from Sen. Rand Paul that identified the
alleged whistleblower. Paul then held a press conference in which he read his question.
The question was directed at Adam Schiff, who claims not to have communicated with the
whistleblower, despite much evidence to the contrary. (Further details can be read at
here
.) A propos of what I was just saying, Paul is described in the Politico article as
"a longtime antagonist of Republican leaders." Excellent, good on you, Rand Paul.
Whether this was a case of unintended consequences or not, one could say that this episode
fed into the case against calling witnesses -- certainly the Democrats should not have been
allowed to call witnesses if the Republicans could not call the whistleblower. But clearly this
point is completely lost on those working in terms of the moving line of bullshit.
One would think that Democrats would be happy with a Republican Senator who antagonizes
leaders of his own party, but of course Rand Paul's effort only led to further "outrage" on the
part of Democratic leaders in the House and Senate.
The Democrats did not want Adam Schiff to have to answer questions about the whistleblower,
and they don't want the whistleblower's identity to be officially revealed. Such things do not
contribute to the greatest cause of our time, the destruction of Donald Trump.
However, you see, there is a complementary purpose at work here, too. The whole point of
having the House impeachment investigation proceed from the House Intelligence Committee,
headed by Adam Schiff, was to send the signal that Trump is unacceptable to the nefarious
powers that make up the Deep State, especially the intelligence agencies, especially the
CIA.
The only way these machinations can be combatted is to pull the curtain back further -- but
the Republicans do not want this any more than the Democrats do, with a few possible exceptions
such as Rand Paul. (As the Politico article states, Paul was chastised publicly by McConnell
for submitting his question in the first place, and for criticizing Roberts in the press
conference.)
What a world, then, when OP Democrats are cheering on John Bolton, hoping again for a
savior to their sacred resistance cause, and meanwhile they aren't too excited about Rand
Paul's intervention. For sure, it is a sign that a "resistance" isn't real when it needs a
savior; it's not as if the French Resistance sat back waiting for Gen. de Gaulle. In any case,
in the procession of horrible reactionary figures that Democrats have embraced, Bolton is
probably the worst, and that's saying quite a lot.
... ... ...
Now we are at a moment when "the Left" is recognizing the role that the CIA and the rest of
the "intelligence community" is played in the impeachment nonsense. This "Left" was already on
board for the "impeachment process" itself, perhaps at moments with caveats about "not leaving
everything up to the Democrats," "not just relying on the Democrats," but still accepting their
assigned role as cheerleaders and self-important internet commentators. (And, sure, maybe
that's all I am, too -- but the inability to distinguish form from content is one of the main
problems of the existing Left.)
Now, though, people on the Left are trying to get comfortable with, and trying to explain to
themselves how they can get comfortable with, the obvious role of the "intelligence community"
(with, in my view, the CIA in the leading role, but of course I'm not privy to the inner
workings of this scene) in the impeachment process and other efforts to take down Trump's
presidency.
People are even talking about "getting used to accepting the help of the CIA with the
impeachment," and the like. (I realize I'm being repetitious here, but this stuff blows my
mind, it is so disturbing.) At least they are recognizing the reality -- at least partially;
that's something. But then what they do with this recognition is something that requires epic
levels of TDS -- and, somehow, a great deal of the Left is going down this path.
They might think about the "help" that the CIA gave to the military in Bolivia to remove Evo
Morales from office. They might think about the picture of Donald Trump that they find
necessary to paint to justify what they are willing to swallow to remove him from office. They
might think about the fact that ordinary Democrats are fine with this role for the CIA, and
that Adam Schiff and others routinely offer the criticism/condemnation of Donald Trump that he
doesn't accept the findings of the CIA or the rest of the intelligence agencies at face
value.
The moment for the Left, what calls itself and thinks of itself as that, to break with this
lunacy has passed some time ago, but let us take this moment, of "accepting the help of the
CIA, because Trump," as truly marking a point of no return.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot
for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his
narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars. Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business. Trump is not an asset.
paul ,
Trump, Sanders and Corbyn were all in their own way agents of creative destruction.
Trump tapped into the popular discontent of millions of Americans who realised that the
system no longer even pretended to work in their interests, and were not prepared to be
diverted down the Identity Politics Rabbit Hole.
The Deep State was outraged that he had disrupted their programme by stealing Clinton's seat
in the game of Musical Chairs. Being the most corrupt, dishonest and mendacious political
candidate in all US history (despite some pretty stiff opposition) was supposed to be
outweighed by her having a vagina. The Deplorables failed to sign up for the programme.
Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were,
lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to
the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from
behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid
criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the
world to see. This cannot be undone.
For all his pandering to Adelson and the Zionist Mafia, for all his Gives to Netanyahu, Trump
has failed to deliver on the Big Ticket Items. Syria was supposed to have been invaded by
now, with Hillary cackling demonically over Assad's death as she did over Gaddafi, and
rapidly moving on to the main event with Iran. They will not forgive him for this.
They realise they are under severe time pressure. It took them a century to gain their
stranglehold over America, and this is a wasting asset. America is in terminal decline, and
may soon be unable to fulfil its ordained role as dumb goy muscle serving Zionist interests.
And the parasite will find it difficult to find a replacement host.
George Mc ,
Haven't you just agreed with him here?
He thinks the left died in the 1960s, over a half century ago. It's pretty simple to
identify a leftist: anti-imperialist/ anti-capitalist. The Democrats are imperialists.
People who vote for the Democrats and Republicans are imperialists. This article is a
confused mess, that's my whole point;)
If the Democrats and Republicans (and those who vote for them) are imperialists (which they are) then the left are indeed
dead – at least as far as political representation goes.
Koba ,
He's sent more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan he staged several coups in Latin America and
wanted to take out the dprk and thier nukes and wants to bomb Iran! Winding down?!
sharon marlowe ,
First, an attempted assassination-by-drone on President Maduro of Venezuela happened. Then
Trump dropped the largest conventional bomb on Afghanistan, with a mile-wide radius. Then
Trump named Juan Guido as the new President of Venezuela in an overt coup. Then he bombed
Syria over a fake chemical weapons claim. He bombed it before even an investigation was
launched. Then the Trump regime orchestrated a military coup in Bolivia. Then he claimed that
he was pulling out of Syria, but instead sent U.S. troops to take over Syrian oil fields.
trump then assassinated Gen. Solemeni. Then he claimed that he will leave Iraq at the request
of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi government asked the U.S. to leave, and Trump rejected the
request. The Trump regime has tried orchestrating a coup in Iran, and a coup in Hong Kong. He
expelled Russian diplomats en masse for the Skripal incident in England, before an
investigation. He has sanctioned Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and Venezuela. He has
bombed Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Those are the things I'm
aware of, but what else Trump has done in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America you
can research if you wish. And now, the claim of leaving Afghanistan is as ridiculous as when
he claimed to be leaving Syria and Iraq.
Dungroanin ,
Yeah yeah and 'he' gave Maduro 7 days to let their kid takeover in Venezuela! And built a
wall. And got rid of obamacare and started a nuke war with Rocketman and and and ...
sharon marlowe ,
There were at least nine people killed when Trump bombed Douma.
Only a psychopath would kill people because one of its spy drones was shot down. You don't
get points for considering killing people for it and then changing your mind.
People should get over Hillary and pay attention to what Trump has been doing. Why even
mention what Hillary would have done in Syria, then proceed to be an apologist for what Trump
has done around the world in just three years? Trump has been quite a prolific imperialist in
such a short time. A second term could well put him above Bush and Obama as the 21st
century's most horrible leaders on earth.
Dungroanin ,
...If you think that the potus is the omnipotent ruler of everything he certainly seems to be
having some problems with his minions in the CIA, NSA, FBI..State Dept etc.
Savorywill ,
Yes, what you say is right. However, he did warn both the Syrian and Russian military of the
attack in the first instance, so no casualties, and in the second attack, he announced that
the missiles had been launched before they hit the target, again resulting in no casualties.
When the US drone was shot down by an Iranian missile, he considered retaliation. But, when
advised of likely casualties, he called it off saying that human lives are more valuable than
the cost of the drone. Yes, he did authorize the assassination of the Iranian general, and
that was very bad. His claims that the general had organized the placement of roadside bombs
that had killed US soldiers rings rather hollow, considering those shouldn't have been in
Iraq in the first place.
I am definitely not stating that he is perfect and doesn't do objectionable things. And he
has authorized US forces to control the oil wells, which is against international law, but at
least US soldiers are not actively engaged in fighting the Syrian government, something
Hillary set in motion. However, the military does comprise a huge percentage of the US
economy and there have to be reasons, and enemies, to justify its existence, so his situation
as president must be very difficult, not a job I would want, that is for sure.
The potus is best described (by Assad actually) as a CEO of a board of directors appointed
by the shareholders who collectively determine their OWN interests.
Your gaslighting ain't succeeding round here – Regime! So desperate, so so sad
🤣
"... Due to the non-stop action in Washington of late, few believe that the present state of affairs between the Democrats and Donald Trump are exclusively due to a telephone call between the US leader and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. That is only scratching the surface of a story that is practically boundless. ..."
"... In March 2016, the DOJ found that "the FBI had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was completed," as Jeff Carlson reported in The Epoch Times. ..."
"... That sort of foreign access to sensitive data is highly improper and was the result of "deliberate decision-making," according to the findings of an April 2017 FISA court ruling ( footnote 69 ). ..."
"... On April 18, 2016, then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director Adm. Mike Rogers directed the NSA's Office of Compliance to terminate all FBI outside-contractor access. Later, on Oct. 21, 2016, the FBI and the DOJ's National Security Division (NSD), and despite they were aware of Rogers's actions, moved ahead anyways with a request for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The request was approved by the FISA court, which, apparently, was still in the dark about the violations. ..."
"... Now James Comey is back in the spotlight as one of the main characters in the Barr-Durham investigation, which is examining largely out of the spotlight the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory that dogged the White House for four long years. ..."
In the time-honored tradition of Machiavellian statecraft, all of the charges being leveled against Donald Trump to remove him
from office – namely, 'abuse of power' and 'obstruction of congress' –are essentially the same things the Democratic Party has been
guilty of for nearly half a decade : abusing their powers in a non-stop attack on the executive branch. Is the reason because they
desperately need a 'get out of jail free' card?
Due to the non-stop action in Washington of late, few believe that the present state of affairs between the Democrats and Donald
Trump are exclusively due to a telephone call between the US leader and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. That is only
scratching the surface of a story that is practically boundless.
Back in April 2016, before Trump had become the Republican presidential nominee, talk of impeachment was already in the air.
"Donald Trump isn't even the Republican nominee yet,"
wrote Darren Samuelsohn in Politico. Yet impeachment, he noted, is "already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few
members of Congress."
The timing of Samuelsohn's article is not a little astonishing given what the Department of Justice (DOJ) had discovered just
one month earlier.
In March 2016, the DOJ found that "the FBI had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was completed," as Jeff Carlson
reported in The Epoch Times.
That sort of foreign access to sensitive data is highly improper and was the result of "deliberate decision-making," according
to the findings of an April 2017 FISA court ruling (
footnote
69 ).
On April 18, 2016, then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director Adm. Mike Rogers directed the NSA's Office of Compliance to terminate
all FBI outside-contractor access. Later, on Oct. 21, 2016, the FBI and the DOJ's National Security Division (NSD), and despite they
were aware of Rogers's actions, moved ahead anyways with a request for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign adviser
Carter Page. The request was approved by the FISA court, which, apparently, was still in the dark about the violations.
On Oct. 26, following approval of the warrant against Page, Rogers went to the FISA court to inform them of the FBI's non-compliance
with the rules. Was it just a coincidence that at exactly this time, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Defense
Secretary Ashton B. Carter were suddenly
calling for Roger's removal? The request was eventually rejected. The next month, in mid-November 2016 Rogers, without first
notifying his superiors, flew to New York where he had a private meeting with Trump at Trump Towers.
According to the New York Times,
the meeting – the details of which were never publicly divulged, but may be guessed at – "caused consternation at senior levels
of the administration."
Democratic obstruction of justice?
Then CIA Director John Brennan, dismayed about a few meetings Trump officials had with the Russians, helped to kick-start the
FBI investigation over 'Russian collusion.' Notably, these Trump-Russia meetings occurred in December 2016, as the incoming administration
was in the difficult transition period to enter the White House. The Democrats made sure they made that transition as ugly as possible.
Although it is perfectly normal for an incoming government to meet with foreign heads of state at this critical juncture, a meeting
at Trump Tower between Michael Flynn, Trump's incoming national security adviser and former Russian Ambassador to the US, Sergey
Kislyak, was portrayed as some kind of cloak and dagger scene borrowed from a John le Carré thriller.
Brennan questioning the motives behind high-level meetings between the Trump team and some Russians is strange given that the
lame duck Obama administration was in the process of redialing US-Russia relations back to the Cold War days, all based on the debunked
claim that Moscow handed Trump the White House on a silver platter.
In late December 2016, after Trump had already won the election, Obama slapped Russia with punitive sanctions,
expelled
35 Russian diplomats and closed down two Russian facilities. Since part of Trump's campaign platform was to mend relations with
Moscow, would it not seem logical that the incoming administration would be in damage-control, doing whatever necessary to prevent
relations between the world's premier nuclear powers from degrading even more?
So if it wasn't 'Russian collusion' that motivated the Democrats into action, what was it?
From Benghazi to Seth Rich
Here we must pause and remind ourselves about the unenviable situation regarding Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, who
was being grilled daily over her use of a private computer to
communicate
sensitive documents via email. In all likelihood, the incident would have dropped from the radar had it not been for the deadly
2012 Benghazi attacks on a US compound.
In the course of a House Select Committee investigation into the circumstances surrounding the attacks, which resulted in the
death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US personnel, Clinton handed over some 30,000 emails, while reportedly deleting
32,000 deemed to be of a "personal nature". Those emails remain unaccounted for to this day.
I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.
By March 2015, even the traditionally tepid media was baring its baby fangs, relentlessly
pursuing Clinton over the email question. Since Clinton never made a secret of her presidential ambitions, even political allies
were piling on. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), for example,
said it's time for Clinton "to step up" and explain herself, adding that "silence is going to hurt her."
On July 24, 2015, The New York Times
published a front-page story with the headline "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Clinton's Use of Email." Later, Jennifer Rubin of
the Washington Post candidly
summed up Clinton's rapidly deteriorating status with elections fast approaching: "Democrats still show no sign they are willing
to abandon Clinton. Instead, they seem to be heading into the 2016 election with a deeply flawed candidate schlepping around plenty
of baggage -- the details of which are not yet known."
Moving into 2016, things began to look increasingly complicated for the Democratic front-runner. On March 16, 2016, WikiLeaks
launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails and attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server
while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547-page treasure trove spans the dates from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014.
In May, about one month after Clinton had officially announced her candidacy for the US presidency, the State Department's inspector
general released an 83-page report that was highly critical of Clinton's email practices, concluding that Clinton failed to seek
legal approval for her use of a private server.
"At a minimum," the report determined, "Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business
before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented
in accordance with the Federal Records Act."
The following month brought more bad news for Clinton and her presidential hopes after it was
reported that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had a 30-minute tête-à-tête with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch,
whose department was leading the Clinton investigations, on the tarmac at Phoenix International Airport. Lynch said Clinton decided
to pay her an impromptu visit where the two discussed "his grandchildren and his travels and things like that." Republicans, however,
certainly weren't buying the story as the encounter came as the FBI was preparing to file its recommendation to the Justice Department.
The summer of 2016, however, was just heating up.
I take @LorettaLynch &
@billclinton at their word that their convo
in Phoenix didn't touch on probe. But foolish to create such optics.
On the early morning of July 10, Seth Rich, the director of voter expansion for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was gunned
down on the street in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, DC. Rich's murder, said to be the result of a botched robbery,
bucked the homicide trend in the area for that particular period; murders rates
for the first six months of 2016 were down about 50 percent from the same period in the previous year.
In any case, the story gets much stranger. Just five days earlier, on July 5th, the computers at the DNC were compromised, purportedly
by an online persona with the moniker "Guccifer 2.0" at the behest of Russian intelligence. This is where the story of "Russian hacking"
first gained popularity. Not everyone, however, was buying the explanation.
In July 2017, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, who call themselves Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) sent a memo to President Trump that challenged a January intelligence assessment that expressed "high
confidence" that the Russians had organized an "influence campaign" to harm Hillary Clinton's "electability," as if she wasn't capable
of that without Kremlin support.
"Forensic studies of 'Russian hacking' into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data
was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer," the memo states (The memo's conclusions were based on
analyses of metadata provided by the online persona Guccifer 2.0, who took credit for the alleged hack). "Key among the findings
of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far
exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack."
In other words, according to VIPS, the compromise of the DNC computers was the result of an internal leak, not an external hack.
At this point, however, it needs mentioned that the VIPS memo has sparked dissenting views among its members. Several analysts
within the group have spoken out against its findings, and that internal debate can be read
here . Thus, it would
seem there is no 'smoking gun,' as of yet, to prove that the DNC was not hacked by an external entity. At the same time, the murder
of Seth Rich continues to remain an unsolved "botched robbery," according to investigators. Meanwhile, the one person who may hold
the key to the mystery, Julian Assange, is said to be withering away Belmarsh Prison, a high-security London jail, where he is awaiting
a February court hearing that will decide whether he will be extradited to the United States where he 18 charges.
Here is a question to ponder: If you were Julian Assange, and you knew you were going to be extradited to the United States, who
would you rather be the sitting president in charge of your fate, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Think twice before answering.
"Because you'd be in jail"
On October 9, 2016, in the second televised presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Trump
accused his Democratic opponent of deleting 33,000 emails,
while adding that he would get a "special prosecutor and we're going to look into it " To this, Clinton said "it's just awfully good
that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country," to which Trump deadpanned, without
missing a beat, "because you'd be in jail."
Now if that remark didn't get the attention of high-ranking Democratic officials, perhaps Trump's comments at a Virginia rally
days later, when he promised to "drain the swamp," made folks sit up and take notice.
At this point the leaks, hacks and everything in between were already coming fast and furious. On October 7, John Podesta, Clinton's
presidential campaign manager, had his personal Gmail account hacked, thereby releasing a torrent of inside secrets, including how
Donna Brazile, then a CNN commentator, had fed Clinton debate questions. But of course the crimes did not matter to the mendacious
media, only the identity of the alleged messenger, which of course was 'Russia.'
By now, the only thing more incredible than the dirt being produced on Clinton was the fact that she was still in the presidential
race, and even slated to win by a wide margin. But perhaps her biggest setback came when authorities, investigating
Anthony Weiner's abused laptop into illicit text messages he sent to a 15-year-old girl, stumbled upon thousands of email messages
from Hillary Clinton.
Now Comey had to backpedal on his conclusion in July that although Clinton was "extremely careless" in her use of her electronic
devices, no criminal charges would be forthcoming. He announced an 11th hour investigation, just days before the election. Although
Clinton was also cleared in this case, observers never forgave Comey for his actions,
arguing they cost Clinton the White House.
Now James Comey is back in the spotlight as one of the main characters in the Barr-Durham investigation, which is examining largely
out of the spotlight the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory that dogged the White House for four long years.
In early December, Justice Department's independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz,
released the 400-page IG report
that revealed a long list of omissions, mistakes and inconsistencies in the FBI's applications for FISA warrants to conduct surveillance
on Carter Page. Although the report was damning, both Barr and Durham noted it did not go far enough because Horowitz did not have
the access that Durham has to intelligence agency sources, as well as overseas contacts that Barr provided to him.
With AG report due for release in early spring, needless to say some Democrats are very nervous as to its finding. So nervous,
in fact, that they might just be willing to go to the extreme of removing a sitting president to avoid its conclusions.
Whatever the verdict, 2020 promises to be one very interesting year.
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
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.
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.
"... 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.
"... 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.
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:
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.
My husband, a contractor and home builder noticed back in the 70s that there was an
incredible influx of Russian Tradesmen in the Chicagoland area. He wondered then if
it was the beginning of an infiltration coup.
Elections now serve mainly the legitimizing of the deep state rule function; election of a
partuclar induvudual can change little, althouth there is some space of change due to the power
of executive branch.
For example, Trump managed to speed up the process od destruction of the USA-centered
neoliberal empire considerably. Especially by lauching 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...
Read the Yasha Levine material. Brilliant! Thanks.
Weirdly (to me) this evidence and dot-connecting aligns very well with some delving done
by the Canadian researcher Polly St. George, who goes by the moniker Amazing Polly. I find
nothing to criticize in AP's research and speculations. (She is also getting material from Q,
but since her own material is all heavily documented, I don't bother my head with the Q
business, as I cannot assess it.)
In one of her recent videos she traces the background of Lieutenant Vindman and others
who testified before Adam Schiff's committee about a month ago. Without recapping her
work check this out where she asks: Who are the Vindmans? Where did they come from? What is
their background? Why were they brought here? How and by whom?:
The Storm seems like it is here!!
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...
For more info simply search AERODYNAMIC at the CIA reading room or use a regular
search engine. Also try "Prolog" and "Lebed"
This whole impeachment farce, November 2019 chapter, relied on the testimony of Soviet
Jews who are rabidly russophobic and who were brought to this country by . . . whom, exactly?
I believe Yasha Levine should also check out these links that Amazing Polly has revealed.
"... The infrastructure they inherited from the USSR mostly is now fully amortized. For example railway park in in complete ruin. Central heating pipeline communications in cities like Kiev are in ruins too. In the USSR they tried to reuse the heat from electric stations and have elaborate hot water delivery networks from each, which provided heat to a large city blocks. Now pipes are completely rusted (which in 30 years is no surprise) and are in the state of constant repair. ..."
"... But when the standard of living dropped to such extent as it dropped after 2014 sentiments toward even slightly different ethnic groups turn hostile too. This is the case in Ukraine. In this sense you are wrong. There is no more unity now then existed before 2014. I would say there is less unity now. ..."
"... Sentiments turned against both Donbass dwellers and Ukrainians from Western Ukraine. In Kiev the derogatory term for both categories is "ponaekhali" ("come to overcrowd the place and displace us", or something along those lines; it's difficult to translate, but the term carries strong derogatory meaning) ..."
"... The nationalistic hysteria of 2014-2017 now mostly changed into deep depression: how a tiny group of far right nationalist and football hooligan gangs managed to get to power against the will of the majority of the country and destroy its economy. That's why Zelensky was elected and most far right parliamentarians lost their seats. Most of Western Ukraine voted for him, which is telling you something. ..."
"... The problem for Ukraine is that with the cut of economic ties with Russia the natural path for economics is probably down. De-industrialization, Baltic style, is raining supreme. Many enterprises survived the period from 1991 to 2014 only due to orders from Russia. Especially remnants of military industrial complex and manufacturing industry. Now what? Selling land (like Zelensky is trying to do) ? ..."
I feel like robber barons in Kyiv have harmed you more through their looting of the country than impoverished Eastern Ukrainians,
who were the biggest losers in the post-Soviet deindustrilization, have harmed you by existing and dying of diseases of poverty
and despair.
It reminds me of how coastal shit-libs in America talk about "fly-over" country and want all the poor whites in Appalachia
to die. I'm living in a country whose soul is totally poisoned. A country that is dying. While all this is happening, whites have
split themselves into little factions focused on political point scoring.
I doubt people like Zelensky, Kolomoisky, Poroshenko and all the rest are going to turn Ukraine into an earthly paradise. They're
more likely to be Neros playing harps, while Ukraine burns.
Looks like your understanding of Ukraine is mostly based of a short trip to Lvov and reading neoliberal MSM and forums. That's
not enough, unless you want to be the next Max Boot.
Ukraine is a deeply sick patient, which surprisingly still stands despite all hardships (Ukrainians demonstrated amazing, superhuman
resilience in the crisis that hit them, which greatly surprised all experts).
The infrastructure they inherited from the USSR mostly is now fully amortized. For example railway park in in complete ruin. Central
heating pipeline communications in cities like Kiev are in ruins too. In the USSR they tried to reuse the heat from electric stations
and have elaborate hot water delivery networks from each, which provided heat to a large city blocks. Now pipes are completely rusted
(which in 30 years is no surprise) and are in the state of constant repair.
And, what is really tragic Ukraine now it is a debt state. Usually the latter is the capital sentence for the county. Few managed
to escape even in more favorable conditions (South Korea is one.) So chances of economic recovery are slim: with such level of parasitic
rent to the West the natural path is down and down. Don't cry for me Argentina.
And there is no money to replace already destroyed due to bad maintenance infrastructure, but surprisingly large parts of Soviets
era infrastructure still somehow hold. For example, electrical networks, subway cars. But other part are already crumbling.
For example, in Kiev that means in some buildings you have winter without central heating, you have elevators in 16-storey buildings
that work one or two weeks in month, you have no hot water, sometimes you have no water at all for a week or more, etc). Pensioners
have problem with paying heating bills, so some of them are forced to live in non-heated apartments.
And that's in Kiev/Kyiv (Western Ukrainians love to change established names, much like communists) . In provincial cities it
is a real horror show when even electricity supply became a problem. The countryside dwellers at least has its own food, but the
situation for them is also very very difficult.
Other big problem -- few jobs and almost no well paid job, unless you are young, know English and have a university education
(and are lucky). Before 2014 approximately 70% of Ukrainian labor migrants (in total a couple of million) came from the western part
of the country, in which migration had become a widespread method of coping with poverty, the absence of jobs and low salaries.
Now this practice spread to the whole county. That destroyed many families.
The USA plays its usual games selling vassals crap at inflated prices (arms, uranium rods, coal, locomotives, cars, etc) , which
Ukrainians can't refuse. Trump is simply a typical gangster in this respect, running a protection racket.
The rate of emigration and shrinking population is another fundamental problem. Mass emigration (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine
) is continuing even after Zelensky election. Looting by the West also continues unabated. This is disaster capitalism in action.
Add to those problems inflated military expenses to fight the civil war in Donbass which deprives other sectors of necessary funds
(with the main affect of completely alienating Russia) and "Huston, we have a problem."
May be this is a natural path for xUSSR countries after the dissolution of the USSR, I don't know.
But the destiny of ordinary Ukrainians is deeply tragic: they wanted better life and got a really harsh one. Especially pensioners
(typical pension is something like $60-$70) a month in Kiev, much less outside of Kiev. How they physically survive I do not fully
understand.
There are still pro-Russian areas but being free of Crimea and Donbass means Ukraine can no longer be characterized as "split."
I agree that there is a substantial growth of anti-Russian sentiments. It is really noticeable. As well as growth of the usage
of the Ukrainian language (previously Kiev, unlike Lvov was completely Russian-language city).
And in Western Ukraine Russiphobia was actually always a part of "national identity". The negative definition of national identity,
if you wish. See popular slogan "Hto ne skache toi moskal" ("those who do not jump are Moskal" -- where Moskal is the derogatory
name for a Russian). Here is this slogan in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6rfqr9afMc
;-)
But when the standard of living dropped to such extent as it dropped after 2014 sentiments toward even slightly different
ethnic groups turn hostile too. This is the case in Ukraine. In this sense you are wrong. There is no more unity now then existed
before 2014. I would say there is less unity now.
Sentiments turned against both Donbass dwellers and Ukrainians from Western Ukraine. In Kiev the derogatory term for both
categories is "ponaekhali" ("come to overcrowd the place and displace us", or something along those lines; it's difficult to translate,
but the term carries strong derogatory meaning) .
"Donetskie" (former Donbass dwellers, often displaced by the war) are generally strongly resented and luxury cars, villas, etc
and other excesses of neoliberal elite are attributed mostly to them (Donbass neoliberal elite did moved to Kiev, not Moscow)
, while "zapadentsi" are also, albeit less strongly, resented because they often use clan politics within institutions, and often
do not put enough effort (or are outright incompetent), as they rely on its own clan ties for survival.
This sentiment is stronger to the south of Kiev where the resentment is directed mainly against Western Ukrainians, not against
"Donetskie" like in Kiev. And I am talking not only about Odessa. Western Ukrainians are now strongly associated with corrupt ways
of getting lucrative positions (via family, clan or political connections), being incompetent and doing nothing useful.
What surprise me is that this resentment against "zapadentsi" and "Poloshenko clan" is shared by many people from Western Ukraine.
The target is often slightly more narrow, for example Hutsuls in Lviv (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutsuls )
The nationalistic hysteria of 2014-2017 now mostly changed into deep depression: how a tiny group of far right nationalist
and football hooligan gangs managed to get to power against the will of the majority of the country and destroy its economy. That's
why Zelensky was elected and most far right parliamentarians lost their seats. Most of Western Ukraine voted for him, which is telling
you something.
The problem for Ukraine is that with the cut of economic ties with Russia the natural path for economics is probably down.
De-industrialization, Baltic style, is raining supreme. Many enterprises survived the period from 1991 to 2014 only due to orders
from Russia. Especially remnants of military industrial complex and manufacturing industry. Now what? Selling land (like Zelensky
is trying to do) ?
Ukraine will probably eventually lose a large part of its chemical industry because without subsidies for gas it just can't complete
even taking into account low labor costs. And manufacturing because without Russian market it is difficult to find a place for their
production in already established markets, competing only in price and suffering in quality (I remember something about Iraq returning
Ukrainians all ordered armored carriers due to defect is the the armor
https://sputniknews.com/military/201705221053859853-armored-vehicles-defects-extent
/). Although at least for the Ukrainian arm industry there is place on the market in countries which are used to old Soviet armaments,
because those are rehashed Soviet products.
Add to this corrupt and greedy diaspora (all those Jaresko, Chalupas, Freelands, Vindmans, etc ) from the USA and Canada (and
not only diaspora -- look at Biden, Kerry, etc) who want their piece of the pie after 2014 "Revolution of dignity" (what a sad joke)
and you will see the problems more clearly. Not that much changed from the period 1991-2014 where Ukraine was also royally fleeced
by own oligarchs allied with Western banksers, simply now this leads to quicker deterioration of the standard of living.
None of Eastern European countries benefited from a color revolution staged by the USA. This is about opening the country not
only to multinationals (while they loot the county they at least behave within a certain legal bounds, demonstrating at least decency
of gangsters like in Godfather), but to petty foreign criminals from diaspora and outside of it who allies with the local oligarchs
and smallernouveau riche and are siphoning all the county wealth to western banks as soon as possible. Greed of the disapora is simply unbounded.
https://neweasterneurope.eu/2016/08/26/the-ukrainian-diaspora-as-a-recipient-of-oligarchic-cash/
Of course, Ukrainian diaspora is not uniform. Still, outside well-know types from the tiny Mid-Eastern country, the most dangerous
people for Ukraine are probably Ukrainians from diaspora with dual citizenship
When the Vindman story broke last week, we were pathetically reminded that there is a
conspiracy against Ukraine and the Diaspora in America. Conspiracy theorists labeled the
Ukrainian government integral nationalists plotting against the current President of the United
States even before the final ballots were tallied 2016.
Although this article will contain many of the elements of the still-developing Vindman
story that have been reported on, the focus shifts over to the bigger question- Why? I propose
we take a walk into the back of Vindman's mind, which easier done than said. As will be shown,
this in part is due to the fact that his thought pattern about Ukraine is reflexive.
There is no need to question his military service before this juncture because it posed no
conflict for him. Although the US Army is backing his right as a whistleblower now, his
motivations in this situation could end up
with Vindman receiving a court-martial . It's all about his motivation.
Alexander Vindman's ties to Ukraine should have made him disclose a few large conflicts of
interest before being assigned in the capacity he has.
Vindman had business interests in
Ukraine which would suffer if the relationship between both countries was jeopardized. Was it
Vindman's American patriotism or Diaspora nationalism that led him to share the Oval Office
transcript with Ukraine's president?
According to the Gateway Pundit , "Colonel Vindman may have violated the federal leaking
statute 18 USC 798 when he leaked the president's classified call to several other
operatives."
As the in-house expert, Vindman would have known this and yet he still conducted himself in
the service of Ukraine. In Vindman's world view it must be acceptable behavior for a foreign
government official to threaten his own country's Commander-in-Chief.
What are his motivations? In his own words, Vindman lays out his priorities.
I
was concerned by the call,"Vindman said, according to his testimony obtained by the
Associated Press. "Idid not think it was properto demand that a foreign
government investigate a U.S. citizen, andI was worried about the implicationsfor the U.S. government's support of Ukraine."-Vindman
Vindman's real concern is the implications of US foreign policy toward Ukraine and keeping
it on track with what he thought it should be. I'm sure every Lt Colonel that has a concern
intercedes in foreign policy everywhere across the US army.
"In this situation, a strong
and independent Ukraine is critical to U. S. national security interests because Ukraine is a
frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression. In spite of beingunder
assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukrainehas taken major steps towards
integrating with the West." When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the
administration's policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019,I became aware of outside
influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the
interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy. While my interagency
colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects,this
alternative narrative undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.-Vindman
" Once Ukraine determined that the RF (Russian Federation) was not going to attack and
Russia was not a credible threat, they launched their Anti-Terrorist Operations against the
rebels (p 65)." Russia's Hybrid War in Ukraine: Breaking the Enemy's Ability to Resist Finnish
Institute of International Studies by András Rácz
What false narrative was Vindman talking about? It was the fact there was no Russian
aggression, assaults or invasions going on. Where did this "false narrative" originate?
In 2014, Ukrainian-American Mark Paslawsky joined Ukraine's Donbas battalion. He was the
nephew of one of WWII's most sadistic torturers, Mikola Lebed. Lebed was 3 rd in the
Bandera OUN command chain.
Paslawsky was reported to be an officer in the 75 th Ranger Battalion during the
1990s which puts him on the same pedestal as Alexander Vindman in terms of patriotic duty in
the US military.
The volunteer battalions like Ukraine's Donbas are police and cleansing battalions.
Paslawsky was true to his Ukrainian Diaspora upbringing and family heritage. As soon as it was
opportune, he forgot about honor, service, and codes of conduct when he entered Ukraine.
By July 2014, one month before Paslawsky was killed, Oleg Dube, 2 nd in command
of the battalion complained on Twitter that the battalion was full of cowards shooting
everything that moved and throwing grenades into the houses, cellars, and every structure
killing everyone and everything they came across.
These were civilians they murdered. But Paslawsky, who tweeted his adventures under the
handle "bruce springnote" made one thing abundantly clear- There were no Russian troops or
invasion going on as of August 2, 2014.
This means Vindman's tale saying there as five years of Russian aggression is getting
sketchy.
November 6 th , 2015
In an interview with Gromadske.TV , Markian Lubkivsky, the adviser to the head of the SBU
(the Ukrainian version of the CIA) stated there are NO RUSSIAN TROOPS ON UKRANIAN SOIL! This
unexpected announcement came as he fumbled with reporters' questions on the subject. According
to his statement, he said the SBU counted about 5000 Russian nationals, but not Russian
soldiers in Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics. During a briefing with General Muzenko he announced that "To
date, we have only the involvement of some members of the Armed Forces of the Russian
Federation and Russian citizens that are part of illegal armed groups involved in the fighting.
We are not fighting with the regular Russian Army. We have enough forces and means in order to
inflict a final defeat even with illegal armed formation present. " – Ukrainian Armed
Forces Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Muzenko said. Is
Russia About to Invade Ukraine? UkraineAlert by Alexander J. Motyl published at the
Atlantic Council December 13, 2018
These are primary sources that LTC (Lieutenant Colonel) Vindman and the Wall Street
Journal's Pulitzer Prize winner Scott Shane call conspiracy theorists. The Ukrainian government
from Torchinov to Poroshenko to Zelenskiy has kept Russia as their primary trade partner this
entire time. This is a bit unusual for a country that says another is committing aggression
against it. Furthermore, where are the international court cases if this is happening?
If the White House Ukraine expert isn't fact-checking, what is he basing his position on?
Hate, just pure unadulterated hate.
"The second reason I mention Paslawsky is that he was, after all, a Ukrainian American.
In killing him -- and make no mistake about it: Putin killed him -- Putin has taken on, in
addition to the entire world, the Ukrainian American Diaspora. He probably thinks it's a joke.
But in killing a Ukrainian American, he's made the war in Ukraine personal for Ukrainian
Americans. Their intellectual, material, and political resources are far greater than Putin can
imagine. Be forewarned, Vlad: diasporas have long memories.And this one will give you
and your apologists in Russia and the West no rest.-Alexander Motyl Loose Cannons and Ukrainian Casualties
The Diaspora's hatred for Russia is hardwired into their culture in America. It was here the
concept was fleshed out, not in Ukraine.
Lonhyn Tsehelsky was Secretary of Internal Affairs and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs for
the government of the Western Ukrainian People's Republic in 1917-18. When the almost formed
republic collapsed, he immigrated to America. Tsehelsky formed the Ukrainian Congressional
Committee of America (UCCA) and brought W. Ukrainian nationalism to America. He is the great
uncle to Ukraine's ultra-nationalist Rada minister, Oleh Tyanhybok.
According to Wikipedia In 1902 Tsehelsky published Rus'-Ukraïna but
Moskovshchyna-Rossia (Rus-Ukraine but Moscow-Russia) which had a significant impact on
Ukrainian ideas in both Galicia and in Russian-ruled Ukraine. In this book, he highlighted
differences that he claimed existed between Ukrainians and Russians in order to show that any
union between the two peoples was impossible. Tsehelsky claimed that Ukrainians historically
wanted self-rule, while Russians historically sought servitude. Tsehelsky wrote that Ukrainians
who opposed Ivan Mazepa were traitors and that Ukrainian history consisted of a constant
struggle of Ukrainian attempts at autonomy in opposition to Russian attempts to impose
centralization.
Because the formation of the UCCA is based in this thought and OUNb Bandera lead the
Ukrainian-American Diaspora, the politics of hate is what drives them, nothing
else.
According
to LTC Jim Hickman who served on a combined US-Russian exercise with Vindman, "At that
point, I verbally reprimanded him for his actions, & I'll leave it at that, so as not to be
unprofessional myself. The bottom-line is LTC Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far
back as 2012. So much so, junior officers & soldiers felt uncomfortable around him. This is
not your professional, field-grade officer, who has the character & integrity to do the
right thing. Do not let the uniform fool you he is a political activist in uniform. I pray our
nation will drop this hate, vitriol & division, & unite as our founding fathers
intended!" and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic
prosperity .-Vindman
US military officers are not in the business of vibrant economies or democracy. Ukraine
can't realize Vindman's dream of a vibrant democracy because Ukraine has a nationalism built on
Italian fascist philosopher Julius Evola.
"We are not speaking, of course,
of Nationalist ideology, which a radical fringe (or, if you prefer, a leading
elite) of Western Ukrainian society adopted in the 1930s and pursued through violent means.
Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky condemned it at the time, contrasting it with Christian
patriotism.
Some see the result as a defeat for nationalism. Certainly, it looks like a repudiation
of the traditional type of nationalism based on ethnicity, language, history, culture, and
religion.
That is the "old" nationalism of President Poroshenko – and most of our
diaspora"-The Ukrainian Weekly May 11, 2019
Poroshenko made W. Ukraine the model for Ukrainian society today, but what about the
Diaspora? That radical fringe was the OUN political model that the Diaspora stayed immersed in
and is trying to change the United States into.
In their own words- " Unity to act when required has been the diaspora's mantra –
this cannot be disputed. As time moves on, we see that things take a natural course. We see
that two wings of the OUN – Banderivtsi, and Melnykivtsi – are working actively on
the international level, working in partnership and currently are in strong negotiations about
becoming a single entity again".-Ukraine Weekly Aug 26, 2016
Ukraine's Zelenskiy was able to run for president based on how he negotiated through these
two groups. Poroshenko was OUNb Banderivtsi's candidate. Zelenskiy was OUNm Melnykivtsi's
candidate. The difference between the two is nominal. They both have a history built on torture
and murder.
For a background this shows what's going on in Ukrainian politics in 2019.
The Ukrainian Diaspora openly claims not just the violent legacy of Stepan Bandera but also
the mantle and mandate to attack anything they see threatening their power in Ukraine and
influence on the US government. LTC Vindman is part of this culture.
Why are Ukrainian-Americans at the forefront of every attempt to impeach Donald Trump as
well as the deep-state coup going on? Today, Donald Trump is threatening to remove this rancid
influence from American politics.
Looking at the patriotic image the Ukrainian Diaspora tries to project, let's go back to
their charter statement on American civics.
In 1936 the OUN publication, The Nationalist, stated its position pretty clearly about the
United States to the native groups that revolved around the UCCA after the war as well as the
position they deserved in society.
"Nationalism is the love of country and the willingness to sacrifice for her A person
brought up asa Ukrainian Nationalist will make a one hundred percent better AMERICAN
CITIZEN than one who is not.
Was it Nazis or Fascism that guided Washington, Lincoln, or other statesmen to make the
U.S. a world power? Or was it American Nationalism?"
As you can see, they haven't changed methods or politics since the 1930s. If they don't like
a US president, they try to get rid of him or her in the most convenient way possible. Their
issue with Roosevelt is he would never accept Nationalism. Today, they still call the Democrat
president Roosevelt, a socialist.
But, how far across Ukrainian-American society does this go?
"I do care about social and economic issues affecting every American, but given the war
in Ukraine, there is onlyone issue that we as Ukrainian Americans must focus on:
UkraineThe Central and East European Coalition is a coalition of U.S.-based
organizations that represent their countries of heritage,a voting group of over 20
million people A vote for Trump is a vote against Ukraine!The upcoming presidential
election will be the most important election in which Ukrainian Americans will participate. We
can make a difference with deeds not words.Anybody
but Trump!- Ukrainian Weekly
This linked series documents
how the Diaspora does it and the impact they have. This article shows
why Donald Trump won the 2016 election. If the Democrats are successful removing the
Electoral College, the actual vote will be determined by 15 cities. Your vote, win or lose, no
longer counts if you don't live in one of them. This is the reason all the Diasporas are
strategically located for political impact.
The history and involvement of Alexandra and Andrea Chalupa in both the 2014 Ukraine coup
and the election hacking, as well as Russian interference stories, is well known. These two
Ukrainian Diaspora sisters are the originators of the impeachment movement of Donald Trump
which started just after he declared victory in 2016. Inside the above links, we have another
20 million Diaspora people who think the same way politically and socially.
Although this goes beyond partisan lines in Congress, the Democratic Party is overflowing
with Diaspora operatives today. Adam Parkhomenko is a great example of this. He
describes himself as Democratic Strategist, Consultant, Political Adviser. Dad.
Ukrainian-American. Whatever order, son Cameron's my life.
Parkhomenko works with the
DNC, Atlantic Council groups, and other groups trying to illegally overthrow the presidency.
Members of Congress celebrate this same Ukrainian nationalist brutality in Ukraine and its
sister nationalists ISIS in Syria as well as Ukraine. ISIS also adheres to Julius Evola
politically. If you want to know what Ukrainian nationalism looks like with no one buffering
them, ISIS is ideal to study. This is what they want to do in Donbass. This is what they want
America to become.
"I don't want to dwell on Islamicist ideology; I don't know that much about it. Still, we
should note that recent Islamicist terrorists quote Evola with facility One of the features of
political Tradition has been the search for a school of the transcendent that could serve as
the organizing principle of a new society.
Theoretically, any of the great religious traditions might serve. In practice, though,
Traditionalists have usually chosen a radical version of Islam or some kind of neopaganism;
Tradition can be scary, however. Sometimes this knowledge of the inevitable collapse of the
modern world inspires nothing more than the formation of groups of adepts who hope to manage
the transition when civilization collapses. Sometimes, however, Tradition has sparked the
creation of anarchist political groups that hope to accelerate the collapse." After the Third
Age Eschatological Elements of Postwar International Fascism, presented by Professor John
Reilly at the Seventh Annual Conference of the Center for Millennial Studies, Boston
University, November 2 to 4, 2002
Julius Evola was one of the founders of what became known as the "Tradition" and has
adherents infecting all major religions with a fascist/ nationalist construct. According to the
fascist Evola (esoteric fascism), immortality is attained by the conscious act that ignores the
ramifications of death while plunging headlong into it without a thought. This has nothing to
do with the type of religion an adherent is or its afterlife traditions.-
The Millennial Studies project at Boston University is engaged in the study of groups and
ideology that pose existential threats and will eventually destroy the modern world.
Hence, they named the dangerous time we live in post-modern. It is quite literally the study
of an impending apocalypse. The project reports to the government on the real nature of these
groups and ideologies to give the government a basis for dealing with them.
This takes us back to Alexander Vindman as a just another sample of this rabidly nationalist
community.
A Tale of Two Diasporas
Vindman grew up in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn NY. Its nickname, Little Odessa stems from the
large Russians and Ukrainian enclave that grew big from the 1970s onward. Critiques argue that
because of the dense population of Russian speaking people, it's hardly the place you'd find
Ukrainian nationalists. The statement is false.
In reality, what you had during the 1970s and 80s through the end of the Cold War was a
dense anti-Communist population of which the leading edge was the Ukrainian nationalist
Yaroslav Stetsko. After WWII, the Russian anti-communist émigré's that fought
against the Soviet Union relocated from the Displaced Person camps to the US.
This anti-Communist wave sought to be active in US countermeasures against the Soviet Union
alongside the Ukrainian nationalists. Because the Ukrainians refused to work with Russian
nationals, they were rejected.
This is a slice of the Russian emigration experience. The Russians kept the important
cultural ties but assimilated politically into US democracy politically. Many did maintain a
staunch anti-Communist stance throughout the Cold War which transformed into a strong
anti-Putin stance during the years after the wall came down.
For the Ukrainians, almost 50 years of Cold War intrigue kept them bound inside the politics
of extreme nationalism. For Soviet émigrés from Ukraine, Little Odessa's Russian
speaking Ukrainian community which developed in the 1970s would be the most comfortable place
to live.
The most uncomfortable fact about Ukrainian émigrés to the US is even through
this period, the anti-Communist tag meant they came from one side of the Bandera experience or
the other. Ukrainian anti-Communism is synonymous with Ukrainian nationalism.
In Ukraine during the 1970s, your grandparents either fought for the Soviet Army or they
fought against them. This means you were a victim of Nazi aggression, fought for Nazis, or
fought against Nazism. This in itself isn't a smudge or a smear on Vindman or anyone else.
Growing up in Brighton Beach inside a mixed Ukrainian-Russian population would have buoyed
his family's political beliefs. Little Odessa is part of Brooklyn and isn't an island separated
from the Ukrainian nationalist groups critics are arguing applies to Alexander Vindman.
New York is the headquarters of the Ukrainian Congressional Committee of America (UCCA). If
you take part in public Ukrainian cultural life in New York, you rub shoulders with Bandera's
OUNb.
During and after the Cold War, NGOs formed claiming representation in Congress for entire
Diasporas like the UCCA does for Ukrainian-Americans. Today is no different.
The political makeup of the Russian Diaspora in Brooklyn is much the same as it was when
Vindman's family moved there. The Russian-Ukrainian population is staunchly anti-communist
which translated into anti-Putin Russians for many of them. They want to change the face of the
Russian Federation.
"And so it was on a spring day in 2014 that Gindler, in his deep Russian voice, started
talking about Vladimir Putin and called the leader a "nano-Führer."His
distrust and distaste for Russia's president is shared by many in the community.""You shouldn't talk to any Russian-speaking person here in the West and expect any
positive words about Putin," said Gindler, a registered independent voter who cast his ballot
for Trump in November Gindler immigrated to New York from Ukraine in 1995, a few years after
the fall of the Soviet Union.-Business Insider
These sentiments aren't unique in the Russian-Ukrainian Diasporas. It gives a clear insight
into the environment Vindman grew up in except for one thing. The Russian Diaspora found their
expression through voting and adding to the American experience like many Diasporas. According
to official numbers, about 35% of the Russian Diaspora feels this way.
Even after Vindman's family emigrated to Little Odessa in the 1970s, the Ukrainian Diaspora
were known as political animals, or to be kind, the activists-activist. They still are today.
Not content with the American civic experience, they showed how much they are willing to tilt
the table during election 2016.
What does this mean in 2019 for the Russian Diaspora? It means going forward the only
representation they have in Congress today is provided by Ukrainian nationalists. The Ukrainian
Diaspora of which Alexander Vindman is a solid part of represents Russian émigré
interests at the Congressional level.
That's tilting the table.
"We represent and coordinate the Russia diaspora. We pay special attention to those who
haverecently left Russia due to the considerable deterioration of the political and
economic situation.
The Free Russia Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, nongovernmental U.S.-based
organization, led by Russians abroad that seeks to be a voice for those who can't speak under
the repression of the current Russian leadership. We represent and coordinate the Russia
diaspora. We pay special attention to those who have recently left Russia due to the
considerable deterioration of the political and economic situation. We are focused on
developing a strategic vision of Russia 'After Putin' and 'Without Putinism' and a concrete
program for the transition period. We will continue to inform international policy-makers, mass
media and opinion leaders on the real situation in Russia We maintain our extensive networks of
key political, business and civil society leaders throughout Russia. This gives us access to
news and events in real-time. In addition, we are a hub for recently transplanted Russians and
experts on every aspect of Russian society."Free Russia Foundation
They U.S.
policymakers on events in Russia in real-time Support the formulation of an effective and
sustainable Russia policy in the U.S.
This is an Atlantic Council production and Michael D. Weiss is on the Board of Directors.
What's notable is they have two locations. One in Washington DC to be close to policymakers and
the other is Free Russia House in Kyiv vul. Kyrylivska, 26/2 Kyiv, Ukraine 04071
Like I said, Ukrainians like Alexander Vindman are trying to represent the Russian Diaspora
and promote Ukraine and the Ukrainian Diaspora's interests.
The basis for understanding why Vindman is clumsily trying to push Donald Trump's
impeachment can be found in the following post. This girl left a mid-west university to relive
the NAZI experience her grandparents had. If they were UPA, her grandparents were involved with
committing the Holocaust and mass murder. This was written just after Maidan ended and months
before the civil war in Ukraine began.
" I have
often thought of my ancestors and how they must have felt during WWII (and earlier
liberation movements) and the partisan struggle to liberate Ukraine from totalitarian powers.
I've always been fascinated by WWII and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), but never in my
life did I think I would feel what they felt, get a taste of war, death, and the fight for
freedom, such uncertainty, and love for Ukraine in a context similar to theirs These sentiments
which were felt by Ukrainians in WWII have been transferred to a new generation of Ukrainians
who are reliving the liberation movement, re-struggling for a free, prosperous, and democratic
Ukraine. Of course, EuroMaidan and Russia's recent invasion of Ukraine . I feel that I was
guided to Ukraine because the love for and attachment to Ukraine was passed down from my
grandparents, and as they couldn't return My grandparents' generation fight for freedom didn't
succeed, there was no independent Ukraine after the war, and so being intelligentsia and having
taken part in the liberation struggle, my relatives would have been persecuted under the
Soviets.
Thus in 1944 when the Soviets were again approaching western Ukraine, my grandparents had to
flee west Eventually sotnias(defense/ military units) were formed during EuroMaidan and I
couldn't help but think that the last time sotnias were formed was during the war by the UPA
The UPA slogan "Glory to Ukraine" and response "Glory to the Heroes" as well as the UPA songs
sounded from maidan's across the country, and the black and red UPA flags flew next to the
yellow and blue ones. There are in fact a lot more parallels between WWII and EuroMaidan/ the
Russian invasion And once we finally had a taste of victory, finally ousted the corrupt
president, finally felt we had a chance to completely reboot the country, root out the Soviet
mentality once and for all."- Areta Kovalsky
To drive it home, long after LTV Vindman's youth was over, NAZI monsters are still to be
emulated in New York and CT.
Can Waffen SS officers and mass murderers like Stepan Bandera be Catholic patron saints in
cities like New York, Philadelphia, Stamford CT, or Boston in the year 2015?
"On October 16, 2011, members
of the 54th branch of CYM "Khersones" in Stamford, CTattended a mass and requiem
service in honor of the great Ukrainian hero and freedom fighter, Stepan Bandera. It was the
first time since its' inception that the branches' members took part in an organized activity
together with the greater Ukrainian community of Stamford.
The SUM members and the faithful present that day enjoyed a beautiful and emotional
homily about the life and achievements of Stepan Bandera delivered by Reverend Bohdan Danylo,
Rector of St. Basil's Seminary in Stamford. He instructed the children on how they can model
their own lives on Bandera's by following his example of self-sacrifice and unwavering
dedication to his country. Following the homily, Father Bohdan distributed candles to each
child which burned brightly during a stirring execution of the prayer "Vichnaya Pam'yat" in
honor of the great hero of the Ukrainian nation."
If you understand the tender emotion expressed watching protesters and police die, you can
understand the mind of a Ukrainian nationalist. Vindman is no exception. His history, heroism,
and sense of duty don't cover him or excuse him. He reported no crimes that were committed by
the sitting President he is trying to impeach. He only said he felt bad for Ukraine. That's not
good enough.
The White House National Security Council is sharply downsizing 'in a bid to improve
efficiency' by consolidating positions and cutting staff, according to the
Washington Times - which adds that a secondary, unspoken objective (i.e. the entire reason)
for the cuts is to address nonstop leaks that have plagued the Trump administration for nearly
three years.
Leaks of President Trump 's conversations with
foreign leaders and other damaging disclosures likely originated with anti-Trump officials in
the White
House who stayed over from the Obama administration, according to several current and
former White
House officials. -
Washington Times
The reform is being led by National Security Adviser Robert C. O'Brien , who told the Times
that 40-45 NSC staff officials had been sent back to their home-agencies, and more are likely
to be moved out.
"We remain on track to meeting the right-sizing goal Ambassador O'Brien outlined in October,
and in fact may exceed that target by drawing down even more positions ," said NSC spokesman
John Ullyot.
Under Obama, the NSC ballooned to as many as 450 people - and officials wielded 'enormous
power' according to the report, directly telephoning commanders in Afghanistan and other
locations in the Middle East to give them direct orders in violation of the military's strict
chain of command.
Meanwhile, the so-called second-hand 'whistleblower' at the heart of President Trump's
impeachment was widely reported to be a NSC staffer on detail from the CIA, Eric Ciaramella,
who took umbrage with Trump asking Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky to investigate former
VP Joe Biden - who Ciaramella worked with.
After O'Brien is done, less than 120 policy officials will remain after the next several
months.
The downsizing will be carried out by consolidating positions and returning officials to
agencies and departments such as the CIA, the State and Defense departments and the
military.
Mr. O'Brien noted that the NSC had a policymaking staff of 12 in 1962 when President
Kennedy faced down the Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis. During the 2000s and the
George W. Bush administration, the number of NSC staff members increased sharply to support
the three-front conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terrorism.
However, it was during the Obama administration that the NSC was transformed into a major
policymaking agency seeking to duplicate the functions of the State and Defense departments
within the White House . -
Washington Times
"The NSC staff became bloated during the prior administration," said O'Brien. "The NSC is a
coordinating body. I am trying to get us back to a lean and efficient staff that can get the
job done, can coordinate with our interagency partners, and make sure the president receives
the best advice he needs to make the decisions necessary to keep the American people safe."
"I just don't think that we need the numbers of people that it expanded to under the last
administration to do this job right," he added.
Obama-era NSC officials are suspected of leaking classified details of President Trump's
phone conversations with foreign counterparts .
After Mr. Trump 's election in November 2016
and continuing through the spring of 2017, a series of unauthorized disclosures to news
outlets appeared to come from within the White House . Several of the leaks
involved publication of sensitive transcripts of the president's conversations with foreign
leaders.
Rep. Devin Nunes, California Republican and former chairman of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, said this year that he sent the Justice Department eight criminal
referrals related to the leaks, including those related to Mr. Trump 's conversations with the
leaders of Mexico and Australia.
Former White
House strategist Steve Bannon said efforts to weed out the Obama holdovers was a priority
early in the administration.
" The NSC had gotten so big there were over 450 billets ," said Mr. Bannon, adding that he
and others tried to remove the Obama detailees from the White House .
"We wanted them out," he said. "And I think we would have avoided a lot of the problems we
got today if they had been sent back to their agencies ."-
Washington Times
In addition to Ciaramella, Lt. Col. Alexander Vimdman (likely Ciaramella's source) testified
against President Trump during the House Impeachment investigations - telling the
Democratic-led House Intelligence Committee that he was "concerned" by what he heard on Trump's
call with Zelensky.
NSC official Tim Morrison, meanwhile, testified that Vindman was suspected of leaking
sensitive information to the press , a claim Vindman denied.
These holdovers from the Obama presidency will be sent back to their respective
intelligence agencies but not retrenched. They will continue to be employed, do nothing
useful and receive salary until their retirement date. Great working for .gov isn't it.
My question is whether little weenie ******** Vindman who wore his uniform to the hearings
but wore a suit every day to the White House is out of the White House and kicking horse
turds down the street. Imagine being President of the United States and you can't get that
*** hole out of your house each day. Same comment with Tim Morrison.
"The NSC staff became bloated during the prior administration," said O'Brien."
Imagine that! Useless ******* parasite government employees sucking up a paycheck,
probably paid handsomely. When you see a useless **** government employee, imagine them with
a bandit mask with their hand in the pocket of hard working private sector Americans.
Yes. Worked at Office of Personnel management for 2 years as a contractor. Full of lazy
incompetents hired for any reason other than talent. Deadwood everywhere.
Twitter blamed a computer glitch after President Trump's retweet of a post containing the
name alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella mysteriously disappeared from his timeline. After
'fixing' the issue and restoring the retweet, the user was simply banned from the platform so
that nobody could see the tweet, which quickly went viral.
" Rep. Ratliffe suggested Monday that the "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella committed perjury
by making false statements in his written forms filed with the ICIG and that Adam Schiff is
hiding evidence of Ciaramella's crimes to protect him from criminal investigations," read the
tweet made by by now-banned @surfermom77, which describes herself as living in California and a
"100% Trump supporter."
Ciaramella has been outed in several outlets as the 'anonymous' CIA
official whose whistleblower complaint over a July 25 phone call between Trump and with his
Ukrainian counterpart is at the heart of Congressional impeachment proceedings.
Trump retweeted the post around midnight Friday. By Saturday morning, it was no longer
visible in his Twitter feed.
When contacted by The Guardian 's Lois Beckett for explanation, Twitter blamed an "outage
with one of our systems."
Some people reported earlier today that someone had deleted the alleged-whistleblower's
name-retweet from Trump's timeline. Others of us still see *that tweet* on Trump's timeline.
When asked for clarification, Twitter said this: https://t.co/Rftkg3nbus https://t.co/XREAvvxjhf
By Sunday morning, the tweet had been restored to Trump's timeline - however hours later the
user, @Surfermom77, was banned from the platform .
Running cover for Twitter is the Washington Post , which claims " The account shows
some indications of automation , including an unusually high amount of activity and profile
pictures featuring stock images from the internet."
Surfermom77 has displayed some hallmarks of a Twitter bot, an automated account. A recent
profile picture on the account, for instance, is a stock photo of a woman in business attire
that is available for use online.
Surfermom77 has also tweeted far more than typical users, more than 170,000 times since the
account was activated in 2013. Surfermom77 has posted, on average, 72 tweets a day, according
to Nir Hauser, chief technology officer at VineSight, a technology firm that tracks online
misinformation. -
WaPo
Meanwhile, Trump retweeted another Ciaramella reference on Thursday, after the @TrumpWarRoom
responded to whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid's tweet calling for the resignation of Sen. Marsha
Blackburn (R-TN) from the Senate Whistleblower Caucus after she made "hostile" comments - after
she tweeted in November that "Vindictive Vindman is the "whistleblower's" handler (a reference to
impeachment witness Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman.
"The watchdog group requested conversations between Ciaramella and special counsel Robert
Mueller, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and former FBI
attorney Lisa Page."
In the time-honored tradition of Machiavellian statecraft, all of the charges being leveled against Donald Trump to remove him
from office – namely, 'abuse of power' and 'obstruction of congress' –are essentially the same things the Democratic Party has been
guilty of for nearly half a decade : abusing their powers in a non-stop attack on the executive branch. Is the reason because they
desperately need a 'get out of jail free' card?
Due to the non-stop action in Washington of late, few believe that the present state of affairs between the Democrats and Donald
Trump are exclusively due to a telephone call between the US leader and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. That is only
scratching the surface of a story that is practically boundless.
Back in April 2016, before Trump had become the Republican presidential nominee, talk of impeachment was already in the air.
"Donald Trump isn't even the Republican nominee yet,"
wrote Darren Samuelsohn in Politico.
Yet impeachment, he noted, is "already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few
members of Congress."
The timing of Samuelsohn's article is not a little astonishing given what the Department of Justice (DOJ) had discovered just
one month earlier.
In March 2016, the DOJ found that "the FBI had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was completed," as Jeff Carlson
reported in The Epoch Times.
That sort of foreign access to sensitive data is highly improper and was the result of "deliberate decision-making," according
to the findings of an April 2017 FISA court ruling (
footnote
69 ).
On April 18, 2016, then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director Adm. Mike Rogers directed the NSA's Office of Compliance to terminate
all FBI outside-contractor access. Later, on Oct. 21, 2016, the FBI and the DOJ's National Security Division (NSD), and despite they
were aware of Rogers's actions, moved ahead anyways with a request for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign adviser
Carter Page. The request was approved by the FISA court, which, apparently, was still in the dark about the violations.
On Oct. 26, following approval of the warrant against Page, Rogers went to the FISA court to inform them of the FBI's non-compliance
with the rules. Was it just a coincidence that at exactly this time, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Defense
Secretary Ashton B. Carter were suddenly
calling for Roger's removal? The request was eventually rejected. The next month, in mid-November 2016 Rogers, without first
notifying his superiors, flew to New York where he had a private meeting with Trump at Trump Towers.
According to the New York Times,
the meeting – the details of which were never publicly divulged, but may be guessed at – "caused consternation at senior levels
of the administration."
Democratic obstruction of justice?
Then CIA Director John Brennan, dismayed about a few meetings Trump officials had with the Russians, helped to kick-start the
FBI investigation over 'Russian collusion.' Notably, these Trump-Russia meetings occurred in December 2016, as the incoming administration
was in the difficult transition period to enter the White House. The Democrats made sure they made that transition as ugly as possible.
Although it is perfectly normal for an incoming government to meet with foreign heads of state at this critical juncture, a meeting
at Trump Tower between Michael Flynn, Trump's incoming national security adviser and former Russian Ambassador to the US, Sergey
Kislyak, was portrayed as some kind of cloak and dagger scene borrowed from a John le Carré thriller.
Brennan questioning the motives behind high-level meetings between the Trump team and some Russians is strange given that the
lame duck Obama administration was in the process of redialing US-Russia relations back to the Cold War days, all based on the debunked
claim that Moscow handed Trump the White House on a silver platter.
In late December 2016, after Trump had already won the election, Obama slapped Russia with punitive sanctions,
expelled
35 Russian diplomats and closed down two Russian facilities. Since part of Trump's campaign platform was to mend relations with
Moscow, would it not seem logical that the incoming administration would be in damage-control, doing whatever necessary to prevent
relations between the world's premier nuclear powers from degrading even more?
So if it wasn't 'Russian collusion' that motivated the Democrats into action, what was it?
From Benghazi to Seth Rich
Here we must pause and remind ourselves about the unenviable situation regarding Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, who
was being grilled daily over her use of a private computer to
communicate
sensitive documents via email. In all likelihood, the incident would have dropped from the radar had it not been for the deadly
2012 Benghazi attacks on a US compound.
In the course of a House Select Committee investigation into the circumstances surrounding the attacks, which resulted in the
death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US personnel, Clinton handed over some 30,000 emails, while reportedly deleting
32,000 deemed to be of a "personal nature". Those emails remain unaccounted for to this day.
I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.
By March 2015, even the traditionally tepid media was baring its baby fangs, relentlessly
pursuing Clinton over the email question. Since Clinton never made a secret of her presidential ambitions, even political allies
were piling on. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), for example,
said it's time for Clinton "to step up" and explain herself, adding that "silence is going to hurt her."
On July 24, 2015, The New York Times
published a front-page story with the headline "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Clinton's Use of Email." Later, Jennifer Rubin of
the Washington Post candidly
summed up Clinton's rapidly deteriorating status with elections fast approaching: "Democrats still show no sign they are willing
to abandon Clinton. Instead, they seem to be heading into the 2016 election with a deeply flawed candidate schlepping around plenty
of baggage -- the details of which are not yet known."
Moving into 2016, things began to look increasingly complicated for the Democratic front-runner. On March 16, 2016, WikiLeaks
launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails and attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server
while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547-page treasure trove spans the dates from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014.
In May, about one month after Clinton had officially announced her candidacy for the US presidency, the State Department's inspector
general released an 83-page report that was highly critical of Clinton's email practices, concluding that Clinton failed to seek
legal approval for her use of a private server.
"At a minimum," the report determined, "Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business
before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented
in accordance with the Federal Records Act."
The following month brought more bad news for Clinton and her presidential hopes after it was
reported that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had a 30-minute tête-à-tête with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch,
whose department was leading the Clinton investigations, on the tarmac at Phoenix International Airport. Lynch said Clinton decided
to pay her an impromptu visit where the two discussed "his grandchildren and his travels and things like that." Republicans, however,
certainly weren't buying the story as the encounter came as the FBI was preparing to file its recommendation to the Justice Department.
The summer of 2016, however, was just heating up.
I take @LorettaLynch &
@billclinton at their word that their convo
in Phoenix didn't touch on probe. But foolish to create such optics.
On the early morning of July 10, Seth Rich, the director of voter expansion for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was gunned
down on the street in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, DC. Rich's murder, said to be the result of a botched robbery,
bucked the homicide trend in the area for that particular period; murders rates
for the first six months of 2016 were down about 50 percent from the same period in the previous year.
In any case, the story gets much stranger. Just five days earlier, on July 5th, the computers at the DNC were compromised, purportedly
by an online persona with the moniker "Guccifer 2.0" at the behest of Russian intelligence. This is where the story of "Russian hacking"
first gained popularity. Not everyone, however, was buying the explanation.
In July 2017, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, who call themselves Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) sent a memo to President Trump that challenged a January intelligence assessment that expressed "high
confidence" that the Russians had organized an "influence campaign" to harm Hillary Clinton's "electability," as if she wasn't capable
of that without Kremlin support.
"Forensic studies of 'Russian hacking' into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data
was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer," the memo states (The memo's conclusions were based on
analyses of metadata provided by the online persona Guccifer 2.0, who took credit for the alleged hack). "Key among the findings
of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far
exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack."
In other words, according to VIPS, the compromise of the DNC computers was the result of an internal leak, not an external hack.
At this point, however, it needs mentioned that the VIPS memo has sparked dissenting views among its members. Several analysts
within the group have spoken out against its findings, and that internal debate can be read
here . Thus, it would
seem there is no 'smoking gun,' as of yet, to prove that the DNC was not hacked by an external entity. At the same time, the murder
of Seth Rich continues to remain an unsolved "botched robbery," according to investigators. Meanwhile, the one person who may hold
the key to the mystery, Julian Assange, is said to be withering away Belmarsh Prison, a high-security London jail, where he is awaiting
a February court hearing that will decide whether he will be extradited to the United States where he 18 charges.
Here is a question to ponder: If you were Julian Assange, and you knew you were going to be extradited to the United States, who
would you rather be the sitting president in charge of your fate, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Think twice before answering.
"Because you'd be in jail"
On October 9, 2016, in the second televised presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Trump
accused his Democratic opponent of deleting 33,000 emails,
while adding that he would get a "special prosecutor and we're going to look into it " To this, Clinton said "it's just awfully good
that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country," to which Trump deadpanned, without
missing a beat, "because you'd be in jail."
Now if that remark didn't get the attention of high-ranking Democratic officials, perhaps Trump's comments at a Virginia rally
days later, when he promised to "drain the swamp," made folks sit up and take notice.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/slLCjLcgqbc
At this point the leaks, hacks and everything in between were already coming fast and furious. On October 7, John Podesta, Clinton's
presidential campaign manager, had his personal Gmail account hacked, thereby releasing a torrent of inside secrets, including how
Donna Brazile, then a CNN commentator, had fed Clinton debate questions. But of course the crimes did not matter to the mendacious
media, only the identity of the alleged messenger, which of course was 'Russia.'
By now, the only thing more incredible than the dirt being produced on Clinton was the fact that she was still in the presidential
race, and even slated to win by a wide margin. But perhaps her biggest setback came when authorities, investigating
Anthony Weiner's abused laptop into illicit text messages he sent to a 15-year-old girl, stumbled upon thousands of email messages
from Hillary Clinton.
Now Comey had to backpedal on his conclusion in July that although Clinton was "extremely careless" in her use of her electronic
devices, no criminal charges would be forthcoming. He announced an 11th hour investigation, just days before the election. Although
Clinton was also cleared in this case, observers never forgave Comey for his actions,
arguing they cost Clinton the White House.
Now James Comey is back in the spotlight as one of the main characters in the Barr-Durham investigation, which is examining largely
out of the spotlight the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory that dogged the White House for four long years.
In early December, Justice Department's independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz,
released the 400-page IG report
that revealed a long list of omissions, mistakes and inconsistencies in the FBI's applications for FISA warrants to conduct surveillance
on Carter Page. Although the report was damning, both Barr and Durham noted it did not go far enough because Horowitz did not have
the access that Durham has to intelligence agency sources, as well as overseas contacts that Barr provided to him.
With AG report due for release in early spring, needless to say some Democrats are very nervous as to its finding. So nervous,
in fact, that they might just be willing to go to the extreme of removing a sitting president to avoid its conclusions.
Whatever the verdict, 2020 promises to be one very interesting year.
"... Twitter blamed a computer glitch after President Trump's retweet of a post containing the name alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella mysteriously disappeared from his timeline. After 'fixing' the issue and restoring the retweet, the user was simply banned from the platform so that nobody could see the tweet, which quickly went viral. ..."
Twitter blamed a computer glitch after President Trump's retweet of a post containing the name alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella
mysteriously disappeared from his timeline. After 'fixing' the issue and restoring the retweet, the user was simply banned from the
platform so that nobody could see the tweet, which quickly went viral.
" Rep. Ratliffe suggested Monday that the "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella committed perjury by making false statements in his
written forms filed with the ICIG and that Adam Schiff is hiding evidence of Ciaramella's crimes to protect him from criminal investigations,"
read the tweet made by by now-banned @surfermom77, which describes herself as living in California and a "100% Trump supporter."
Ciaramella has been outed in several outlets as the 'anonymous' CIA official whose whistleblower complaint over a July 25 phone call
between Trump and with his Ukrainian counterpart is at the heart of Congressional impeachment proceedings.
Trump retweeted the post around midnight Friday. By Saturday morning, it was no longer visible in his Twitter feed.
When contacted by The Guardian 's Lois Beckett for explanation, Twitter blamed an "outage with one of our systems."
Some people reported earlier today that someone had deleted the alleged-whistleblower's name-retweet from Trump's timeline.
Others of us still see *that tweet* on Trump's timeline. When asked for clarification, Twitter said this:
https://t.co/Rftkg3nbus https://t.co/XREAvvxjhf
By Sunday morning, the tweet had been restored to Trump's timeline - however hours later the user, @Surfermom77, was banned from
the platform .
Running cover for Twitter is the Washington Post , which claims " The account shows some indications of automation , including
an unusually high amount of activity and profile pictures featuring stock images from the internet."
Surfermom77 has displayed some hallmarks of a Twitter bot, an automated account. A recent profile picture on the account, for
instance, is a stock photo of a woman in business attire that is available for use online.
Surfermom77 has also tweeted far more than typical users, more than 170,000 times since the account was activated in 2013.
Surfermom77 has posted, on average, 72 tweets a day, according to Nir Hauser, chief technology officer at VineSight, a technology
firm that tracks online misinformation. -
WaPo
Meanwhile, Trump retweeted another Ciaramella reference on Thursday, after the @TrumpWarRoom responded to whistleblower attorney
Mark Zaid's tweet calling for the resignation of Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) from the Senate Whistleblower Caucus after she made
"hostile" comments - after she tweeted in November that "Vindictive Vindman is the "whistleblower's" handler (a reference to impeachment
witness Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman.
"The watchdog group requested conversations between Ciaramella and special counsel Robert Mueller, former FBI agent Peter Strzok,
former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and former FBI attorney Lisa Page."
O nce in a blue moon an indispensable book comes out making a clear case for sanity in what
is now a post-MAD world. That's the responsibility carried by " The (Real)
Revolution in Military Affairs ," by Andrei Martyanov (Clarity Press), arguably the most
important book of 2019.
Martyanov is the total package -- and he comes with extra special attributes as a top-flight
Russian military analyst, born in Baku in those Back in the U.S.S.R. days, living and working
in the U.S., and writing and blogging in English.
Right from the start, Martyanov wastes no time destroying not only Fukuyama's and
Huntington's ravings but especially Graham Allison's childish and meaningless Thucydides Trap
argument -- as if the power equation between the U.S. and China in the 21stcentury could be
easily interpreted in parallel to Athens and Sparta slouching towards the Peloponnesian War
over 2,400 years ago. What next? Xi Jinping as the new Genghis Khan?
(By the way, the best current essay on Thucydides is in Italian, by Luciano Canfora ("
Tucidide: La Menzogna, La Colpa, L'Esilio" ). No Trap. Martyanov visibly relishes defining the
Trap as a "figment of the imagination" of people who "have a very vague understanding of real
warfare in the 21st century." No wonder Xi explicitly said the Trap does not exist.)
Martyanov had already detailed in his splendid, previous book, "Losing Military Supremacy:
The Myopia of American Strategic Planning," how "American lack of historic experience with
continental warfare" ended up "planting the seeds of the ultimate destruction of the American
military mythology of the 20thand 21stcenturies which is foundational to the American decline,
due to hubris and detachment of reality." Throughout the book, he unceasingly provides solid
evidence about the kind of lethality waiting for U.S. forces in a possible, future war against
real armies (not the Taliban or Saddam Hussein's), air forces, air defenses and naval
power.
Do the Math
One of the key takeaways is the failure of U.S. mathematical models: and readers of the book
do need to digest quite a few mathematical equations. The key point is that this failure led
the U.S. "on a continuous downward spiral of diminishing military capabilities against the
nation [Russia] she thought she defeated in the Cold War."
In the U.S., Revolution in Military
Affairs (RMA) was introduced by the late Andrew Marshall, a.k.a. Yoda, the former head of
Net Assessment at the Pentagon and the de facto inventor of the "pivot to Asia" concept. Yet
Martyanov tells us that RMA actually started as MTR (Military-Technological Revolution),
introduced by Soviet military theoreticians back in the 1970s.
One of the staples of RMA concerns nations capable of producing land-attack cruise missiles,
a.k.a. TLAMs. As it stands, only the U.S., Russia, China and France can do it. And there are
only two global systems providing satellite guidance to cruise missiles: the American GPS and
the Russian GLONASS. Neither China's BeiDou nor the European Galileo qualify – yet
– as global GPS systems.
Then there's Net-Centric Warfare (NCW). The term itself was coined by the late Admiral
Arthur Cebrowski in 1998 in an
article he co-wrote with John Garstka's titled, "Network-Centric Warfare – Its Origin and
Future."
Deploying his mathematical equations, Martyanov soon tells us that "the era of subsonic
anti-shipping missiles is over." NATO, that brain-dead organism (copyright Emmanuel Macron)
now has to face the supersonic Russian P-800 Onyx and the Kalibr-class M54 in a "highly hostile
Electronic Warfare environment." Every developed modern military today applies Net-Centric Warfare
(NCW), developed by the Pentagon in the 1990s.
Rendering of a future combat systems network. (soldiersmediacenter/Flickr, CC BY 2.0,
Wikimedia Commons)
Martyanov
mentions in his new book something that I learned on my visit to Donbass in March 2015: how
NCW principles, "based on Russia's C4ISR capabilities made available by the Russian military to
numerically inferior armed forces of the Donbass Republics (LDNR), were used to devastating
effect both at the battles of Ilovaisk and Debaltsevo, when attacking the cumbersome Soviet-era
Ukrainian Armed Forces military."
No Escape From the Kinzhal
Martyanov provides ample information on Russia's latest missile – the hypersonic
Mach-10 aero-ballistic Kinzhal, recently tested in the Arctic.
Crucially, as he explains, "no existing anti-missile defense in the U.S. Navy is capable of
shooting [it] down even in the case of the detection of this missile." Kinzhal has a range of
2,000 km, which leaves its carriers, MiG-31K and TU-22M3M, "invulnerable to the only defense a
U.S. Carrier Battle Group, a main pillar of U.S. naval power, can mount – carrier fighter
aircraft." These fighters simply don't have the range.
The Kinzhal was one of the weapons announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin's
game-changing March
1, 2018 speech at the Federal Assembly. That's the day, Martyanov stresses, when the real
RMA arrived, and "changed completely the face of peer-peer warfare, competition and global
power balance dramatically."
Top Pentagon officials such as General
John Hyten, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have admitted on the record there are "no
existing countermeasures" against, for instance, the hypersonic, Mach 27 glide vehicle Avangard
(which renders anti-ballistic missile systems useless), telling the U.S. Senate Armed Services
Committee the only way out would be "a nuclear deterrent." There are also no existing
counter-measures against anti-shipping missiles such as the Zircon and Kinzhal.
Any military analyst knows very well how the Kinzhal destroyed a land target the size of a
Toyota Corolla in Syria after being launched 1,000 km away in adverse weather conditions. The
corollary is the stuff of NATO nightmares: NATO's command and control installations in Europe
are de facto indefensible.
Martyanov gets straight to the point: "The introduction of hypersonic weapons surely pours
some serious cold water on the American obsession with securing the North American continent
from retaliatory strikes."
Kh-47M2 Kinzhal; 2018 Moscow Victory Day Parade. (Kremilin via Wikimedia Commons)
Martyanov is thus unforgiving on U.S. policymakers who "lack the necessary tool-kit for
grasping the unfolding geostrategic reality in which the real revolution in military affairs
had dramatically downgraded the always inflated American military capabilities and continues to
redefine U.S. geopolitical status away from its self-declared hegemony."
And it gets worse: "Such weapons ensure a guaranteed retaliation [Martyanov's italics] on
the U.S. proper." Even the existing Russian nuclear deterrents – and to a lesser degree
Chinese, as paraded recently -- "are capable of overcoming the existing U.S. anti-ballistic
systems and destroying the United States," no matter what crude propaganda the Pentagon is
peddling.
In February 2019, Moscow announced the completion of tests of a nuclear-powered engine for
the Petrel cruise missile. This is a subsonic cruise missile with nuclear propulsion that can
remain in air for quite a long time, covering intercontinental distances, and able to attack
from the most unexpected directions. Martyanov mischievously characterizes the Petrel as "a
vengeance weapon in case some among American decision-makers who may help precipitate a new
world war might try to hide from the effects of what they have unleashed in the relative safety
of the Southern Hemisphere."
Hybrid War Gone Berserk
A section of the book expands on China's military progress, and the fruits of the
Russia-China strategic partnership, such as Beijing buying $3 billion-worth of S-400 Triumph
anti-aircraft missiles -- "ideally suited to deal with the exact type of strike assets the
United States would use in case of a conventional conflict with China."
Beijing parade celebrating the 70th anniversary of the People's Republic, October 2019.
(YouTube screenshot)
Because of the timing, the analysis does not even take into consideration the arsenal
presented in early October at the Beijing parade celebrating the 70thanniversary of the
People's Republic.
That includes, among other things, the "carrier-killer" DF-21D, designed to hit warships at
sea at a range of up to 1,500 km; the intermediate range "Guam Killer" DF-26; the DF-17
hypersonic missile; and the long-range submarine-launched and ship-launched YJ-18A anti-ship
cruise missiles. Not to mention the DF-41 ICBM – the backbone of China's nuclear
deterrent, capable of reaching the U.S. mainland carrying multiple warheads.
Martyanov could not escape addressing the RAND Corporation, whose reason to exist is to
relentlessly push for more money for the Pentagon – blaming Russia for "hybrid war" (an
American invention) even as it moans about the U.S.'s incapacity of defeating Russia in each
and every war game. RAND's war games pitting the U.S. and allies against Russia and China
invariably ended in a "catastrophe" for the "finest fighting force in the world."
Martyanov also addresses the S-500s, capable of reaching AWACS planes and possibly even
capable of intercepting hypersonic non-ballistic targets. The S-500 and its latest middle-range
state of the art air-defense system S-350 Vityaz will be operational in 2020.
His key takeway: "There is no parity between Russia and the United States in such fields as
air-defense, hypersonic weapons and, in general, missile development, to name just a few fields
– the United States lags behind in these fields, not just in years but in generations
[italics mine]."
All across the Global South, scores of nations are very much aware that the U.S. economic
"order" – rather disorder – is on the brink of collapse. In contrast, a
cooperative, connected, rule-based, foreign relations between sovereign nations model is being
advanced in Eurasia – symbolized by the merging of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road
Initiative (BRI), the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO), the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the NDB (the BRICS bank).
The key guarantors of the new model are Russia and China. And Beijing and Moscow harbor no
illusion whatsoever about the toxic dynamics in Washington. My recent conversations with top
analysts in Kazakhstan last month and in Moscow last week once again stressed the futility of
negotiating with people described – with overlapping shades of sarcasm – as
exceptionalist fanatics. Russia, China and many corners of Eurasia have figured out there are
no possible, meaningful deals with a nation bent on breaking every deal.
Indispensable?
No: Vulnerable
Martyanov cannot but evoke Putin's speech to the Federal Assembly in February 2019, after
the unilateral Washington abandonment of the INF treaty, clearing the way for U.S. deployment
of intermediate and close range missiles stationed in Europe and pointed at Russia:
"Russia will be forced to create and deploy those types of weapons against those regions
from where we will face a direct threat, but also against those regions hosting the centers
where decisions are taken on using those missile systems threatening us."
Translation: American Invulnerability is over – for good.
In the short term, things can always get worse. At his traditional, year-end presser in
Moscow, lasting almost four and a half hours, Putin stated that Russia is more than ready to
"simply renew the existing New START agreement", which is bound to expire in early 2021: "They
[the U.S.] can send us the agreement tomorrow, or we can sign and send it to Washington." And
yet, "so far our proposals have been left unanswered. If the New START ceases to exist, nothing
in the world will hold back an arms race. I believe this is bad."
"Bad" is quite the euphemism. Martyanov prefers to stress how "most of the American elites,
at least for now, still reside in a state of Orwellian cognitive dissonance" even as the real
RMA "blew the myth of American conventional invincibility out of the water."
Martyanov is one of the very few analysts – always from different parts of Eurasia --
who have warned about the danger of the U.S. "accidentally stumbling" into a war against
Russia, China, or both which is impossible to be won conventionally, "let alone through the
nightmare of a global nuclear catastrophe."
Is that enough to instill at least a modicum of sense into those who lord over that massive
cash cow, the industrial-military-security complex? Don't count on it.
* * *
Pepe Escobar, a veteran Brazilian journalist, is the correspondent-at-large for Hong
Kong-based Asia Times . His latest book is
"
2030 ." Follow him on Facebook .
"... Currently the United States is assisting Ukraine against Russia by providing some non-lethal military equipment as well as limited training for Kiev's army. It has balked at getting more involved in the conflict, rightly so. ..."
"... The Ukrainians were not buying any of that. Their point of view is that Russia is seeking to revive the Soviet Union and will inevitably turn on the Baltic States and Poland, so it is necessary to stop evil dictator Vladimir Putin now. They inevitably produced the Hitler analogy, citing the example of 1938 and Munich as well as the subsequent partition of Poland in 1939 to make their case. When I asked what the United States would gain by intervening they responded that in return for military assistance, Washington will have a good and democratic friend in Ukraine which will serve as a bulwark against further Russian expansion. ..."
"... But Obama chose to stay home as punishment for Putin, which I think was a bad choice suggesting that he is being strongly influenced by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the other neocons who seem to have retained considerable power in his administration. ..."
"... Obama told a crowd gathered outside the Nike footwear company in Oregon that the deal is necessary because "if we don't write the rules, China will " ..."
"... Obama takes as a given that he will be able to "write the rules." This is American hubris writ large and I am certain that many who are thereby designated to follow Washington's lead are as offended by it as I am. Bad move Barack. ..."
Currently the United States is assisting Ukraine against Russia by providing some non-lethal military equipment as well as
limited training for Kiev's army. It has balked at getting more involved in the conflict, rightly so. With that in mind,
I had a meeting with a delegation of Ukrainian parliamentarians and government officials a couple of weeks ago. I tried to explain
to them why many Americans are wary of helping them by providing lethal, potentially game changing military assistance in what Kiev
sees as a struggle to regain control of Crimea and other parts of their country from militias that are clearly linked to Moscow.
I argued that while Washington should be sympathetic to Ukraine's aspirations it has no actual horse in the race, that the imperative
for bilateral relations with Russia, which is the only nation on earth that can attack and destroy the United States, is that they
be stable and that all channels for communication remain open.
I also observed that the negative perception of Washington-driven
democracy promotion around the world has been in part shaped by the actual record on interventions since 2001, which has not been
positive. Each exercise of the military option has wound up creating new problems, like the mistaken policies in Libya, Iraq and
Syria, all of which have produced instability and a surge in terrorism. I noted that the U.S. does not need to bring about a new
Cold War by trying to impose democratic norms in Eastern Europe but should instead be doing all in its power to encourage a reasonable
rapprochement between Moscow and Kiev. Providing weapons or other military support to Ukraine would only cause the situation to escalate,
leading to a new war by proxies in Eastern Europe that could rapidly spread to other regions.
The Ukrainians were not buying any of that. Their point of view is that Russia is seeking to revive the Soviet Union and will
inevitably turn on the Baltic States and Poland, so it is necessary to stop evil dictator Vladimir Putin now. They inevitably produced
the Hitler analogy, citing the example of 1938 and Munich as well as the subsequent partition of Poland in 1939 to make their case.
When I asked what the United States would gain by intervening they responded that in return for military assistance, Washington will
have a good and democratic friend in Ukraine which will serve as a bulwark against further Russian expansion.
I explained that Russia does not have the economic or military resources to dominate Eastern Europe and its ambitions appear to
be limited to establishing a sphere of influence that includes "protection" for some adjacent areas that are traditionally Russian
and inhabited by ethnic Russians. Crimea is, unfortunately, one such region that was actually directly governed by Moscow between
1783 and 1954 and it is also militarily vitally important to Moscow as it is the home of the Black Sea Fleet. I did not point that
out to excuse Russian behavior but only to suggest that Moscow does have an argument to make, particularly as the United States has
been meddling in Eastern Europe, including Ukraine where it has "invested" $5 billion, since the Clinton Administration.
I argued that if resurgent Russian nationalism actually endangered the United States there would be a case to be made for constricting
Moscow by creating an alliance of neighbors that would be able to help contain any expansion, but even the hawks in the U.S. Congress
are neither prepared nor able to demonstrate a genuine threat. Fear of the expansionistic Soviet Union after 1945 was indeed the
original motivation for creating NATO. But the reality is that Russia is only dangerous if the U.S. succeeds in backing it into a
corner where it will begin to consider the kind of disruption that was the norm during the Cold War or even some kind of nuclear
response or demonstration. If one is focused on U.S. interests globally Russia has actually been a responsible player, helping in
the Middle East and also against international terrorism.
So there was little to agree on apart from the fact that the Ukrainians have a right to have a government they choose for themselves
and also to defend themselves. And we Americans have in the Ukrainians yet another potential client state that wants our help. In
return we would have yet another dependency whose concerns have to be regarded when formulating our foreign policy. One can sympathize
with the plight of the Ukrainians but it is not up to Washington to fix the world or to go around promoting democracy as a potential
solution to pervasive regional political instability.
Obviously a discussion based on what are essentially conflicting interests will ultimately go nowhere and so it did in this case,
but it did raise the issue of why Washington's relationship with Moscow is so troubled, particularly as it need not be so. Regarding
Ukraine and associated issues, Washington's approach has been stick-and-carrot with the emphasis on the stick through the imposition
of painful sanctions and meaningless though demeaning travel bans. I would think that reversing that formulation to emphasize rewards
would actually work better as today's Russia is actually a relatively new nation in terms of its institutions and suffers from insecurity
about its place in the world and the respect that it believes it is entitled to receive.
Russia
recently celebrated the 70 th anniversary of the end of World War Two in Europe. The celebration was boycotted by
the United States and by many Western European nations in protest over Russian interference in Ukraine. I don't know to what extent
Obama has any knowledge of recent history, but the Russians were the ones who were most instrumental in the defeat of Nazi Germany,
losing 27 million citizens in the process. It would have been respectful for President Obama or Secretary of State John Kerry to
travel to Moscow for the commemoration and it would likely have produced a positive result both for Ukraine and also to mitigate
the concern that a new Cold War might be developing. But Obama chose to stay home as punishment for Putin, which I think was
a bad choice suggesting that he is being strongly influenced by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the other neocons
who seem to have retained considerable power in his administration.
And I also would note a couple of other bad choices made during the past several weeks. The Trans-Pacific multilateral trade agreement
that is currently working its way through Congress and is being aggressively promoted by the White House might be great for business
though it may or may not be good for the American worker, which, based on previous agreements, is a reasonable concern. But what
really disturbs me is the Obama explanation of why the pact is important. Obama
told a crowd gathered outside the Nike footwear company in Oregon that the deal is necessary because "if we don't write the rules,
China will "
Fear of the Yellow Peril might indeed be legitimate but it would be difficult to make the case that an internally troubled China
is seeking to dominate the Pacific. If it attempts to do so, it would face strong resistance from the Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipinos
and Koreans among others. But what is bothersome to me and probably also to many in the Asian audience is that Obama takes as
a given that he will be able to "write the rules." This is American hubris writ large and I am certain that many who are thereby
designated to follow Washington's lead are as offended by it as I am. Bad move Barack.
And finally there is Iran as an alleged state sponsor of terrorism. President Obama claims that he is working hard to achieve
a peaceful settlement of the alleged threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. But if that is so why does he throw obstacles irrelevant
to an agreement out to make the Iranian government more uncomfortable and therefore unwilling or unable to compromise? In an
interview with Arabic
newspaper Asharq al-Awsat Obama called Tehran a terrorism supporter, stating that "it [Iran] props up the Assad regime in
Syria. It supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It aids the Houthi rebels in Yemen so countries in the region
are rights to be deeply concerned " I understand that the interview was designed to reassure America's friends in the Gulf that the
United States shares their concerns and will continue to support them but the timing would appear to be particularly unfortunate.
The handling of Russia, China and Iran all exemplify the essential dysfunction in American foreign policy. The United States should
have a mutually respectful relationship with Russia, ought to accept that China is an adversary but not necessarily an enemy unless
we make it so and it should also finally realize that an agreement with Iran is within its grasp as long as Washington does not overreach.
It is not clear that any of that is well understood and one has to wonder precisely what kind of advice Obama is receiving when fails
to understand the importance of Russia, insists on "writing the rules" for Asia, and persists in throwing around the terrorist label.
If the past fifteen years have taught us anything it is that the "Washington as the international arbiter model" is not working.
Obama should wake up to that reality before Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush arrives on the scene to make everything worse.
Tom Welsh, May 19, 2015 at 7:02 am GMT • 100 Words
All of this misses the point, IMHO. There is really no need to explain that Russia has no plans to conquer Europe, China has
no plans to take over the Pacific, etc. Anyone with a little historical knowledge and some common sense can see that plainly.
What is happening is that the USA has overweening aspirations to control (and then suck dry) the entire world – and Europe, Russia
and China are next on its hit list.
So it naturally accuses those nations of aspiring to what it plans to do. Standard operating procedure.
The Priss Factor, May 19, 2015 at 7:19 am GMT • 100 Words
"The Ukrainians were not buying any of that. Their point of view is that Russia is seeking to revive the Soviet Union and will
inevitably turn on the Baltic States and Poland, so it is necessary to stop evil dictator Vladimir Putin now."
I can understand Ukrainian animus against Russia due to history and ethnic tensions.
But that is ridiculous. They can't possibly believe it. I think they're repeating Neocon talking points to persuade American
that the fate of the world is at stake.
It's really just a local affair.
And Crimea would still belong to Ukraine if the crazies in Ukraine hadn't conspired with Neocons like Nuland to subvert and
overthrow the regime.
"... While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and liberation". ..."
"... Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia? Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining ground btw. Ask yourself why ? ..."
"... Sphere of influence, the same reason why Cuba and Venezuela will pay for their insolence against the hegemon. The world is never a fair place. ..."
While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and
liberation".
I hate how America exploit the weak. president moon should offer an olive branch to fatty Kim by sending back the
thaad to America and pulling out American base and troops. he should convince fatty Kim that should he really like to proliferate
his nuclear missile development as deterrence, aim it only to America and America only. there is no need for Koreans to kill fellow
Koreans.
Very good idea, after having pushed Ukraine and Georgia to a war lost in advance, lets hope US will abandon South Korea and
Japan because they were helpless in demilitarizing one of the poorest countries in the world....
Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia?
Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life
isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say
farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining
ground btw. Ask yourself why ?
In this person's opinion, the article raises a good point with regards to US defense subsidies. However, its examples are dissimilar.
Japan spends approximately 1% of its GDP on defense; South Korea spends roughly 2.5% of its GDP defense.
In fact, it seems to this person that a better example of US Defense Welfare would be direct subsidies granted to the state
of Israel.
"... It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America's institutions, including businesses, schools and governments," Dimon, 61, summarized. "This can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked. ..."
"JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon has two big pronouncements as the Trump administration starts reshaping
the government: "The United States of America is truly an exceptional country," and "it is clear that something is wrong."
Dimon, leader of world's most valuable bank and a counselor to the new president, used his 45-page annual letter to shareholders
on Tuesday to list ways America is stronger than ever -- before jumping into a much longer list of self-inflicted problems that
he said was "upsetting" to write.
Here's the start: Since the turn of the century, the U.S. has dumped trillions of dollars into wars, piled huge debt onto students,
forced legions of foreigners to leave after getting advanced degrees, driven millions of Americans out of the workplace with felonies
for sometimes minor offenses and hobbled the housing market with hastily crafted layers of rules.
Dimon, who sits on Donald Trump's business forum aimed at boosting job growth, is renowned for his optimism and has been voicing
support this year for parts of the president's business agenda. In February, Dimon predicted the U.S. would have a bright economic
future if the new administration carries out plans to overhaul taxes, rein in rules and boost infrastructure investment. In an
interview last month, he credited Trump with boosting consumer and business confidence in growth, and reawakening "animal spirits."
But on Tuesday, reasons for concern kept coming. Labor market participation is low, Dimon wrote. Inner-city schools are failing
poor kids. High schools and vocational schools aren't providing skills to get decent jobs. Infrastructure planning and spending
is so anemic that the U.S. hasn't built a major airport in more than 20 years. Corporate taxes are so onerous it's driving capital
and brains overseas. Regulation is excessive.
" It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America's institutions, including businesses, schools and
governments," Dimon, 61, summarized. "This can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free
enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked. "...
"Inner-city schools are failing poor kids. High schools and vocational schools aren't providing skills to get decent jobs. Infrastructure
planning and spending is so anemic that the U.S. hasn't built a major airport in more than 20 years. Corporate taxes are so onerous
it's driving capital and brains overseas. Regulation is excessive."
Let's unpack his list. The 4th (last) sentence is his hope that his bank can back to the unregulated regime that brought us
the Great Recession. His 3rd sentence is a call for more tax cuts for the rich.
We may like his first 2 sentences here but who is going to pay for this? Not Jamie Dimon. See sentence #3.
"... The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya. ..."
"... Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course, his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed. ..."
"... Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. ..."
"... We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact. ..."
The start of current decade revealed the most ruthless face of a global neo-colonialism. From Syria and Libya to Europe and Latin
America, the old colonial powers of the West tried to rebound against an oncoming rival bloc led by Russia and China, which starts
to threaten their global domination.
Inside a multi-polar, complex terrain of geopolitical games, the big players start to abandon the old-fashioned, inefficient direct
wars. They use today other, various methods like
brutal proxy
wars , economic wars, financial and constitutional coups, provocative operations, 'color revolutions', etc. In this highly
complex and unstable situation, when even traditional allies turn against each other as the global balances change rapidly, the forces
unleashed are absolutely destructive. Inevitably, the results are more than evident.
Proxy Wars - Syria/Libya
After the US invasion in Iraq, the gates of hell had opened in the Middle East. Obama continued the Bush legacy of US endless
interventions, but he had to change tactics because a direct war would be inefficient, costly and extremely unpopular to the American
people and the rest of the world.
The result, however, appeared to be equally (if not more) devastating with the failed US invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US
had lost total control of the armed groups directly linked with the ISIS terrorists, failed to topple Assad, and, moreover, instead
of eliminating the Russian and Iranian influence in the region, actually managed to increase it. As a result, the US and its allies
failed to secure their geopolitical interests around the various pipeline games.
In addition, the US sees Turkey, one of its most important ally, changing direction dangerously, away from the Western bloc. Probably
the strongest indication for this, is that Turkey, Iran and Russia decided very recently to proceed in an agreement on Syria without
the presence of the US.
Yet, the list of US failures does not end here. The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have
proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have
witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya.
Evidence from
WikiLeaks has shown that the old colonial powers have started a new round of ruthless competition on Libya's resources.
The usual story propagated by the Western media, about another tyrant who had to be removed, has now completely collapsed. They don't
care neither to topple an 'authoritarian' regime, nor to spread Democracy. All they care about is to secure each country's resources
for their big companies.
The Gaddafi case is quite interesting because it shows that
the Western
hypocrites were using him according to their interests .
Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they
had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order
to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course,
his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed.
Economic Wars, Financial Coups – Greece/Eurozone
It would be unthinkable for the neo-colonialists to conduct proxy wars inside European soil, especially against countries which
belong to Western institutions like NATO, EU, eurozone, etc. The wave of the US-made major economic crisis hit Greece and Europe
at the start of the decade, almost simultaneously with the eruption of the Arab Spring revolutionary wave and the subsequent disaster
in Middle East and Libya.
Greece was the easy victim for the global neoliberal dictatorship to impose catastrophic measures in favor of the plutocracy.
The Greek experiment enters its seventh year and the plan is to be used as a model for the whole eurozone. Greece has become also
the model for the looting of public property, as happened in the past with the East Germany and the
Treuhand Operation
after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
While Greece was the major victim of an economic war, Germany used its economic power and control of the European Central Bank
to impose unprecedented austerity, sado-monetarism and neoliberal destruction through silent financial coups in
Ireland ,
Italy and
Cyprus . The Greek political establishment collapsed with the rise of SYRIZA in power, and the ECB was forced to proceed
in an open financial coup against
Greece when the current PM, Alexis Tsipras, decided to conduct a referendum on the catastrophic measures imposed by the ECB, IMF
and the European Commission, through which the Greek people clearly rejected these measures, despite the propaganda of terror inside
and outside Greece. Due to the direct threat from Mario Draghi and the ECB, who actually threatened to cut liquidity sinking Greece
into a financial chaos, Tsipras finally forced to retreat, signing another catastrophic memorandum.
Through similar financial and political pressure, the Brussels bureaufascists and the German sado-monetarists along with the IMF
economic hitmen, imposed neoliberal disaster to other eurozone countries like Portugal, Spain etc. It is remarkable that even the
second eurozone economy, France,
rushed to
impose anti-labor measures midst terrorist attacks, succumbing to a - pre-designed by the elites - neo-Feudalism, under
the 'Socialist' François Hollande, despite the intense protests in many French cities.
Germany would never let the United States to lead the neo-colonization in Europe, as it tries (again) to become a major power
with its own sphere of influence, expanding throughout eurozone and beyond. As the situation in Europe becomes more and more critical
with the ongoing economic and refugee crisis and the rise of the Far-Right and the nationalists, the economic war mostly between
the US and the German big capital, creates an even more complicated situation.
The decline of the US-German relations has been exposed initially with the
NSA interceptions
scandal , yet, progressively, the big picture came on surface, revealing a
transatlantic
economic war between banking and corporate giants. In times of huge multilevel crises, the big capital always intensifies
its efforts to eliminate competitors too. As a consequence, the US has seen another key ally, Germany, trying to gain a certain degree
of independence in order to form its own agenda, separate from the US interests.
Note that, both Germany and Turkey are medium powers that, historically, always trying to expand and create their own spheres
of influence, seeking independence from the traditional big powers.
A wave of neoliberal onslaught shakes currently Latin America. While in Argentina, Mauricio Macri allegedly took the power normally,
the constitutional
coup against Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, as well as, the
usual actions
of the Right opposition in Venezuela against Nicolás Maduro with the help of the US finger, are far more obvious.
The special weight of these three countries in Latin America is extremely important for the US imperialism to regain ground in the
global geopolitical arena. Especially the last ten to fifteen years, each of them developed increasingly autonomous policies away
from the US close custody, under Leftist governments, and this was something that alarmed the US imperialism components.
Brazil appears to be the most important among the three, not only due to its size, but also as a member of the BRICS, the team
of fast growing economies who threaten the US and generally the Western global dominance. The constitutional coup against Rousseff
was rather a sloppy action and reveals the anxiety of the US establishment to regain control through puppet regimes. This is a well-known
situation from the past through which the establishment attempts to secure absolute dominance in the US backyard.
The importance of Venezuela due to its oil reserves is also significant. When Maduro tried to approach Russia in order to strengthen
the economic cooperation between the two countries, he must had set the alarm for the neocons in the US. Venezuela could find an
alternative in Russia and BRICS, in order to breathe from the multiple economic war that was set off by the US. It is characteristic
that the economic war against Russia by the US and the Saudis, by keeping the oil prices in historically low levels, had significant
impact on the Venezuelan economy too. It is also known that the US organizations are funding the opposition since Chávez era, in
order to proceed in provocative operations that could overthrow the Leftist governments.
The case of Venezuela is really interesting. The US imperialists were fiercely trying to overthrow the Leftist governments since
Chávez administration. They found now a weaker president, Nicolás Maduro - who certainly does not have the strength and personality
of Hugo Chávez - to achieve their goal.
The Western media mouthpieces are doing their job, which is propaganda as usual. The recipe is known. You present the half truth,
with a big overdose of exaggeration.
The establishment
parrots are demonizing Socialism , but they won't ever tell you about the money that the US is spending, feeding the
Right-Wing groups and opposition to proceed in provocative operations, in order to create instability. They won't tell you about
the financial war conducted through the oil prices, manipulated by the Saudis, the close US ally.
Regarding Argentina, former president, Cristina Kirchner, had also made some important moves towards the stronger cooperation
with Russia, which was something unacceptable for Washington's hawks. Not only for geopolitical reasons, but also because Argentina
could escape from the vulture funds that sucking its blood since its default. This would give the country an alternative to the neoliberal
monopoly of destruction. The US big banks and corporations would never accept such a perspective because the debt-enslaved Argentina
is a golden opportunity for a new round of huge profits. It's
happening right
now in eurozone's debt colony, Greece.
'Color Revolutions' - Ukraine
The events in Ukraine have shown that, the big capital has no hesitation to ally even with the neo-nazis, in order to impose the
new world order. This is not something new of course. The connection of Hitler with the German economic oligarchs, but also with
other major Western companies, before and during the WWII, is well known.
The most terrifying of all however, is not that the West has silenced in front of the decrees of the new Ukrainian leadership,
through which is targeting the minorities, but the fact that the West allied with the neo-nazis, while according to some information
has also funded their actions as well as other extreme nationalist groups during the riots in Kiev.
Plenty of indications show that US organizations have 'put their finger' on Ukraine. A
video , for
example, concerning the situation in Ukraine has been directed by Ben Moses (creator of the movie "Good Morning, Vietnam"), who is
connected with American government executives and organizations like National Endowment for Democracy, funded by the US Congress.
This video shows a beautiful young female Ukrainian who characterizes the government of the country as "dictatorship" and praise
some protesters with the neo-nazi symbols of the fascist Ukranian party Svoboda on them.
The same organizations are behind 'color revolutions' elsewhere, as well as, provocative operations against Leftist governments
in Venezuela and other countries.
Ukraine is the perfect place to provoke Putin and tight the noose around Russia. Of course the huge hypocrisy of the West can
also be identified in the case of Crimea. While in other cases, the Western officials were 'screaming' for the right of self-determination
(like Kosovo, for example), after they destroyed Yugoslavia in a bloodbath, they can't recognize the will of the majority of Crimeans
to join Russia.
The war will become wilder
The Western neo-colonial powers are trying to counterattack against the geopolitical upgrade of Russia and the Chinese economic
expansionism.
Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine
in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. Besides, Trump has already shown his hostile feelings against China, despite
his friendly approach to Russia and Putin.
We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation
in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that
they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian
borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact.
"... The absurd race between the Repugnants and Democrazies to smash each other appears to have only one unfortunate outcome at this point and the Democrazies are not the winner. They are certainly going to lose Biden or lose because of Biden. That's how much they care for their electoral base. Meanwhile the Trump oligarch private finance capital team march up the hill. Tragic. ..."
Thanks b, it sure looks like distraction politics from the avoid doing anything for
people party. I am astounded at how pathetically weak their case is. But most astonishing
is the failure to have the LEAKER not whistleblower attend any public hearing to give
evidence.
We are now well aware of Ciaramella's role in this absurd theatre. But he gives no
evidence, fails to submit to a cross examination. He is a real Star Chamber performer.
The absurd race between the Repugnants and Democrazies to smash each other appears to have
only one unfortunate outcome at this point and the Democrazies are not the winner. They are
certainly going to lose Biden or lose because of Biden. That's how much they care for their
electoral base. Meanwhile the Trump oligarch private finance capital team march up the hill.
Tragic.
"... After a Western-backed coup overthrew the legitimate Ukrainian president in February 2014, it brought to power a government largely picked by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. People in the Donbass region did not accept the new government and made two conditions for remaining a part of Ukraine: special autonomy status and two state languages. This is exactly what Canada provides for its large French-speaking minority. ..."
"... Those with even rudimentary knowledge of Ukrainian history and its huge ethnic Russian population would agree that these demands are not unreasonable, but the post-coup government called the separatist forces terrorists, sent aviation and tanks, and started a civil war that has been raging for five years. Washington, which was in total control of the Ukrainian political class, could have resolved this crisis easily by telling the new government to accept these modest conditions. Instead, the U.S. supported Kyiv with money, weapons, military training and political support. ..."
At a time of one of the greatest political upheavals in American history that could spill
over into foreign affairs, especially U.S.-Russian relations with unpredictable and devastating
results, I thought Christmas might offer a chance for all
of us to take a pause and search for an exit from the megacrisis.
Many people believe miracles do happen at Christmastime. However, it looks like we need
President Trump , Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to perform
at least three of them.
Those who wonder why Mr. Zelensky is on this list
should recall that the Trump impeachment process started
because of his phone call with this guy whose country the Democrats and their pathetic
witnesses deem no less than vital to America's national security.
Let us start with Mr. Putin because someone has to take the first difficult step and he is
the only one in a clear position to do it.
Dear Mr. Putin, please make a public statement that Russia pledges not to interfere in the
next and future American elections. It would be good if the two chambers of the Russian
parliament, the Duma and Federation Council, ratify this pledge as well. Please do it
unilaterally without asking Mr. Trump and the U.S. Congress to
respond in kind.
Dear Mr. Trump , please return to your
earlier thinking about NATO as an obsolete organization that lost its purpose in 1991 after the
collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw military bloc. Since then, it has been searching
desperately for new missions and enemies to justify its existence.
Recall that NATO's continuous expansion drive is the major factor that squandered the
exceptional opportunity for U.S.-Russian rapprochement that all Russian leaders, starting with
Mikhail Gorbachev, kept proposing. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York Democrat, and 18
other senators voted against President Clinton's first round of NATO expansion. "We'll be back
on a hair-trigger. We're talking about nuclear war," they said.
At the same time, NATO has failed to counter international terrorism -- the real threat to
European and American security. It is NATO that boosted the jihadi peril by overthrowing
Libya's government, allowing that prosperous country to morph into a terrorist playground and
staging point for millions of unvetted migrants crossing the Mediterranean to Europe.
Is NATO making America and our allies more secure? During the Cold War, when NATO allowed
the West to stand firm against Soviet communist designs on Europe, the answer was an easy yes,
but today, with NATO's reckless poking of the Russian bear, the answer is a resounding no.
A rebuilt NATO or a new organization, IATO -- International Anti-Terrorist Organization --
specifically targeting global jihad, would have a future with new partners including Russia,
for which terrorism represents a major security threat. Georgia and Ukraine could join IATO as
well, thus taking the first step toward reconciliation with Russia that NATO's insatiable
expansion drive helped destroy.
French President Emmanuel Macron is the first Western leader who agrees with this point of view
and is not afraid to say that "NATO's brain is dead." However, the U.S. president must take the
lead to move past legacy NATO.
Dear Mr. Zelensky , I believe that you
sincerely want to end the war in your country. It is not an easy job since you face a strong
and vocal radical nationalistic opposition with strong neo-Nazi overtones that declares that
any compromise on your side will be met with the violent resistance and another "Maidan
revolution" that may lead to your overthrow. The leader of this opposition is former President
Petro Poroshenko, whom Washington supported all these years and who was given a rare privilege
to speak at a joint session of Congress, where members greeted him with numerous standing
ovations. At the same time, Ukrainian people hated him so much that they decided to replace him
with a Jewish comic actor with no political experience.
Mr. Zelensky , I wonder if you
have read the book "Shooting Stars" by Austrian novelist Stefan Zweig, which describes some
important episodes in which fate gave an individual a chance at a historical turning point.
Zweig says fate usually chooses for this purpose a strong personality, but sometimes it falls
to mediocrities who fail miserably.
You are in a position to decide which you will be, and the pass to historical Olympus is
obvious.
After a Western-backed coup overthrew the legitimate Ukrainian president in February 2014,
it brought to power a government largely picked by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria
Nuland. People in the Donbass region did not accept the new government and made two conditions
for remaining a part of Ukraine: special autonomy status and two state languages. This is
exactly what Canada provides for its large French-speaking minority.
Those with even rudimentary knowledge of Ukrainian history and its huge ethnic Russian
population would agree that these demands are not unreasonable, but the post-coup government
called the separatist forces terrorists, sent aviation and tanks, and started a civil war that
has been raging for five years.
Washington, which was in total control of the Ukrainian political class, could have resolved
this crisis easily by telling the new government to accept these modest conditions. Instead,
the U.S. supported Kyiv with money, weapons, military training and political support.
Mr. Zelensky , nowadays you and
your country are used as pawns in the attempts to impeach Mr. Trump , but your prime
responsibility is before Ukrainian people who dismissed the party of war and placed the fate of
your country and its people in your hands. They expect you to make the right decision by
choosing the road to peace.
While waiting for these miracles to materialize, I wish all a merry Christmas , happy Hanukkah and peace on
earth in 2020.
Edward Lozansky is president of American University in Moscow.
Neocons lie should properly be called "threat inflation"
The underlying critical
point-at-issue is credibility as I noted in my comment on b's 2017 article. I've since
linked to tweets and other items by that trio; the one major change seems to have been the
epiphany by them that they needed to go to where the action is and report it from there to
regain their credibility.
The fact remains that used car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking
credibility sans a confession as to why they feel the need to lie to sell cars.
Their actions belie the guilt they feel for their choices, but a confession works much
better at assuaging the soul while helping convince the audience that the change in heart's
genuine. And that's the point as b notes--genuineness, whose first predicate is
credibility.
"... House Democrats should seriously consider dropping this second article in light of the recent Supreme Court action. In fairness, this development involving the high court occurred after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made up their minds to include obstruction of Congress as an impeachment article. Yet the new circumstances give some Democratic members of Congress, who may end up paying an electoral price if they support the House Judiciary Committee recommendation, meaningful reason for voting against at least one of the articles of impeachment. ..."
"... The first article goes too far in authorizing impeachment based on the vague criterion of abuse of power. But it is the second article that truly endangers our system of checks and balances and the important role of the courts as the umpires between the legislative and executive branches under the Constitution. It would serve the national interest for thoughtful and independent minded Democrats to join Republicans in voting against the second article of impeachment, even if they wrongly vote for the first. ..."
The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed
toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment
that passed the House Judiciary Committee along party lines last week.
That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with congressional
subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power
to decide the validity of its subpoenas, as well as the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized,
both powers that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch. The House of Representatives
will do likewise, if it votes to approve the articles, as is expected to occur on Wednesday.
President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas
requiring the production of privileged executive material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has
argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches.
Therefore, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides
support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation.
The cases that are being reviewed are not identical to the challenged subpoenas that form the basis for the second article of
impeachment. One involves authority of the New York district attorney to subpoena the financial records of a sitting president, as
part of any potential criminal investigation. The others involve authority of legislative committees to subpoena records as part
of any ongoing congressional investigations.
But they are close enough. Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that
the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional
subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court.
It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order
before sending possibly privileged material to Congress. Even before the justices granted review of these cases, the two articles
of impeachment had no basis in the Constitution. They were a reflection of the comparative voting power of the two parties, precisely
what one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned would be the "greatest danger" of an impeachment.
House Democrats should seriously consider dropping this second article in light of the recent Supreme Court action. In fairness,
this development involving the high court occurred after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made up their minds to include
obstruction of Congress as an impeachment article. Yet the new circumstances give some Democratic members of Congress, who may end
up paying an electoral price if they support the House Judiciary Committee recommendation, meaningful reason for voting against at
least one of the articles of impeachment.
It would be a smart way out for those Democrats. More important, it would be the right thing for them to do. It would be smart
and right because, as matters now stand, the entire process smacks of partisanship, with little concern for the precedential impact
which these articles could have on future impeachments. If a few more Democrats voted in a way that would demonstrate greater nuanced
recognition that, at the least, the second article of impeachment represents an overreach based on current law, it would lend an
aura of some nonpartisan legitimacy to the proceedings.
The first article goes too far in authorizing impeachment based on the vague criterion of abuse of power. But it is the second
article that truly endangers our system of checks and balances and the important role of the courts as the umpires between the legislative
and executive branches under the Constitution. It would serve the national interest for thoughtful and independent minded Democrats
to join Republicans in voting against the second article of impeachment, even if they wrongly vote for the first.
As Tony Kevin reported (watch-v=dJiS3nFzsWg) at one small fundraiser
Bill Clinton made an interesting remark. He said that the USA should always have enemies. That's absolutely true, this this
is a way to unite such a society as we have in the USA. probably the only way. And Russia simply fits the
bill. Very convenient bogeyman.
Notable quotes:
"... The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium. ..."
One aspect of this report in the NYT is very troubling but not a great surprise to those who
pay attention to Asian affairs.
The reports that US military leaders had no idea of what to
do in Afghanistan and constantly lied to the public should rouse citizens in America to take
a different view of military leaders. That view must be to trust nothing coming from the
Pentagon or from spokespersons for the military. Included must be any and all secretaries of defence, and all branches of the military.
It is totally unacceptable that 1-2 trillion dollars and several thousand lives were spent
by America for some nebulous cause. This does not include many thousands of civilians.
During the Vietnam disaster, it became obvious that American military was lying to the
public and taking many causalities in an unwinnable war. Nothing was learned about Asia or
Asian culture because America entered Afghanistan without a real plan and no understanding of
the country or it's history.
The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up
all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and
America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in
Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which
has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium.
No reputable legal authority would fear ensuring due process for an accused, unless it had no evidence of an actual crime
to justify prosecution...but DID have ulterior motives and nefarious purposes for doing so.
Let's be clear.
To date, not a single shred of actual evidence has ever been produced to prove Russian involvement or interference in the
2016 presidential election.
***.
Nada.
We have the opinion of domestic intelligence agencies, but we have no physical or direct evidence.
On the contrary, we have as much reason to believe some or all of them interfered in the Trump campaign, to orchestrate
and execute a foreign interference hoax against Trump, before and after his election.
Daily, and throughout this sick prog left congressional abuse of power, we have repeatedly heard claims of an "ongoing
war with Russia" in Ukraine.
Which war is this? Is this a continuation of the non-invasion of the Donbas in 2014? The specious and false claims of Russian troop concentrations, and tanks rolling, that even spy satellites didn't see? Are we still lying about this? If so, where are the media reports of Russian airstrikes, burning Ukrainian villages, or body bags?
In any "on-going" war with Russia, we would've been treated to near-constant news video of Russian armor all over eastern Ukraine. Have we? Perhaps this war they keep telling us about is like the Russian "invasion" of Crimea that didn't happen either.
We clearly remember the two Crimean-initiated referenda which put them back in their ancestral Russian
homelands, but none of that had anything to do with invading Russians, who already had a substantial military
presence in Crimea for decades.
No sir, Professor Turley.
There is no basis whatsoever for Trump's impeachment.
There is mounting evidence of a continued coup against this president, and the substantial number of Americans
who actually elected him.
We too are closely monitoring the actual situation...
The USA "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine requires weakening and, if possible, partitioning Russia.
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin tells the audience that Skripals poisoning was a false flag operation. 7:00
He also point several weak points in Western politicians narrative about MH17
Notable quotes:
"... Cold War patterns of thinking about Russia show no sign of weakening in America ..."
"... Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it. ..."
"... The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans). ..."
"... I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!) ..."
"... There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause". ..."
"... Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic. ..."
"... "Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined." ..."
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin, in conversation with former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr, says the West is unnecessarily
determined to undermine Russia.
A t an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive campaign
to destabilize Russia, without cause.
When Kevin said he returned to Russia after more than 40 years in 2016 he realized he "had to take sides" in the U.S.-Russia standoff
when all Nato countries boycotted the Moscow celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
"I had to take a moral position that it is not right for the West to be ganging up on Russia," Kevin says in his conversation
with the former Australian foreign minister.
The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating
a disinformation" campaign today against Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders
and Russiagate.
Watch the hour-long in depth discussion which was filmed and produced by Consortium News' CN Live! Executive Producer Cathy
Vogan.
Putin & the Russian citizenry play chess on this 3-dimensional world.! The Americas and their inane elites attempt checkers
on their flat Earth . Pity, some such as Noam Chomsky are admirable world citizens..! Pity again.! WE will miss men of this honest
calibre and down- to-earth intelligence. Bob Carr is of this cohort.
Eugenie Basile , December 10, 2019 at 03:36
The 'Russia did it' mantra is a gift for the powers in the Kremlin. It rallies most Russians behind their leaders because they
are proud of their country and don't accept the West's moral hypocrite grandstanding.
Just recently the WADA proclaimed sporting ban against Russia is a perfect example. It excludes all Russian athletes because
they happen to represent their country while U.S. athletes who have been caught cheating in the past are allowed to participate
.
It is very encouraging to know there are good people like Mr. Tony Kevin and Mr. Bob Carr alive and sharing their powerful
wisdom at this dangerous historical point on planet Earth. Mr. Kevin and Mr. Carr's immensely important and courageously honest
discussion should become – immediately, and for many years to come – required study in university classrooms and government halls
around this world.
Peace.
ElderD , December 9, 2019 at 15:03
Tony's (especially!) and Bob's sane and sensible view of this dangerous and destructive state of affairs deserve the widest
possible distribution and attention.
George McGlynn , December 9, 2019 at 13:27
A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and little has changed. Cold War patterns of thinking
about Russia show no sign of weakening in America. The further we distance ourselves from the end of the Cold War, the closer
we come to its revival. Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States. It is now
so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured.
It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first. Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then,
it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of
nuclear deterrence doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation is.
Lois Gagnon , December 9, 2019 at 17:30
I agree. Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are
unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it.
AnneR , December 9, 2019 at 07:48
The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed
oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events
including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans).
Then there were allegations – of those "highly likely" (therefore one knows to be untrue and unadulterated propaganda to increase
Russophobia) sort – about Russian hackers (always giving the impression that the "Kremlin" is behind itl) being the Labour Party's
source of the Tory party's US-UK trade deal which would/will deliberately and finally destroy the NHS and replace it with (of
course) US "health" insurance company profiteering.
(Always the Tory intention from the NHS's initiation in May of 1948; only its popularity among many Tory party supporters among
the working and lower middle classes prevented them from a full-frontal killing off the NHS; the Snatcher's government began the
undermining, via installing a top-heavy bureaucratization, siphoning off a sizable proportion of the funds that would otherwise
have gone to medical care, demanding that hospitals not "lose" money – a concept completely beyond the remit of the NHS as originally
conceived and constructed and like exactions.)
Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov (Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how
either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the
neo-Nazis of western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the Donbass). The Donbass fighters
are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile
the support for the neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the Ukrainian military,
thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency).
Someone even suggested that President Putin needed to be diplomatic. Really? From what I've read the man is the most diplomatic
and intelligent politician (not just political leader) along with Xi Jinping and the Iranian government that exist on the world
stage. None of them are hubristic, solipsistic, eager beaver killers of peoples in other countries. Unlike their western "world"
political counterparts.
Jeff Harrison , December 8, 2019 at 18:30
Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they agreed they were defeated. The US merely
assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said
any such thing.
St. Ronnie's whole thing back in the 80's was to outspend Russia militarily and it worked well. We're trying to
do it again but Russia isn't playing the same game this time and now it is the US that has a mountain of debt and Russia that
doesn't.
SIPIRI tags US military spending at $650B and Russian military spending at $62B. But we know that the $650B number is
bogus because it doesn't include our in-violation-of-the-NNPT nuclear program which is in the energy department or our veteran's
expenses which are in HHS. I don't know what's missing from Russia's $62B but I'll bet they can sustain that a whole lot better
than we can sustain our $650B and rising bill.
Antonio Costa , December 9, 2019 at 13:17
Good point regarding Russia's downsizing the Soviet Union. From Gorbachev to Putin there was NEVER a surrender, intended in
any way. The intent has been multilateral partnerships. For Russia the US/West won nothing at all except the opportunity to live
and work in peace. (By the way this policy has a long Russian history.)
They gave up the Warsaw Pact and America with our worthless "word" expanded NATO.
The US foreign policy has lost even the semblance of sanity. Our naked aggression is clear as never before, a mad man throwing
a global fit armed with megaton nuclear projectiles on trigger first strike alert. What could go wrong?
nondimenticare , December 8, 2019 at 15:56
If, magically, Consortium News/CN Live! were a mass-distribution network/magazine (hence universally consulted), allowing the
light in for the mass of the viewing and listening public, it could change the world – both an exalting and despairing thought.
Lily , December 8, 2019 at 09:52
It is a great joy to listen to this conversation!
I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus.
Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more.
(The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!)
I wish people would have the courage to break away from the group pressure originated by a nation which has been started by
killing more than 90% of the indigenous people in their country and since then has turned the worl into a very insecure place.
Chapeau, Tony Kevin! Thanks to Bob Carr and Consortiums News.
Lily , December 9, 2019 at 01:18
It seems that some facts are beginning to be realized in the military department.
"At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive
campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause."
The American establishment's problem with Russia is simply that Russia is the only country on earth capable of obliterating
the United States. Not even China has yet reached that capacity.
"Carthago delenda est"
Skip Scott , December 9, 2019 at 06:13
There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian
citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause".
Bruno DP , December 8, 2019 at 02:34
The West is ganging up on Russia? Replace "West" by "United States of America", and I will agree.
Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election
interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a
very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic.
Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all
of "the Western" intelligence combined.
I'm German, living in the US, and I agree with your comment. I especially love the last two sentences:
"Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international
conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined."
"... no doubt that entire RussiaGate extravaganza was spawned by Fusion GPS's utterly false Steele dossier and the so-called "Intel Community's" zeal for weaponizing it to overthrow the president. ..."
"... The utter falsity of the Steele dossier seems not to have yet penetrated the minds of Dean Baquet and Martin Baron, editors of The New York Times and The Washington Post , the head cheerleaders for the seditious coup by the security state. ..."
"... All the week long, the Horowitz Report and its aftershocks were attended by the impeachment show in Jerrold Nadler's House Judiciary Committee -- an exercise so devoid of sense and prudence that it would embarrass all the kangaroos ever assembled in the courts of legend. As I write early Friday morning, Mr. Nadler's majority is preparing to report out two dubious articles of impeachment: "abuse of power" and "contempt of congress." As is always the case with the Resistance, Mr. Nadler's posse is projecting on its enemy the very offenses it commits. One senses that the voters are seeing through this feeble hocus-pocus, and that even members of the greater Democratic caucus in the house may be getting the heebie-jeebies about staking their political futures on a vote for this idiocy. ..."
"... Eric Ciaramella does not qualify as a “whistleblower” but is rather a rogue CIA agent ..."
"... his enabler Michael Atkinson, the “Intel Community” Inspector General who flouted and altered the rules in the whistleblower ploy — and who, by the way, was formerly at the center of the RussiaGate mess when he worked as chief counsel to then assistant attorney general John P. Carlin, one of the instigators of the “Crossfire Hurricane” overture to RussiaGate ..."
"... It could benefit the nation to hear testimony from shrinking violet Gina Haspel, the current CIA Director nobody has ever heard of. What does she know about Mr. Ciaramella’s role in this melodrama, who detailed him to the National Security Council, who supervised him, and who exactly were his associates? ..."
"... And, of course, not a few fair-minded people would be interested to hear from Rep. Adam Schiff, who engineered the “whistleblower’s” entry into his concocted UkraineGate sequel to the now discredited RussiaGate ruse. Get Mr. Schiff under oath. He is almost certain to lie about his activities, and that will certainly get him expelled from congress in disgrace, along with losing his license to practice law. ..."
"... Bring in Hunter Biden and ask him to explain whether he was busted for crack cocaine in a rent-a-car before-or-after he was hired to serve on the board of directors of a Ukrainian gas company. Bring in Lt. Col. Vindman, bring in Daniel Goldman ..."
Hillary Clinton sure got her money's worth with the Fusion GPS deal : it induced a
three-year psychotic break in the body politic, destroyed the legitimacy of federal law
enforcement, turned a once-proud, free, and rational press into an infernal engine of bad
faith, and is finally leading her Democratic Party to an ignominious suicide . And the damage
is far from complete. It's even possible that Mrs. Clinton will return to personally escort the
party over the cliff when, as is rumored lately, she jumps into the primary contest and
snatches the gonfalon of leadership from the ailing old man of the sclerotic status quo, Uncle
Joe Biden.
The citizens of this foundering polity have been subjected to a stunning doubleheader of
political spectacle clear through the week.
On Monday, the Horowitz Report was briefly celebrated by the Left for claiming "no bias" and
a "reasonable predicate" for the RussiaGate mess - until auditors actually got to read the
400-plus-page document and discovered that it was absolutely stuffed with incriminating details
that Mr. Horowitz was too polite, too coy, or too faint-hearted to identify as acts worthy of
referral for prosecution.
Mr. Barr, the attorney general, and US attorney John Durham immediately stepped up to set
the record straight, namely, that this was hardly the end of the matter and that they were
privy to fact-trains of evidence that would lead, by-and-by, to a quite different conclusion.
This reality-test was greeted, of course, with shrieking for their dismissal from the Jacobin
Left. But then at mid-week, Mr. Horowitz put in a personal appearance before the Senate
Judiciary Committee and left no doubt that entire RussiaGate extravaganza was spawned by Fusion
GPS's utterly false Steele dossier and the so-called "Intel Community's" zeal for weaponizing
it to overthrow the president.
The shock-waves from all that still pulsate through the disordered collective consciousness
of this sore-beset republic, and will disturb the sleep of many former and current officials
for months to come as the specter of Barr & Durham transmutes into a nightmare of Hammer
& Tongs, perp-walks, and actual prosecutions. The utter falsity of the Steele dossier seems
not to have yet penetrated the minds of Dean Baquet and Martin Baron, editors of The New York
Times and The Washington Post , the head cheerleaders for the seditious coup by the security
state. Their obdurate mendacity can no longer be attributed to a simple quest for clicks and
eyeballs. It speaks to a sickness of mind that has infected the whole thinking class of America
as it succumbed to the ultimate smashing of boundaries: the one between what is real and what
is not real (or what is true and what is not true.)
All the week long, the Horowitz Report and its aftershocks were attended by the impeachment
show in Jerrold Nadler's House Judiciary Committee -- an exercise so devoid of sense and
prudence that it would embarrass all the kangaroos ever assembled in the courts of legend. As I
write early Friday morning, Mr. Nadler's majority is preparing to report out two dubious
articles of impeachment: "abuse of power" and "contempt of congress." As is always the case
with the Resistance, Mr. Nadler's posse is projecting on its enemy the very offenses it
commits. One senses that the voters are seeing through this feeble hocus-pocus, and that even
members of the greater Democratic caucus in the house may be getting the heebie-jeebies about
staking their political futures on a vote for this idiocy.
For one thing the procedure would ascertain finally that Mr. Eric Ciaramella does not qualify as a “whistleblower” but is
rather a rogue CIA agent (from a rogue agency) helping to carry out a seditious conspiracy.
The defense should call him to the
stand, along with his enabler Michael Atkinson, the “Intel Community” Inspector General who flouted and altered the rules in the
whistleblower ploy — and who, by the way, was formerly at the center of the RussiaGate mess when he worked as chief counsel to
then assistant attorney general John P. Carlin, one of the instigators of the “Crossfire Hurricane” overture to RussiaGate.
It
could benefit the nation to hear testimony from shrinking violet Gina Haspel, the current CIA Director nobody has ever heard of.
What does she know about Mr. Ciaramella’s role in this melodrama, who detailed him to the National Security Council, who
supervised him, and who exactly were his associates?
And, of course, not a few fair-minded people would be interested to hear from Rep. Adam Schiff, who engineered the
“whistleblower’s” entry into his concocted UkraineGate sequel to the now discredited RussiaGate ruse. Get Mr. Schiff under oath.
He is almost certain to lie about his activities, and that will certainly get him expelled from congress in disgrace, along with
losing his license to practice law.
Bring in Hunter Biden and ask him to explain whether he was busted for crack cocaine in a rent-a-car before-or-after he
was hired to serve on the board of directors of a Ukrainian gas company. Bring in Lt. Col. Vindman, bring in Daniel Goldman,
bring them all in and compel their testimony under penalty of perjury. This will eventually get America right in its weakened
mind.
"... Ciaramella notably contacted House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's (D-CA) office before filing his complaint , on a form which was altered to allow for second-hand information, after going to a Democratic operative attorney who will neither confirm nor deny his status as the whistleblower. ..."
NY Post Editorial Board Names Eric Ciaramella As Whistleblower by Tyler Durden Fri, 12/13/2019 - 10:30 0
SHARES
The
New York Post Editorial Board has named CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella as the whistleblower at
the heart of the Trump impeachment saga, confirming an October 30 report by
RealClearInvestigation 's Paul Sperry which has been widely cited in subsequent
reports.
Whistleblower lawyers refuse to confirm or deny Ciaramella is their man. His identity is
apparently the worst-kept secret of the Washington press corps . In a sign of how farcical
this has become, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said his name as part of a series of names
during a live hearing Wednesday night aired on television. He never called him the
whistleblower, just said he was someone Republicans thought should testify, yet Democrats
angrily denounced the "outing." If you don't know the man's name, how do you know the man's
name? -
New York Post
Ciaramella, a registered Democrat, is a CIA analyst who specializes in Russia and Ukraine,
and ran the Ukraine desk at the National Security Council (NSC) in 2016. He previously worked
for then-NSC adviser Susan Rice, as well as Joe Biden when the former VP was the Obama
administration's point-man for Ukraine. He also worked for former CIA Director John Brennan,
and was reportedly a highly valued employee according to
RedState ' s Elizabeth Vaughn. He also became former National Security Adviser H.R.
McMaster's personal aide in June 2017, was
called out as a leaker by journalist Mike Cernovich that same month.
He also worked with Alexandra Chalupa , a Ukrainian-American lawyer and Democratic operative
involved in allegations that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 US election by releasing the so-called
'Black Ledger' that contained Paul Manafort's name.
In 2017, former White House chief strategist
Steve Bannon wanted Ciaramella kicked off the National Security Council over concerns about
leaks.
Earlier this year, Ciaramella ignited the Democratic impeachment efforts against President
Trump when, using second-hand information, he anonymously complained that Trump abused his
office when he asked Ukraine to investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his
son Hunter, as well as claims related to pro-Clinton election interference and DNC hacking in
2016.
Ciaramella notably contacted House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's (D-CA)
office before filing his complaint , on a form which was altered to allow for second-hand
information, after going to a Democratic operative attorney who will neither confirm nor deny
his status as the whistleblower.
Steve Bannon was only on the National Security Council for two months, and was removed in
early April 2017 at the direction of the President. So the story about Bannon valiantly
trying to save the day is probably more of his resume padding.
Why did so many people -- from government contractors and high-ranking military officers, to
state department and National Security Council officials -- feel the need to lie about how
the war in Afghanistan was going?
This is because it's easy cash cow for the old boys club by sending working class kids
to be killed in a far off land.
The pentagon with the full cooperation of MSM will sell it as we are defending our ways of
life by fighting a country 10,000 kms away. This show the poor literacy, poor analytical
thinking of US population constantly brain washed by MSM, holy men, clergy, other neo con
organisations like National rifle club etc.
I never knew USA dropped 2.7 millions tons of bombs and now so many left unexploded and
its same in Vietnam, Cambodia as neutral,
but i met so many injured kids etc from the bombs,.
the total MADNESS OF USA IS NAZI SM AT ITS BEST,.NO SHAME OR COMPASSION FOR THE
VICTIMS.
I cannot comprehend the money it cost USA,. AN ALSO PROFITS FOR SOME,.
With the exceptions of two attacks on American soil-Pearl Harbor and 911- the American people
and for the most part their legislative representatives in Congress- will always remain
cluless what the United States Government does overseas.
This country runs on its own drum beats. The ordinary man on the street needs to take care
of his economic needs. The Big Boys always take care of themselves. That includes the
military establishment, that is always entitled to an absurd amounts of monies, fueled by an
empire building machinery, pushed by the elites that control the fate of economic might, and
political orchestra that feeds its ego and prestige.
Time and again, our American sociopaths in power have a strangle hold on us, regardless of
the destruction and animosity they heap on distant peoples and lands the world over in the
name of national security and the democratic spiel, as they like to tell us ....
Richard Nixon, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson- Vietnam and the South East Asian countries of
Laos , Cambodia, are an example .
Years later, the establishment manufactures blatant cover-ups with lies upon lies to accuse
on record, as general Powell eloquently presented at the United Nations: That Iraq has
weapons of mass destruction and needs to be held accountable.And now, this report on
Afghanistan with all this pathological violence.
Is it reasonable to conclude that our democracy and its pathological actors in government
and big business will always purchase it by demagoguery and self vested interest, because the
ordinary man whose vote should count will never have the ultimate say when it comes to war
and destruction!
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- In testimony before Congress this week, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander
Vindman, an Army officer with more than 20 years of service, told lawmakers that he had heard
the president try to pressure Ukraine's president to unearth dirt on a political rival. In
response, the president's allies have decided to make an issue of Vindman's birthplace. They
say his infanthood in Kiev -- he left at age 3 -- reveals something about his character and his
allegiances. They are right, but in exactly the wrong way.
Here, you should pardon the expression, are some facts and a little bit of history. When
Vindman was born on June 6, 1975, Ukraine was enveloped in the Soviet Union. At birth, Vindman
would have been added temporarily to his parents' internal passports, a document that all
Soviet citizens were required to carry starting at 16, mostly to make sure they were not
residing somewhere without official permission.
That passport contained the infamous "fifth line" or "pyati punkt," in Russian, which had
been created under Josef Stalin and listed the holder's "nationality." Vindman was born in
Ukraine, but that line would not have said "Ukrainian" unless his parents had chosen to defy
the law. It would have said "Jew."
In the Soviet Union, Jews were considered separate and apart from other nationalities,
especially in two of the republics, Russia and Ukraine, where the local party enforcers were
particularly happy to do the Kremlin's dirty work. You could be born in Minsk or Pinsk, or Omsk
or Tomsk, or even Alexandrovsk or Petropavlovsk, and if you were born to Jewish parents, your
passport was likely stamped "Jew."
When I first learned this, upon arriving in Moscow in May 1983 as a reporter for the
Associated Press, I was outraged. I saw it like the Nazi's yellow star. I couldn't imagine how
Jewish people could stand it.
Until one day, I put that question to Naum Meiman, a Jewish mathematician who was part of
Andrei Sakharov's circle of dissidents. The answer was simple and humbling.
He didn't want "Russian," or any other so-called Soviet nationality, in his passport.
Russians didn't consider him Russian, officially or otherwise, and he didn't want the label.
"I'm a Jew who is forced to live in Russia, not a Russian," he said more than once.
I am certainly not speaking for Vindman, whom I do not know, but I have never met a Jew who
fled the Soviet Union and felt any kind of loyalty to the country -- one where Jews were
spurned from birth and then imprisoned within the state's borders until it decided to allow
them to leave. In those days, the Soviet Union revoked émigré's citizenships, in
what was supposed to be a final act of deep humiliation, but was invariably a badge of
pride.
"Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine while working inside
the White House, apparently against the president's interest," Fox News host Laura Ingraham
told viewers Monday.
The circumstances of Vindman's birth argue for a different interpretation. They show him to
be part of a tradition of 20th century Eastern European Jews who suffered under tyrannies of
the left and the right. These people fled the first chance they had to a country that would
accept them as fellow citizens, one where they would not be constantly questioned about their
loyalties. For many decades, that country was the United States.
To contact the author of this story: Andrew Rosenthal at [email protected]
Retired Brigadier General Peter Zwack spoke to "Nightline" ahead of Vindman's testifying
before the House Intelligence Committee during a public impeachment hearing of President
Trump.
Former democrat
21 days ago Mr Vindman looks more like a doorman, than a Army Officer in that uniform !
Larry
21 days ago
What's that "thing" on his ring finger (appears wooden)? Is that from his partner "Husband"?
In my US Army years, soldiers were dishonorable discharged from this "Criminal Offense" !
A retired Army officer who worked with
Democrat "star witness" Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in Grafenwoher, Germany, claims
Vindman "really talked up" President Barack Obama and ridiculed America and Americans in
front of Russian military officers.
In an eye-opening thread on Twitter last week, retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Jim Hickman
said that he "verbally reprimanded" Vindman after he heard some of his derisive remarks for
himself. " Do not let the uniform fool you," Hickman wrote. "He is a political activist in
uniform."
Hickman's former boss at the Joint Multinational Simulation Center in Grafenwoehr has
since gone on the record to corroborate his story.
Hickman, 52, says he's a disabled wounded warrior who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and
who received numerous medals, including the Purple Heart.
The retired officer said that Vindman, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Ukraine, made
fun of the United States to the point that it made other soldiers "uncomfortable." For
example, Hickman told American Greatness that he heard Vindman call Americans
"rednecks" -- a word that needed to be translated for the Russians. He said they all had a
big laugh at America's expense.
Vindman, who serves on the National Security Council (NSC), appeared last week before the
House Intelligence Committee and testified
that he'd had "concerns" about the July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman's testimony rested on his negative opinions of the
call, rather than any new facts about the call.
Vindman's former boss, NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison, threw cold
water on Vindman's claims
in his own testimony later in the week, saying he didn't have concerns that "anything
illegal was discussed" in the phone call. Morrison also testified that Ukrainian officials
were not even aware that military funding had been delayed by the Trump Administration until
late August 2019, more than a month after the Trump-Zelensky call.
"Completely Beyond Reproach"
Hickman said he decided to come forward because Vindman "disobeyed a direct order from
the commander-in-chief, his boss," made his testimony "about his foreign policy opinions
versus facts," and "wore his Army service uniform to make a political statement" against the
president.
"Then right on cue, the mainstream media began calling him a war hero with a purple
heart, and completely beyond reproach," Hickman wrote in a statement to American Greatness
and another journalist. "Knowing his political bias, backed by his somewhat radical
left-leaning ideology, it was my obligation, indeed my duty, to come forward with this
information. I couldn't go to the same mainstream media to put it out, nor could I go to the
Army, as they're backing Vindman, so I took to Twitter, a source for getting the truth out,"
he added.
According to Hickman, Vindman was the Defense Department attaché at the Russian
embassy in Germany when he met him in 2013. He told American Greatness that he also met
Vindman's twin brother Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman while he was stationed in Germany.
"I know LTC Alex Vindman from a Combined US-Russian exercise called Atlas Vision [13] in
Grafenwoher," Hickman wrote on Twitter. "He worked with the Russian Embassy and I was
assigned to the JMTC (Joint Multinational Training Command), within USAREUR (US Army Europe).
He worked coordination w/the Russian 15th Peacekeeping Brigade, and I was in charge of all
Simulations planning, as well as assisting the USAREUR Lead Planner as the Senior Military
Planner."
Like his twin, Eugene Vindman has forged a career in White House civil service. In fact,
The Wall Street Journal reported
that it's possible Eugene Vindman might also be called to testify. Alexander Vindman
has stated that Eugene Vindman, also called Yevgeny Vindman, "witnessed (the) decision to move Trump-Zelensky call's
transcript to a top secret server," The Journal reported of the president's call to the president of Ukraine.
Vindman's twin brother lists his title as attorney at the White House on his Facebook page. Born Yevgeny Vindman, he
goes by Eugene Vindman on social media.
The twin's Facebook page explains that he is an attorney at The White House and a former Attorney at Judge Advocate
General's Corps, United States Army. He also says that he is a former Senior Trial Counsel at U.S. Army and former Major at
United States Army.
According to JTA
, Eugene Vindman is a lawyer on the national security council.
CNN called
Eugene Vindman "the chief ethics counsel at NSC."
His Facebook page also provides the following biographical details about Eugene:
Studied Law School at University of Georgia
Studied General Administration at Central Michigan University
Studied at UGA School of Law
Studied History at SUNY Binghamton
Went to Franklin D.Roosevelt High School
Lives in Washington, District of Columbia
From Brooklyn, New York
2. Eugene Vindman Was a Campaign Strategist for a Democratic Congressional Candidate
The Vindman brothers.
Eugene Vindman's Facebook page also describes him as a "former Campaign Strategist at Bobby Saxon for Congress (GA
District 10)."
Saxon ran as a Democrat. According to an article in
The Red & Black
, Saxon was running for public office for the first time and called himself a "regular guy."
The 2008 article describes him as saying, "I'm 46-years-old, and I've never run for an office. Most of all, I'm a
frustrated American who's mad that politicians have no clue what it's like to be one of us. We need regular people with
common sense in Washington D.C."
Like Eugene Vindman, Saxon had an Army background. "I'm a major in the Georgia Army National Guard," he explained.
3. Eugene Vindman Was Involved in Efforts to Find Roadside Bombers in Iraq
A 2010 NPR article
on the U.S. connecting dots to find roadside bombers quoted Eugene Vindman. "Maj. Eugene Vindman, a
JAG officer, or judge advocate general" said that a "network analysis course put him and other military lawyers in a better
position to carry out oversight responsibilities in Iraq," the article stated.
"[You could] maybe do a little bit of analysis on your own or ask some intelligent questions of the targeteers," Eugene
Vindman said to NPR, "to make sure that the target they've identified is not a guy that might have made a wrong phone call
to a bad guy but actually has enough links to that bad guy through other activities to actually be a bad guy and therefore
be a legal military target."
Alexander Vindman is also similarly invested in American government work. "Since 2008, I have been a Foreign Area
Officer specializing in Eurasia," he wrote. "In this role, I have served in the United States' embassies in Kiev, Ukraine
and Moscow, Russia. In Washington D.C., I was a politico-military affairs officer for Russia for the Chairman of Joint
Chiefs where I authored the principle strategy for managing competition with Russia. In July 2018, I was asked to serve at
the National Security Council."
... ... ...
There is another Vindman brother. He's older than the twins and his name is Leonid Simon Vindman.
Leonid Simon Vindman is the "Founder and Managing Partner, Tungsten Capital Advisors" and "has approximately thirty
years of experience in the financial markets,"
his company
website states.
"During the past twenty five years, he has been focusing predominantly on Central Eastern Europe, Russia and Central
Asia where he completed some of the biggest investment and advisory transactions in the region," according to the website.
"He also completed transactions in the Middle East, and traveled extensively in Asia and Africa."
The page continues: "Prior to founding Tungsten he was a Managing Director responsible for investment banking
origination and client coverage activities for Russia and CIS region at UniCredit Group – the largest international bank in
Central and Eastern Europe at that time. Previously he worked as a Vice President Investment Banking at JPMorgan Chase,
Principal Banker at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the EBRD), Senior Associate at Bankers Trust and
Manager at Central Europe Trust."
Leonid Vindman "received his Bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College and an MBA from the University of Chicago Booth
Graduate School of Business," his company website says.
The company's founding and managing partner Maria Starkova-Vindman is described as "an art historian and art advisor"
who previously "worked at the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow as an assistant keeper and curator, and taught on the
Courtauld MA course on global contemporary art."
Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman admitted that he had been offered to serve as minister of defense for
Ukraine.
Vindman, 44, explained
during his impeachment testimony that he had been offered the position three times but
declined the position because of his loyalty to the United States. The lieutenant colonel was
born in Ukraine, but his family immigrated to the U.S. when he was a toddler.
Vindman claimed he did not know why he was offered the high ranking position of defense
minister.
"Every single time, I dismissed it. Upon returning, I notified my chain of command and the
appropriate counterintelligence folks about the offer," said Vindman, later adding, "I think it
would be a great honor, and frankly, I'm aware of service members that have left service to
help nurture the developing democracies in that part of the world."
He declined the offer and told Congress, "I'm an American. I came here when I was a toddler,
and I immediately dismissed these offers. I did not entertain them."
Vindman added that he found the offer "rather comical," saying, "I was being asked to
consider whether I would want to be the minister of defense, I did not leave the door open at
all. But it is pretty funny for a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army, which really is
not that senior, to be offered that illustrious of a position."
He explained that he had no follow-up questions about the position with his chain of
command. Vindman said he was not concerned about a "perception of a conflict of interest"
following his offer because he only valued the opinion of his American colleagues.
"Frankly, if they were concerned with me being able to continue my duties, they would have
brought that to my attention," said Vindman.
Vindman is the top Ukraine specialist on the National Security Council. He testified that he
raised concerns about President Trump's phone call with President Zelensky,
calling it "improper."
'Pushing a coup': Fellow soldiers slam Vindman for
testifying in uniform by Russ Read | November 08, 2019 03:49
PM
Print
this article S ome of
Alexander Vindman's fellow soldiers have blasted him for testifying in uniform during the
House impeachment hearings, accusing him of politicizing the military by stating personal
opinions that were highly critical of President Trump.
Vindman, 44, the National Security Council's
Ukraine director , was thrust into the political spotlight when he testified before
Congress on Oct. 29 as one of the few people who listened in on a
July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
His
appearance in uniform has been a point of contention. Military members detailed to the NSC
typically wear suits but Vindman gave his testimony in uniform, and was lauded for having been
awarded a Purple Heart for being wounded in Iraq, and a Combat Infantryman's Badge.
"This is a bad look for him to be in uniform," an active duty military officer stationed at
the Pentagon told the Washington Examiner. "He makes it look like the Army is behind
this. Like the Army is pushing a coup."
Another officer was concerned that Vindman's testimony veered too much into personal
assessment. "I don't care what he thinks, he's entitled to his opinion," the officer said. "But
it's an opinion and he should give it without the uniform."
A third officer said that Vindman's weight indicated he would be unlikely to pass the Combat
Fitness Test even though he had achieved a Ranger tab earlier in his career.
Matt Zeller, an Afghanistan veteran and fellow at the American Security Project, defended
Vindman. "I think he's a patriot, and how he's been treated is an abomination," Zeller told the
Washington Examiner . "All he is is a public servant doing his duty."
Vindman might have been required to wear his uniform, Zeller said, although where Army
regulations come down on the issue is unclear. The Army's Training and Doctrine Command did not
respond to questions from the Washington Examiner .
H.R. McMaster, who was an active duty lieutenant general in the Army during his tenure as
national security adviser, did not normally wear his uniform at the White House.
Military personnel such as Vindman detailed to the NSC operate within a unique system.
Unlike other troops who report to military commanders, military NSC staffers fall under
directors within the NSC itself. As a Ukraine expert, Vindman reports to civilian Andrew Peek,
who replaced Tim Morrison as the NSC's senior director for European and Russian affairs after
Morrison announced his departure last Wednesday, one day before he testified before the House
impeachment proceeding.
Military detailees generally are assigned to a unit within the Department of Defense for
administrative issues such as leave and pay. Performance reports, however, are handled by the
individual's boss on the NSC.
Most NSC staffers are drawn from the military and various other government agencies. They
generally are recruited via word-of-mouth, another change from typical government agencies that
are notorious for their long application processes.
The Reagan administration's NSC included Lt. Gen. Colin Powell and Lt. Col. Oliver North, .
Powell was national security adviser from 1987 to 1989 and went on to become chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State . North was on the NSC from 1981 to 1986 and
testified in uniform during the Iran-Contra hearings.
Vindman returned to work after his testimony and is expected to stay on at the NSC until his appointment ends next summer.
John Glaser and Christopher Preble have written a valuable
study of the history and causes of threat inflation. Here is their conclusion:
If war is the health of the state, so is its close cousin, fear. America's foreign policy
in the 21st century serves as compelling evidence of that. Arguably the most important task,
for those who oppose America's apparently constant state of war, is to correct the threat
inflation that pervades national security discourse. When Americans and their policymakers
understand that the United States is fundamentally secure, U.S. military activism can be
reined in, and U.S. foreign policy can be reset accordingly.
Threat inflation is how American politicians and policymakers manipulate public opinion and
stifle foreign policy dissent. When hawks engage in threat inflation, they never pay a
political price for sounding false alarms, no matter how ridiculous or over-the-top their
warnings may be. They have created their own ecosystem of think tanks and magazines over the
decades to ensure that there are ready-made platforms and audiences for promoting their
fictions. This necessarily warps every policy debate as one side is permitted to indulge in the
most baseless speculation and fear-mongering, and in order to be taken "seriously" the skeptics
often feel compelled to pay lip service to the "threat" that has been wildly blown out of
proportion. In many cases, the threat is not just inflated but invented out of nothing. For
example, Iran does not pose a threat to the United States, but it is routinely cited as one of
the most significant threats that the U.S. faces. That has nothing to do with an objective
assessment of Iranian capabilities or intentions, and it is driven pretty much entirely by a
propaganda script that most politicians and policymakers recite on a regular basis. Take Iran's
missile program, for example. As John Allen Gay explains in a recent
article , Iran's missile program is primarily defensive in nature:
The reality is they're not very useful for going on offense. Quite the opposite: they're a
primarily defensive tool -- and an important one that Iran fears giving up. As the new
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report entitled "Iran Military Power" points out, "Iran's
ballistic missiles constitute a primary component of its strategic deterrent. Lacking a
modern air force, Iran has embraced ballistic missiles as a long-range strike capability to
dissuade its adversaries in the region -- particularly the United States, Israel, and Saudi
Arabia -- from attacking Iran."
Iran's missile force is in fact a product of Iranian weakness, not Iranian strength.
Iran hawks need to portray Iran's missile program inaccurately as part of their larger
campaign to exaggerate Iranian power and justify their own aggressive policies. If Iran hawks
acknowledged that Iran's missiles are their deterrent against attacks from other states,
including our government, it would undercut the rest of their fear-mongering.
Glaser and Preble identify five main sources of threat inflation in the U.S.: 1) expansive
overseas U.S. commitments require an exaggerated justification to make those commitments seem
necessary for our security; 2) decades of pursuing expansive foreign policy goals have created
a class dedicated to providing those justifications and creating the myths that sustain support
for the current strategy; 3) there are vested interests that benefit from expansive foreign
policy and seek to perpetuate it; 4) a bias in our political system in favor of hawks gives
another advantage to fear-mongers; 5) media sensationalism exaggerates dangers from foreign
threats and stokes public fear. To those I would add at least one more: threat inflation
thrives on the public's ignorance of other countries. When Americans know little or nothing
about another country beyond what they hear from the fear-mongers, it is much easier to
convince them that a foreign government is irrational and undeterrable or that weak
authoritarian regimes on the far side of the world are an intolerable danger.
Threat inflation advances with the inflation of U.S. interests. The two feed off of each
other. When far-flung crises and conflicts are treated as if they are of vital importance to
U.S. security, every minor threat to some other country is transformed into an intolerable
menace to America. The U.S. is extremely secure from foreign threats, but we are told that the
U.S. faces myriad threats because our leaders try to make other countries' internal problems
seem essential to our national security. Ukraine is at most a peripheral interest of the U.S.,
but to justify the policy of arming Ukraine we are told by the more
unhinged supporters that this is necessary to make sure that we don't have to fight Russia
"over here." Because the U.S. has so few real interests in most of the world's conflicts,
interventionists have to exaggerate what the U.S. has at stake in order to sell otherwise very
questionable and reckless policies. That is usually when we get appeals to showing "leadership"
and preserving "credibility," because even the interventionists struggle to identify why the
U.S. needs to be involved in some of these conflicts. The continued pursuit of global
"leadership" is itself an invitation to endless threat inflation, because almost anything
anywhere in the world can be construed as a threat to that "leadership" if one is so inclined.
To understand just how secure the U.S. really is, we need to give up on the costly ambition of
"leading" the world.
Threat inflation is one of the biggest and most enduring threats to U.S. security, because
it repeatedly drives the U.S. to take costly and dangerous actions and to spend exorbitant
amounts on unnecessary wars and weapons. We imagine bogeymen that we need to fight, and we
waste decades and trillions of dollars in futile and avoidable conflicts, and in the end we are
left poorer, weaker, and less secure than we were before.
Daniel
Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New
York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review ,
Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and
Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the
University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
And behind Brennan we can can see the Nobel Peace Price winner.
Notable quotes:
"... A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the current director of the CIA. ..."
"... One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign. ..."
"... The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and on everyone they communicated with. ..."
"... The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later 'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were no more than unconfirmed rumors. ..."
"... That the dossier was mere dreck was quite obvious to any sober person who read it when it was first published ..."
"... That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level", face-to-face between the two agency chiefs. ..."
"... (This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our work .) ..."
"... Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan, Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new McCarthyism. ..."
"... "Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted." ..."
"... ... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate ... ..."
"... It's Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice (to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an inevitability as the US elite had assumed. ..."
"... Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone? Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public (meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story). ..."
"... Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier. Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others. ..."
"... physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the bogus charges. IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns. ..."
"... So Horowitz was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice. ..."
When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the relevant powers
launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump.
The ultimate aim of the cabal is to kick him out of office and have a reliable
replacement, like the Vice-President elect Pence, take over. Should that not be possible
it is hoped that the delegitimization will make it impossible for Trump to change major
policy trajectories especially in foreign policy. A main issue here is the reorientation of
the U.S. military complex and its NATO proxies from the war of terror towards a direct
confrontation with main powers like Russia and China.
...
A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the
current director of the CIA.
One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged
Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign.
Horowitz finds that the FBI was within the law when it opened the investigation but that the
FBI's applications to the FISA court, which decides if the FBI can spy on someone's
communications, were based on lies and utterly flawed.
Your host unfortunately lacked the time so far to read more than the executive summary. But
others have pointed out some essential findings.
If the report released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz
constitutes a "clearing" of the FBI, never clear me of anything. ...
Much of the press is concentrating on Horowitz's conclusion that there was no evidence of
"political bias or improper motivation" in the FBI's probe of Donald Trump's Russia contacts,
an investigation Horowitz says the bureau had "authorized purpose" to conduct.
...
However, Horowitz describes at great length an FBI whose "serious" procedural problems and
omissions of "significant information" in pursuit of surveillance authority all fell in the
direction of expanding the unprecedented investigation of a presidential candidate (later, a
president).
...
There are too many to list in one column, but the Horowitz report show years of breathless
headlines were wrong. Some key points:
The so-called "Steele dossier" was, actually, crucial to the FBI's decision to seek secret
surveillance of Page. ...
...
The "Steele dossier" was "Internet rumor," and corroboration for the pee tape story was
"zero." ...
Appendix 1 identifies the total violations by the FBI of the so-called Woods Procedures, the
process by which the bureau verifies information and assures the FISA court its evidence is
true.
The Appendix identifies a total of 51 Woods procedure violations from the FISA application
the FBI submitted to the court authorizing surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter
Page starting in October 2016.
A whopping nine of those violations fell into the category called: "Supporting document
shows that the factual assertion is inaccurate."
For those who don't speak IG parlance, it means the FBI made nine false assertions to the
FISA court. In short, what the bureau said was contradicted by the evidence in its official
file.
The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not
mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and
on everyone they communicated with.
The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had
talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later
'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were
no more than unconfirmed rumors.
The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous compatriot that two anonymous
sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claimed to have heard somewhere
that something happened in the Kremlin.
They assert that Trump was supported and directed by Putin himself five years ago while
even a year ago no one would have bet a penny on Trump gaining any political significant
position or even the presidency.
It is now claimed that the FBI is exculpated because the Horowitz report did not find
"political bias or improper motivation". But that omits the fact that at least four high
ranking people in the FBI and Justice Department who were involved in the case were found to be
politically
biased and were removed from their positions.
It also omits that the scope of Horowitz's investigation was limited to the Justice
Department. He was not able to investigate the CIA and its former director John Brennan who was
alleging Russia-Trump connections months before the FBI investigation started:
Contrary to a general impression that the FBI launched the Trump-Russia conspiracy probe,
Brennan pushed it to the bureau – breaking with CIA tradition by intruding into
domestic politics: the 2016 presidential election. He also supplied suggestive but ultimately
false information to counterintelligence investigators and other U.S. officials.
The current CIA director Gina Haspel was CIA station chief in London during that time and
while several of the entrapment attempts of Trump campaign staff by the FBI investigation
happened. Horowitz spoke with neither of them.
The current Horowitz Report, read alongside his previous report on how the FBI played inside
the 2016 election vis-a-vis Clinton, should leave no doubt that the Bureau tried to influence
the election of a president and then delegitimize him when he won. It wasn't the Russians; it
was us.
That is correct, but the whole conspiracy was even deeper. It was not the FBI which
initiated the case.
My hunch is still that the FBI investigation was a case of parallel construction which is often
used to build a legitimate case after a suspicion was found by illegitimate means. In this case
it was John Brennan who in early 2016 contacted the head of the British GCHQ electronic
interception service and asked him to spy on the Trump campaign. GHCQ then claimed that
something was found that was deemed
suspicious :
That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief
John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level",
face-to-face between the two agency chiefs.
The FBI was tipped off on the issue and on July 31 2016 started an investigation to
construct a parallel legal case. It send out British and U.S. agents to entrap Trump campaign
members. It used the obviously fake Steele dossier to gain FISA court judgments that allowed it
to spy on the campaign. Downing Street
was informed throughout the whole affair. A day after Trump's inauguration the UK's then
Prime Minister Theresa May
fired GHCQ chief Robert Hannigan.
One still open question is to what extend then President Barack Obama was involved in the
affair.
There is another ongoing investigation by U.S. Prosecutor John Durham. That investigation is
not limited to the Justice Department but will involve all agencies and domestic as well as
foreign sources. Durham has the legal rights to declassify whatever is needed and he can indict
persons should he find that they committed a crime. His report will hopefully go much deeper
than the already horrendous stuff Horowitz delivered.
(This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our
work .)
Posted by b on December 11, 2019 at 16:16 UTC |
Permalink
Anyone taking bets on Durham/Barr making indictments in this mess? My guess is a whole lot of
horse trading is going on behind the scenes now, as in, "I'll trade you a censure for all
potential indictments going down the memory hole."
Typical dog and pony show which will change nothing relating to interventionist foreign
policy and the new cold war with Russia. Too many saw benefits from the corruption in Ukraine
to dig deep there; the Bidens were just the most blatant, Lindsey Graham and others from both
parties were involved so don't expect much from the Senate hearings. The bipartisan major
goals are a fait accompli; universal acceptance that Russia worked to undermine our elections
(and to destroy our "Democracy") and are thus an enemy we must fight, and it's universally
accepted by all that we MUST provide Ukraine with Javelin missiles and other lethal aid to
fight "Russian Aggression" (with little mention that even Obama balked at that reckless
option). All of these proceedings are great distractions, but the weapons of war will not be
diminished.
Unfortuneately, few will question the findings of these investigations or consider the
possibility that the investigations themselves are misdirection/cover-up.
IMO the Lavrov-Pompeo
presser is notable mostly for Lavrov's discussion of Russiagate (about 6 minutes in).
Lavrov tells us that the Russian's repeatedly sought to clarify their noninterference by
publishing correspondence - which the Trump Administration didn't respond to. And he actual
mentions McCarthyism!
Wait, wot?
Yeah, during the worst of the Russiagate accusations, Trump wouldn't do things that
would've helped to prove that Russiagate was a farce!!
So, during the election, Trump called on Putin to publish Hillary's emails (the very act
of making such a request is likely illegal because at the time it was known that her emails
contained highly classified info) but he wouldn't accept Russia's publication of
exculpatory info about Russiagate?!?!
This would cause cognitive dissonance galore in an Americans that hear it - so one can
be sure that it will not be reported.
Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan,
Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new
McCarthyism.
Meanwhile in bizarroland (aka USA), Barr says Russiagate is a fantasy based on FBI "bad
faith" - yet Pompeo still presses on with the "Russia meddled" bullshit.
thanks b... i like your example in the comment - ''those who thought otherwise should
question their judgment''.. good example!
i am a bit concerned like @ 2 casey, that most of this is going to go down the memory hole
and there will be that made in america stamp on it - ''no accountability''... i wish i was
wrong, but getting worked up at the idea anyone is going to be held accountable for any
actions of the usa, or the insiders playing the usa, is clearly a fools game at this point..
all i mostly see is the needed collapse and waiting for that to happen..
Thanks for that, there are definitely cracks in the armor and we should promote that
narrative as you do in your link. Tulsi Gabbard has also expanded the awareness, hopefully
she will make the upcoming debates despite strong efforts to silence her. I'll try more to
focus on the positive!
@ 6 jr.. there is a press release on all what was said
here for anyone interested..
lavrov quote and etc. etc.. "We suggested to our colleagues that in order to dispel all
suspicions that are baseless, let us publish this closed-channel correspondence starting from
October 2016 till November 2017 so it would all become very clear to many people. However,
regrettably, this administration refused to do so. But I'd like to repeat once again we are
prepared to do that, and to publish the correspondence that took place through that channel
would clear many matters up, I believe. Nevertheless, we hope that the turbulence that
appeared out of thin air will die down, just like in 1950s McCarthyism came to naught, and
there'll be an opportunity to go back to a more constructive cooperation."
I continue to believe that the FBI and Horowitz perjured themselves
in the FISA report. To correct a mistake in a previous post I made, I
believe they lied when the claimed the Steele Dossier was not a
predicate for opening crossfire hurricane. How can the Steele dossier
not be instrumental in the opening of the investigation when bruce ohr's
wife nellie ohr was working at fusion gps when bruce ohr met with
steele
to discuss the dirty dossier.
In other words, the FBI
was concocting Operation Crossfire Hurricane prior to the time they had
any knowledge of the phony Papadopoulus predicate that the russians were proferring
the clinton emails to the trump campaign.
The FISA report claim that Operation Crossfire
Hurricane was predicated solely on the Papadopolous allegations is therefore a lie. There
was, in fact, no real predicate for Operation Crossfire Hurricane. The predications
cited were all fictions and inventions fabricated in a conspiracy between MI6(the FFC or
friendly foreign country cited in the Horowitz report), the
DOJ and the FBI. Operation Crossfire Hurricane was a massive Psyop from its inception.
What major publications have picked up this info from the State Dept PR? Which of them are
questioning why Trump didn't agree to let the Russians publish the exonerating information?
And how many of those are linking this strange fact to other strange facts and thus raising
troubling questions about the 2016 election?
<> <> <> <> <> <>
It's not just that Trump refused to publish exculpatory material. Anyone that's been
reading my comments (and/or my blog) knows that Trump also:
- hired Manafort - whose work for pro-Russian candidates in Ukraine had drawn the ire of
CIA - despite Manafort's having no recent experience with US elections;
- helped Pelosi to be elected Speaker of the House by inviting her to attend a White
House meeting about his border wall (along with Chuck Schumer) prior to the House vote to
elect a Speaker.
- initiated Ukrainegate by talking with Ukraine's President about investigating an
announced candidate - he didn't have to do this(!) he could've let subordinates work
behind the scenes .
And then there's a set of suspicious activity that is difficult to explain, such as: ...
- Kissinger's having called for MAGA in August 2014 (Trump announced his campaign 10
months later and he was the ONLY MAGA candidate and the ONLY populist in the Republican
primary) ;
- London as a nexus for the US 2016 campaign (Cambridge Analytica; GPS Fusion;
Halper, etc.) ;
- Hillary's making mistakes in the 2016 campaign that no seasoned politician would
make;
- the settling of scores via entrapments of Flynn, Manafort, and Wikileaks/Assange
(painted as a hostile intelligence agency and Russian agent).
All of these and more support the conclusion that CIA-MI6 elected MAGA Trump and initiated
Russiagate.
The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous asserted compatriot what two
anonymous sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claim to have heard
somewhere that something happened in the Kremlin. <-- Perhaps it is too much to add that
the entire conversation happen in a pub, like an eyewitness account of a trout caught by an
angler that was larger than a tiger shark [the trout was so large, not the angler].
I am a great fan of Dmitri Orlov and have just read a large portion of his linked
post.
What I do not see Orlov doing is taking into account--in his takedown of "scientific"
models---evidence of global warming/change such as *actual* observations of *actual, current*
phenomena that are being measured today, such as the condition of the world's coral reefs;
the rate of melting of permafrost and release of methane gas; the melting of Greenland (and
other) glaciers and release of fresh water into the oceans; acidification of oceans; and
quite a lot of evidence for sea level rise, such as saltwater intrusion into freshwater
swamps, aquifers, etc.
More can be gleaned by the manner in which BigLie Media spin the investigation's results. At
The Hill , Jonathon Turley makes that clear in the first paragraph:
"The analysis of the report by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz
greatly depends, as is often the case, on which cable news channel you watch. Indeed, many
people might be excused for concluding that Horowitz spent 476 pages to primarily conclude
one thing, which is that the Justice Department acted within its guidelines in starting its
investigation into the 2016 campaign of President Trump."
The further he goes the worse it gets for the Ds. And he's 100% correct about the biases
present in reporting about the Report.
Remarks made by Lavrov at the presser were likely done prior to anyone from Russia's
delegation having digested any of the Report. What I found important was the following
revelation by Lavrov:
"Let me remind you that at the time of the first statements on this topic, which was on
the eve of the 2016 US presidential election, we used the communications channel that linked
back then Moscow and the Obama administration in Washington to ask our US partners on
numerous occasions whether these allegations that emerged in October 2016 and persisted until
Donald Trump's inauguration could be addressed. The reply never came. There was no
response whatsoever to all our proposals when we said: look, if you suspect us, let's sit
down and talk, just put your facts on the table. All this continued after President Trump's
inauguration and the appointment of a new administration. We proposed releasing the
correspondence through this closed communications channel for the period from October 2016
until January 2017 in order to dispel all this groundless suspicion. This would have
clarified the situation for many. Unfortunately, this time it was the current administration
that refused to do so. Let me reiterate that we are ready to disclose to the public the
exchanges we had through this channel . I think that this would set many things straight.
Nevertheless we expect the turbulence that appeared out of thin air to calm down little by
little, just as McCarthyism waned in the 1950s, so that we can place our cooperation on a
more constructive footing." [My Emphasis]
Lavrov on Mueller Report: "It contains no confirmation of any collusion." End of story.
But we do have all this compiled evidence within our communications we're ready to publish is
the USA
agrees.
The Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) organization has yet to publish anything
about the report. However, Matt Taibbi often writes for that outlet, so his reporting at
Rolling Stone ought to be seen as a proxy FAIR report.
Now that we know Carter Page was working for the CIA as an informant in 2016, is it
reasonable to speculate that Page was planted in the Trump campaign by the CIA?
The Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Micheal Horowitz's report on the move to
delegitimize the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is clear proof of the massive rot
that lies at the heart of the US' political system. If this matter is whitewashed over by the
MSM, then one more step will have been taken to a violent and bloody revolution in the US of
A.
By now Steele's credibility is zero. Time to revisit Steele's involvement with the debunked
"Russia bought the soccer World Champion games", the Litvinenko polonium poisening and the
Skripal novichok poisening. The timing of the Skripal matter deserves some scrutiny in
relation to Skripal possibly being Steele's source for the infamous Trump dossier. There
might be a motive hidden there.
Thank you for posting Lavrov's words. Between those words and the IG report the kabuki
farce is revealed. Why was Trump ignoring the Russian offer you might ask. Because it suited
him to have this nonsense dominate the news cycle, you might conclude. Trump and Comey and
Brennan deserve each other.
just like 9-11... this is an inside job... does anyone really think the truth is going to
come to light in any of it?? i'm still with @ 2 caseys view...
Thanks for your reply! Yes, agreed, and I'd add Obama and Clinton.
Lavrov also held another presser at the conclusion of his visit that provides additional
info not covered in the first. The following is one I thought important:
"Question: The day before, US Congress agreed on a draft military budget, which includes
possible sanctions against Nord Stream-2 and Turkish Stream. Have you covered this topic? The
Congress sounds very determined. How seriously will the new restrictions affect the
completion of our projects?
"Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our
relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I
mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you
that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted."
I must emphatically agree with Lavrov's opinion and was very pleased he answered
forthrightly. What seems quite clear is the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by
Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate, with bipartisan Congressional backing.
That she lost didn't stop the anti-Russian wheel from being turned. So, logic tells us to
discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've written here why I think
that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance over the
planet and its people regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance made
reality by that policy goal. That a supermajority in Congress remain deluded is clearly a
huge problem, and those continuing to vote for the War Budget need to be removed.
b posted, in part;"When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the
relevant powers launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump."
It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry
life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO.
Are you aware of any means by which a member of congress or of a congressional committee can
be impeached or otherwise censured for the misconduct of official duties? That would at least
be Schiff...
Posted by: Paul Damascene | Dec 11 2019 21:24 utc |
32
@ 31 john.. i didn't know i had to read the orlov article to say what i did to you!! your
post @11 never make any internet link to orlov... what am i missing? does this mean i can
only speak with you after i have read another orlov article? lol...
"It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry
life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO."--ben @28
Ah, but that would be legitimate deligitimization, like attacking his actual policies.
Those are rocks that would break the Democrats' own windows as well as Trump's.
1. Senate Foreign Relations Comm passed Turkey sanctions bill
2. Pentagon Chief warned Turkey moving away NATO
3. U.S. lawmakers introduce legislation to curb Turkey's nuclear weapon obtainment"
Finally, the pretense of being nice to Turkey has come to an end. It will now intensify
its looking East, and pursue its national interests. IMO, the Eastern Med's energy issues
will now become a major headache.
karlof @ 29: The head Dems know their pushing the " Russia did it"meme is weak, but the
PTB
insist on it, to keep the MIC funds flowing.
The "no-brainer" charges should be; "Obstruction" and "Emoluments" violations. Charges the
public can grasp.
What happens if you, or any average person, ignores a summons to appear? They are
arrested.
Funneling govt. funds for personal gain is a violation of law, if you are POTUS.
These are violations average Americans can grasp, not the current circus of he said, she
said, going on in D.C. lately.
Guess my point is, this hearings are built to fail, because most of our so-called
leaders
like things the way they are. The rape of the workings classes will continue.
Yes. The impeachment process is the same as for Trump. Censuring is much easier but doubt
it will occur as too many are deserving. We're seeing the reason Congressional elections are
held every two years--vote 'em out if they're no good!
... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for
Clinton to escalate ...
I don't agree that the baton would be passed to Clinton. The Deep State uses the two-party
system as a device. It's not tied to partisan concerns. If the Deep State and the
establishment really wanted Clinton elected, they would've made that happen. Few expected
Trump to win and few would've been outraged if he had lost. Yet he won. Against all odds. Furthermore, Clinton wasn't the MAGA candidate as called for by Kissinger - Trump was. And
he was from the beginning of his candidacy.
Russiagate was based on suspicions of a populist that was compromised by Russia.
Hillary has too much baggage to play populist or nationalist - including Bill's involvement
with Epstein.
Also, you're forgetting the set ups of Manafort, Flynn, and Wikileaks/Assange - which were
important parts of Russiagate and also a convenient way of settling scores. These set-ups
required the Russiagate-tainted candidate (Trump) to win.
And Trump's beating Hillary makes him the classic come-from-behind hero - giving Trump a
certain legitimacy that an establishment candidate wouldn't have. That's important when
contemplating taking the country to war in the near future.
It's strange to me that people can think that Hillary was the 'chosen candidate', and be
OK with that but find a possible selection of a different candidate (Trump, as it turns out)
to be outrageous and inconceivable.
=
... with bipartisan Congressional backing . That she lost didn't stop the
anti-Russian wheel from being turned.
Since the Deep State and the Establishment desired an effort to restore the Empire, they
would turn to whomever could most effectively accomplish that task.
Once again: It didn't have to be Hillary that was selected. In fact, for many reasons
(that I've previously expressed) Hillary would have been a poor choice.
=
So, logic tells us to discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've
written here why I think that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full
Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people ...
FSD is US Mil policy, not a political goal. It states that US Mil will strive to have
superiority in weapons and capability in every sphere of combat.
Politically, FSD is just one of several means to an end. IMO that end is the maintenance
and expansion of the Anglo-Zionist Empire (aka New World Order).
Also, your dominance theory doesn't answer the question of WHY NOW? (more on that
below)
... regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance ...
Firstly, US Deep State believes that it is possible. And I personally don't buy the notion
that Russia and China are fated to prevail. If that were obvious, then the moa bar would have
no patrons.
Secondly (and again), WHY NOW? The Sino-Russo Alliance was long in the making. Why did USA
suddenly take note?
It's
Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger
calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing
immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice
(to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an
inevitability as the US elite had assumed.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
I've written many times of Kissinger's Op-Ed and of indications that the Deep State
selected MAGA Trump to be President while also initiating a new McCarthyism. Why is it STILL
so difficult to believe a theory that makes so much sense?
Yes, the status quo is very generous to the Current Oligarchy and its tools, but not so
for the vast public majority which is clamoring for change. IMO, much can be learned from the
UK election tomorrow, of which there's been very little discussion here despite its
importance. I suggest following the very important developments from the past few days at
Criag Murray's Twitter and
at
his website , the linked article being a scoop of sorts.
Also harder to follow but important as well are ballot initiatives within the states.
This site
has current listing . I just looked over those for California where there are a few good
ones, but the threshold for signatures is getting higher, close to one million are now needed
in CA.
Lavrov's comments about the offers to open up normally closed communications really only
highlight two obvious issues:
The previous US Administration had no interest in shutting off the oxygen to the "Trump =
Moscow's Man" campaign; and
The current US Administration cannot afford to be perceived as receiving help in this matter
from the country he is alleged to be beholden to for his election.
With only 9% approval, it ought to be easy to toss out most Congresscritters, excepting
that part of the Senate not up for reelection.
You'd think so, but somehow the numbers pretty much reverse when these same people
consider their own rep, and the incumbency reelection rate is shockingly high (haven't
looked recently but IIRC it has hovered around 90% for decades). Apparently it is amazingly
easy to convince the masses that their guy is the one good apple in the bunch.
Jon Schwartz
reminds me why I don't stop and peruse magazine stands anymore. Seeing the words and this
picture would've sparked lots of unpleasant language:
"The best part of Michelle Obama explaining she shares the same values as George W. Bush
is she was being interviewed on network TV by Bush's daughter. There's nothing more American
than our ruling class making us watch them discuss how great they all are."
And the escalation wasn't rigged for Clinton to initiate--yeah, sure, whatever the rabbit
says.
Until there is some comparison of how the FISA court usually works, none of this chatter
means a thing. Violations of Woods procedures and assertions not supported by documents are
SOP. The FISA court is always a joke.
Delgeitimizing Trump, reversing the election, all simple-minded drviel, as only nitwits
see Trump as anything but the loser.
Skripal knows something that US-UK either 1) don't want the Russians to know OR 2) don't
want ANYONE to know.
What could that be? 1) That Steele dossier is bullshit? We know that. 2) That Steele
dossier was meant to be bullshit ? Well, that raises a whole host of questions,
doesn't it?
Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone?
Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past
working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public
(meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story).
Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written
articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier.
Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others.
The Afghanistan report outlines a *massive fraud*. $14 billion/month, 90% of the world's
opium, no "progress", oh, and lying to Congress for two decades.
physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the
weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the
bogus charges. IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the
UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns.
Fox News, now: Biden blames staff, says nobody 'warned' him son's Ukraine job could raise
conflict. In a TV comedy Seinfeld, one of the main characters, George, is a compulsive liar with a
knack of getting in trouble. Sometimes he has a job. Final scene of one of those jobs:
Boss: "You have been seen after hours making sex with the cleaning lady on the top of your
desk."
George (after a measured look at his boss): "If I was only told that this kind of things
is being frown upon..." [and she had cleaned the desk both before AND after!]
I have theory about why Horowitz did not bias in the FBI. The
definition of bias is to harbor a deeply negative feeling that
clouds one's judgement about a person or subject. However, the
conspirators' judgement was not clouded in this case. Their
negative feelings focused their intent to destroy the object of
their feeling. The precise term for this is malice.
So Horowitz
was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might
have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice.
Re Really?? | Dec 11 2019 18:31 utc | 14 and AshenLight | Dec 11 2019 19:36 utc | 19
I agree with you. Orlov is a brilliant, insightful analyst, who is also very funny. But he
is off the mark with his dismissal of global warming and also with his endorsement of nuclear
power. The immense amounts of waste from uranium mining all the way to hundreds of thousands
of tons of high-level waste in spent fuel pools pose a huge threat to current and future
generations . . . like the next 3000 generations of humans (and all other forms of life) that
will have to deal with this. Mankind has never built anything that has lasted a fraction of
the 100,000 years required for the isolation of high-level wastes from the biosphere. Take a
look at Into
Eternity which is a great documentary on the disposal of nuclear waste in Finland.
Orlov's analysis is superficial, unfortunately, in these areas.
"... Yes, something happened, but it was because Ukraine did it and not us ..."
"... David Hale, an undersecretary in Trump's own State Department, expressed that concern at a Senate hearing on Tuesday. When asked about the national-security ramifications of the rhetoric, Hale said pointedly, "It does not serve our interests." ..."
This new front opened
when Representative Devin Nunes of California, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, repeatedly
insisted during last month's impeachment hearings that Ukraine had meddled in the 2016 election against Trump. That drew
a stern rebuke from one witness asked to testify, the former Trump National Security Council adviser Fiona Hill, who
warned that congressional Republicans were spreading "a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by
the Russian security services themselves."
But Hill's words have not stopped Republicans from reprising those arguments. In late November, Senator John Kennedy
of Louisiana claimed during a television interview that Ukraine, not Russia, might have hacked the Democratic National
Committee's computers in 2016. After
retreating from that claim
, he went on
Meet the Press
on Sunday
and equated public criticism of Trump by some Ukrainian officials with
Russia's systematic interference campaign in 2016.
The Senate Intelligence
Committee, during its investigation of 2016 election meddling,
found no evidence of Ukrainian interference
. But when asked about Kennedy's comments this week, Senator Richard Burr
of North Carolina, the committee's chairman, came closer to endorsing rather than repudiating them.
"Every elected
official in the Ukraine was for Hillary Clinton,"
Burr told NBC
. "Is that very different than the Russians being for Donald Trump?" Burr went on to liken Russia's
massive intelligence and hacking campaign to occasional public comments by Ukrainian officials critical of Trump. "The
president can say that they meddled because they had a preference, the elected officials,"
Burr said
. Other Republican senators, including John Barrasso of Wyoming, offered similar arguments this week.
The report released on
Monday by House Republicans likewise blurred the difference. "Publicly available -- and irrefutable -- evidence shows how
senior Ukrainian government officials sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in opposition to President
Trump's candidacy," the report insisted.
Tucker Carlson took these arguments to new heights
on his show Monday night, not only minimizing Russian involvement
in 2016 but questioning why the U.S. was opposing its incursion into Ukraine at all. "I think we should probably take
the side of Russia if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine," Carlson insisted.
Republican
foreign-policy experts are still worried about the attempts by GOP leaders to defend Trump by disparaging Ukraine.
"For starters, you end up validating the Kremlin line which they have been peddling since 2016:
Yes, something
happened, but it was because Ukraine did it and not us
," says Richard Fontaine, who runs the nonpartisan Center for
a New American Security and was the top foreign-policy adviser to the late Senator John McCain of Arizona. "It's one
thing if Putin says these things, or if Kremlin spokespeople say these things; people, I hope, will take it with a
gigantic mountain of salt. But when you have U.S. elected leaders saying these things, it gives it a significant dose of
credibility, and that's not a good thing."
David Hale, an undersecretary in Trump's own State Department, expressed that concern at a Senate hearing on
Tuesday. When asked about the national-security ramifications of the rhetoric, Hale said pointedly, "It does not serve
our interests."
The accusations against Ukraine have drawn forceful pushback this week from Democrats, but only a few
Republicans -- most directly Senator Mitt Romney of Utah -- have openly condemned them. "What you are seeing unfortunately is
Republicans wanting to just adopt and parrot the Trump talking points, which also coincide with the Putin talking
points," Van Hollen said.
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat
to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a
manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus
warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy
any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
I agree with everything you say in the article, Mr. Larison. And yet, I have serious qualms
about whether Congress should impeach and remove Trump.
From a purely legal perspective, they should. But impeachment is a blend of legalism and
politics. And the politics here are murky at best. The problem is that Congress does not
come to these issues with clean hands. It is common knowledge that Congress, too, is
corrupt and sells out the national interest in favor of their own political and personal
interests on a daily basis. They have no moral credibility here; who are they to judge the
President? Neither the impeachment itself, nor the subsequent, apparently inevitable,
acquittal by the Senate will be seen as legitimate, except by partisans of the respective
acts. It is all the more problematic because an election is less than a year away.
Yes, I want Trump out of office, too. But unfortunately our Congress lacks the moral
legitimacy to do this; the impeachment and trial will serve only to reinforce each party's
views of the other as treasonous. The impeachment will be seen as an attempted coup, and
the acquittal will be seen as a whitewash and cover-up. (If by some odd circumstance he is
removed rather than acquitted, it will be seen as a successful coup, an undoing of the 2016
election.)
There are no really good outcomes from this scenario. It would, I think, be better for
the the country were the Democrats to reverse course and leave the removal of Trump to the
people next November. We have survived nearly three years of him, we can survive one more.
I fear the fallout from impeachment and trial will create more problems than are
solved.
I agree. I also respectfully disagree with Larrison's judgment and consider this
development as very dangerous for the Republic. We need to weight our personal animosity
toward Trump with the risks of his forceful removal on dubious charges.
Please remember that nobody was impeached for the Iraq war. That creates a really high
plank for the impeachment. And makes any Dems arguments for Trump impeachment not only moot
but a joke.
The fundamental question is: How is lying the country into the Iraq war not impeachable,
and this entrapment impeachable?
The furor over Russian interference in the election, which was extremely minor, if
existed at all, compared to what Churchill did in 1940, was primarily about excusing the
corrupt and incompetent Clinton wing of Democratic Party leadership (Neoliberal Democrats.)
Political "shelf life" for whom is over in any case as neoliberalism is dead as an ideology
and entered zombie ( bloodthirsty ) stage. Hillary political fiasco taught them nothing.
Russiagate was and still is a modern witch hunt, the attempt to patch with Russophobia the
cracks in the neoliberal facade. Neo-McCarthyism, if you wish.
In view of the Iraq war, the impeachment of Trump means the absolute contempt for the
plebs. Again, Trump's election happened because neoliberalism as ideology died in 2008, and
plebs in 2016 refused to follow corrupt neoliberal democrats and decided to show them the
middle finger. They will not follow the neoliberal elite in 2020, impeachment, or no
impeachment. So the whole "Pelosi gambit" (and from the point of view of Nuremberg
principles she is a war criminal like Bush II and Co ) will fail.
The House Democrats did not act as ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the
evidentiary record, and provide the equality of procecutor and the defense in the process
which is the fundamental part of the Due Process prior to filing charges. A large part of
their witnesses (Karlan, Hill, Vindman) were just "true believers" (Karlan) or corrupt Deep
Staters (Hill, Vindman) taking a stand to defend their personal well-being, which is based on warmongering. And protect
their illegal role in formulating the USA foreign policy (actually based on the quality of Fiona Hill book alone, she should
be kept at mile length
from this area; she is a propagandist not a researcher/analyst)
Among State Department witnesses there could well be those who were probably explicitly
or implicitly involved in the money laundering of the US aid money via Ukraine
(Biden-lights so to speak)
The article of impeachment saying:
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat
to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in
a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump
thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold
and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
opens a huge can of worms (this is essentially the Moscow show trials method of removing
politicians.) This is equivalent to a change in the Constitution, introducing the vote of
no confidence as the method removal of the top members of the executive branch.
Impeachment is always a political decision. And here I am not sure the "Pelosi gambit"
will work. I think many independents, who would stay home or would vote for Dems in 2020
now will vote for Trump as a protest against the abuse of impeachment by the
Neoliberal/Corporate Dems.
That people are still dredging up the ludicrous Russiagate
conspiracy theory is beyond pathetic. If that were not enough, there is no
evidence that "Russian hackers" or anyone "screw[ed] with swing states'
election databases".
Full disclosure: were I allowed to decide Trump's
fate, impeachment would be the least of his fears. I would
subject him to the fate of the defendants at Nuremberg.
They poisoned with the USA with Russophobia for decades to come, and that really increases
the risk of nuclear confrontation, which would wipe out all this jerks, but also mass of innocent
people.
Notable quotes:
"... The only way to prevent it, IMHO, is having a Western public shifting just 5 % of their "breads and circuses" paradigm to that issue. Just 5. Not holding my breath I am afraid. ..."
"... Which proves the main point of mine: access to information means shit in the real world of power play. Sheeple didn't care then; they care even less now (better distractions). ..."
Sooner or later you'll have this, IMHO: Reaction time 7 minutes . You know,
decision-making time to say "launch" or not. The decision-maker in the White House, Downing
Street and Elysees Palace either a geriatric or one of this new multiracial breed. Just think
about those people
Add to that the level of overall expertise by the crews manning those systems, its
maintenance etc. Add increased automation of some parts of the launch process with
hardware/software as it's produced now (you know, quality control etc.).
It will take a miracle not to have that launch sooner or later. Not big, say .80 KT. What
happens after that is anybody's guess. Mine, taking the second point from the fourth
paragraph .a big bang.
The only way to prevent it, IMHO, is having a Western public shifting just 5 % of
their "breads and circuses" paradigm to that issue. Just 5.
Not holding my breath I am afraid.
@peterAUS The rational actor false supposition has it that the biologics can't be used
because they don't recognize friend from foe.
Rational actors? Where? Anthrax via the US mail.
One rational actor point of view is that you have to be able to respond to anything.
Anything. In a measured or escalating response. Of course biologics are being actively
pursued to the hilt. Just like you point out about Marburg.
But, the view from above is that general panic in the population cannot be allowed, and so
all biologics have to be down played. "of course we would never do anything like that, it
would be insane to endanger all of humanity". Just like nukes. So professors pontificate
misdirection, and pundits punt.
So don't expect real disclosure, or honest analysis. "We only want the fear that results
in more appropriations. Not the fear that sinks programs." Don't generate new Church
commissions. Hence the fine line. some fear yes, other fears, no.
Well Washington D.C.
Hahahahaha sorry, couldn't resist.
So don't expect real disclosure, or honest analysis.
I don't.
But I also probably forgot more about nuclear war than most of readers here will ever
know. And chemical, when you think about it; had a kit with atropine on me all the time in
all exercises. We didn't practice much that "biologics" stuff, though. We knew why, then.
Same reason for today. Call it a "stoic option" to own inevitable demise.
Now, there is a big difference between the age of those protests I mentioned and today.
The Internet. The access to information people, then, simply didn't have.
Which proves the main point of mine: access to information means shit in the real
world of power play. Sheeple didn't care then; they care even less now (better
distractions).
Well, they will care, I am sure. For about ..say in the USA ..several hours, on
average.
We here where I am typing from will care for "how to survive the aftermath" .. for two
months.Tops.
"... Lavrov told reporters Thursday: "I think that it is difficult to unbalance us and China. We are well aware of what is happening. We have an answer to all the threats that the Alliance is multiplying in this world." He also said the West is seeking to dominate the Middle East under the guise of NATO as well. ..."
"... "Naturally, we cannot but feel worried over what has been happening within NATO," Lavrov stated. "The problem is NATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only NATO is in the position to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West dislikes for some reason ." ..."
"... NATO still exists, according to Lavrov, in order to "eliminate competitors" and ensure a West-dominated global system in search of new official enemies. ..."
"... I'm wondering how many NATO states don't have US Military Bases positioned in them. It's a small distance between a forward operating base and an occupying forces. ..."
"... What NATO is doing is called racketeering. Only the problem of Europe is not Russia, but the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same Americans and NATO. ..."
"... Children sometimes need a made-up friend, and these bastards need a made-up enemy. Russia is perfect for this. ..."
"... LOL. The NATO ONLY serves US interests. It has the same function as always. Keep the US in, Russia out and Germany down. ..."
"... The collapse of the US empire has been underway for years. Nobody is excited about it because, instead of gracefully adapting to change with the dignity of a great nation, the US will continue to cling to denial, lashing out at all and sundry as reality intrudes upon the myth of American exceptionalism. ..."
"... US geopolitics has created a foe it cannot defeat without itself being destroyed. ..."
"... Technocratic sociopaths, doing a CYA for their incompetence. ..."
"... ZATO cries out in pain as it strikes you. ..."
NATO Seeking To "Dominate The World" & Eliminate Competitors: Russia's Lavrov by
Tyler Durden Mon,
12/09/2019 - 02:45 0 SHARES
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has charged NATO with wanting to "dominate the world"
a day after 70th anniversary events of the alliance concluded in London.
"We absolutely understand that NATO wants to dominate the world and wants to eliminate any
competitors, including resorting to an information war, trying to unbalance us and China,"
Lavrov said from Bratislava,
the capital of Slovakia, while attending the 26th Ministerial Council of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
He seized upon NATO leaders' comments this week, specifically Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg, naming China as a new enemy alongside Russia . Stoltenberg declared
at the summit that NATO has to "tackle the issue" of China's growing
capabilities.
Lavrov told reporters Thursday: "I think that it is difficult to unbalance us and China. We
are well aware of what is happening. We have an answer to all the threats that the Alliance is
multiplying in this world." He also said the West is seeking to dominate the Middle East under
the guise of NATO as well.
The new accusation of 'world domination'
comes at a crisis moment of growing and deep divisions over the future of the Cold War era
military alliance, including back-and-forth comments on Macron's "brain death" remarks, and
looming questions over Turkey's fitness to remain in NATO, and the ongoing debate over cost
sharing burdens and the scope of the mission.
"Naturally, we cannot but feel worried over what has been happening within NATO," Lavrov
stated. "The problem is NATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to
persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only NATO is in the position
to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West dislikes for
some reason ."
A consistent theme of Lavrov's has been
to call for a "post-West world order" but that NATO has "remained a Cold War institution"
hindering balance in global relations where countries can pursue their own national
interests.
NATO still exists, according to Lavrov, in order to "eliminate competitors" and ensure a West-dominated global system in
search of new official enemies.
Remember the last Bilderberg meeting. Russia and China were not invited. The globalists
have planned this, and apparently, Russia has better intelligence to know what's going on,
and they will take the necessary precautions, along with China. Let's just hope it's not
going to lead us to WW3.
I'm wondering how many NATO states don't have US Military Bases positioned in them. It's a small distance between a forward operating base and an occupying forces.
NATO is not trying to dominate, NATO is trying to extend its profit from frightened
European donkeys who still believe that the USSR exists, and Uncle Joe sits in the Kremlin
and eats a Christian baby in garlic sauce for lunch.
What NATO is doing is called racketeering. Only the problem of Europe is not Russia, but
the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same Americans and NATO.
So there will
be a big "raspathosovka" with shooting and explosions, do not even doubt it.. Only the problem of
Europe is not Russia, but the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same
Americans and NATO. So there will be a big **** with shooting and explosions, do not even
doubt it.
I'll just repeat the erased: NATO - lovers of freebies and they don't refuse this
freebie voluntarily. Children sometimes need a made-up friend, and these bastards need a
made-up enemy. Russia is perfect for this.
NATO is obsolete. The organization no longer serves US interests, and quite frankly,
hasn't for some time. I respectfully suggest the USA move all forces out of Germany on day 1, and station them
at Fort Trump in Poland.
Day 2, the US forms a new "mutual defense pact" with Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.
(Former Eastern Bloc nations)
Russia and Germany can duke it out, just not where our guys are hanging out. Hades,
Germany and France can limp wrist at each other as they have done in the past so many
times. But insofar as US troops leaving continental Europe forever? Sorry Sergei, that ain't happening, no matter how much
propaganda you shove up western
europe's (willing) ***.
Meanwhile Vlad makes new friends around the world... Last year Putin signed accords with President Macri of Argentina which included Russia
recognizing Argentina's Falklands claim. (La Voz, 23 Jan 2018).
An Argentinian claim based upon 'usurpation' – meaningless in the 18th century and
inheritance from Spain just like Mexico inherited California and Texas.
The NATO advantage right now is of the least dirty shirt variety. As it stands, I am not
excited about the thought of the US empire collapsing. People have been predicting that for
a while and for the moment, I don't see a legit replacement stepping up to the plate. The
US is a crooked gangster, but the other countries are not exactly ready for the big
league.
The NATO advantage right now is of the least dirty shirt variety.
The NATO disadvantage right now is of the "sitting with pants full of **** and asking
others who farted" variety.
As it stands, I am not excited about the thought of the US empire collapsing.
The collapse of the US empire has been underway for years. Nobody is excited about it
because, instead of gracefully adapting to change with the dignity of a great nation, the
US will continue to cling to denial, lashing out at all and sundry as reality intrudes upon
the myth of American exceptionalism.
I don't see a legit replacement stepping up to the plate.
US imperial decline is reminiscent of Casey at the Bat.
but the other countries are not exactly ready for the big league.
Or they've decided the US game is not worth playing.
Since 2013 I have followed Russian foreign policy and actions in the middle east and
elsewhere,thanks to statesmen like Lavrov they have crossed every t and dotted every i
following international law and convention, true history will be a lot kinder to Russia than
N ot A nother T errorist O rganisation
What is happening to Europe is the same as what's happening to Russia, only Russia
didn't ask for it. Nevertheless, Azeris and Tatars are on the rise demographically, and
Russians are on the decline.
I don't think Russia ... or China for that matter ... need to worry much. The West is imploding and NATO will implode along with it. The West can't even depend on its technical superiority anymore ( see Boeing 737MAX
); it sure can't depend on (most of) its people to do any real fighting.
NATO is fading and becoming a contradictory mess. China and Russia will be the foe, with possibly India, and far more effective,
economically and militarily. Europe doesn't stand a chance against these no matter how they posture, their slope is
downward.
US geopolitics has created a foe it cannot defeat without itself being destroyed.
"The problem is ZATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to
persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only ZATO is in the
position to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West
dislikes for some reason ."
@Moi You are quite correct. The overly sanguine attitude of many Christians toward
nuclear war one might call "nuclear exceptionalism." They adopted the imaginary hope of
Anglo-Irish 1800's cult leader John Nelson Darby: "Darby has been credited with originating
the pre-tribulational rapture theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove His bride, the
Church, from this world to its heavenly destiny before the judgments of the tribulation."
(Wikipedia).
The military leadership are loaded with rapture believers, in particular the Air Force. So
if the world nukes itself, that's fine by them; they have no skin in the "game."
Except that on Judgment Day they will have to give account for the lives they destroy by
their recklessness. The turning of Christ into a war god is both blasphemy and idolatry, for
which also they will give account. "My Kingdom is not of this world," said the Lord to
Pilate. Christians are to contend for the Gospel through love, not war.
Both Saker reviews are important, and I'll get both books.
My own experience with US Army officers and enlisted – and this extended over40
years off and on, the last encounters six continuous years ending in 1992 – was that
the WW2 men were realists and competent. And that their replacements were delusional fools.
The level of incompetence was breath-taking by 1992 – when NATO as the cloak of Empire
undertook to bomb cities in Yugoslavia – self evidently criminal and foolish officers
went along And I said Adios MoFo
@peterAUS Tactical nukes. Such a humane idea. Doesn't that make everyone feel warm and
fuzzy all over. Nuclear war, even a first strike, is now acceptable. Isn't semantics
wonderful! Tactical nukes are the thing, to NOT prick the conscience of the western public.
I do not envy the Russian position. They can't publicly warn the US/Israel against nuclear
strikes. The MSM would take such a common sense position and spin into more Russian bullying.
How dare they tell us what we can't do! The Russian message would quickly be lost in a wave
of western hysterics.
On the other hand, a secret warning is of limited value. If they listen, great. What if
they call Russia's bluff? Being secret, the Russians could back down and not even lose face.
It seems obvious that the psychopathic thinking among western elites is based on the idea
that they can get away with nuclear strikes against Iran because Russian retaliation will
mean the end of humanity therefore they will not respond.
I'm sure the Russians have already calculated what is and is not acceptable when war comes
to Iran. How much damage will nuking an entire country do to Russia and all of Asia? If the
fall out is that extreme then they might treat such an attack as an attack on Russia itself.
I do think the likely plan is to make the best of whatever happens. No matter how one spins
it, a Russian nuclear response is the end of humanity. An extreme option the Russians will
try to avoid if possible.
All this is based on the assumption Israel or America will use their nuclear arsenal. If
Hitler had the bomb in 1945 would he have used it? Of course he would have. The people
running the West have shown the same callous disregard for human life. There is no moral
deterrent to stop these people. Plus all western propaganda the past 20 years has been aimed
at making the use of nuclear weapons acceptable. Why would they be conditioning their public
unless they wished to have the option to use them?
How do we get there? Yes the US military has the ability to drop lots of bombs and destroy
many things. Yet in any war primary targets will all be hit fairly quickly. Then what? From
Day Two they are into the phase of diminishing returns. This is what confronted the IDF in
2006. So you go to tactical nukes. However I see the nuclear attack coming on the heels of a
ferocious Iranian counter attack. Psychologically can America handle even minimal losses? The
most likely response will be a huge temper tantrum: "how dare they fight back!" The nuclear
option will be taken because things will have gone wrong. It will be as much a show of
weakness as strength. Plus it won't be just one of two bombs. Because the Iranians will not
say "Uncle". The Japanese did after Nagasaki, however the Japanese were trying to surrender
the entire time. The Iranians will never surrender. Therefore 80 million dead might not be
unreasonable. Especially if there is no longer any Reason left in the western world.
This can be prevented but only by the western public. You know the most apathetic/ignorant
and propagandized public on the planet. As Vietnam and Iraq proved, Americans have no
conscience when it comes to dead foreigners. They get what they deserve for "starting" a war
against Uncle Sam. Yet there are two Achilles Heels.
1) Americans hate losing. Iraq was a great success during the Mission Accomplished phase.
The moment the narrative changed Americans quickly switched to hating their leadership for
botching Iraq. So how long before Americans turn against an Iran War that isn't an easy win
– and can't be won because the Iranians will never surrender. Or how well does the MSM
do in turning such losses into part of a patriotic war that Americans' must support and
win?
2) Quality of life. All westerners are the most spoiled people in human history.
Consequently we have become the most materialistic and the most superficial people ever. We
are an "end justifies the means" society. So long as we have our tvs and weekend football and
our quality of life hasn't fallen too far, too fast, we are perfectly happy to give our
political elites a blank cheque to do whatever they like. Bomb Yugoslavia, invade
Afghanistan, destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, murder Palestinians, sanction or threaten
regime change the list is endless. Everything is on the table – likely nuclear
holocaust too(so long as it's them doing the dying) – just don't mess with our Cozy
Prisons! Support for war on Iran will evaporate pretty fast unless such a war can be
prosecuted quickly and everything can return to normal fast. Definitely westerners –
not just Americans – will support nuclear strikes. There will be some initial shock,
which the MSM will cover over. Then everyone will fall into line because we'll need to win
the war and get back to normal. Nuclear weapons will be seen as the convenient solution for
the problem. End justifies the means.
Maybe I'm wrong about westerners and they still have a conscience. After 20 years of
accepting endless wars, it doesn't seem likely.
Circle 2021 on your calendars. Once Trump is re-elected there will be nothing to stop him.
If there are any history classes in the future then 2021 will be remember like 1914 or 1789
or 1066. I still hope it is remembered as the year the states of Israel and USA ceased to
exist.
@Jim Christian "Fact is, if the elites and corporate defense establishment of the US
would become diplomatic, imagine the cooperation between us and Russia that could take place.
Imagine the prosperity! Even the elites could share in it!"
Exactly so. This was the basis for my immediate initial support for Trump; his calling
bullshit on the entire rationale behind the empire, and the potential benefits of a new
detente. (Even if we were evil geni, it would make more sense to at least pretend to be
non-threatening.) This is the root of the hostility to Trump, IMO.
Incidentally, this piece and it's commentary is greatly supportive of Ron's argument that
heavy users should step up and financially support the UR. I haven't seen this sort of thing
anywhere else easily available on the web. I don't comment much here (feeling somewhat too
short for this ride ) but I do spend hours everyday, reading most of the articles and many
comments. Would definitely donate.
@Andrei Martyanov I suspect that the US is extremely concerned about Russia's
decapitating first strike capability via nuclear armed Zircons (1-2 minutes flight time to
Washington DC or New York) who are hard to detect, almost impossible to stop missiles. The US
does not have a capability like this. This is why the whole talk about buying Greenland. It
is very important to stop russian subs from reaching the Atlantic US Coast.
How can a US president sleep if he knows that a russian tactical nuclear missile could
arrive in 1-2 minutes?
In 1-2 minutes the WhiteHouse, Congress, Federal Reserve HQ, CIA and NSA HQs, Pentagon,
etc will be gone. No wonder Putin is trolling the US about selling some hypersonic
weapons.
.the psychopathic thinking among western elites is based on the idea that they can get
away with nuclear strikes against Iran because Russian retaliation will mean the end of
humanity therefore they will not respond.
Something like that.
I'm sure the Russians have already calculated what is and is not acceptable when war
comes to Iran.
Any interested state-level player has.
No matter how one spins it, a Russian nuclear response is the end of humanity.
Yep.
There is no moral deterrent to stop these people.
You mean TPTBs in the West? Yep ..
The Iranians will never surrender. Therefore 80 million dead might not be
unreasonable.
Disagree.
This can be prevented but only by the western public. You know the most
apathetic/ignorant and propagandized public on the planet.
Don't say.
So how long before Americans turn against an Iran War that isn't an easy win – and
can't be won because the Iranians will never surrender.
The Iranian regime can surrender–>from then on there are a couple of
scenarios.
As, for example:
So long as we have our tvs and weekend football and our quality of life hasn't fallen
too far, too fast, we are perfectly happy to give our political elites a blank cheque to do
whatever they like
And so long as I don't get drafted to be a part of occupying force in Iran among some
other things.
Definitely westerners – not just Americans – will support nuclear strikes.
There will be some initial shock, which the MSM will cover over. Then everyone will fall
into line because we'll need to win the war and get back to normal. Nuclear weapons will be
seen as the convenient solution for the problem. End justifies the means.
Yep.
Maybe I'm wrong about westerners and they still have a conscience. After 20 years of
accepting endless wars, it doesn't seem likely.
Now, the key question is, how is this relevant. I have no doubt that this and previous book
contain good info, but can this info be ever digested by the US politicians and neocons? Of
course not!
The US elites have degenerated to the point of no return. This always happens to the
elites of dying empires. So, discussing the reality, military or economic, with them is like
teaching madhouse inmates calculus. You might be right, but they won't appreciate it.
@Jim Christian There is already some internal opposition to war with Iran. Out of the
various recent provocations, the US has been reluctant to escalate. Maybe its Trump's
skepticism regarding the list of options provided by the military. Or his political
instincts. It would be an unpopular war without a rapid, decisive victory, which is
unrealistic.
I think other than a rather weak veto power, Trump is too weak to prevent a war. So I
think some other faction of the elite is resisting. Maybe the military. It would be logical
for them to resist. They got their big budget without needing a war. And they would be stuck
with the mess.
The war has been teed up for a Trump signoff two or three times lately. If the only
missing piece is finding the sucker to take the blame, it is inevitable. Rather, I would
infer that there is some deep opposition, that is lying low. The large defense contractors
have it pretty good right now, but they probably aren't set up to oppose any war, however
foolish.
@Andrei Martyanov Our societies have been gutted by thieves and their accomplices while
the thieves buddies look on and play loud music to confuse everyone. The thieves are the
buzzard 'capitalists', the accomplices are the crooked politicians and the noise comes from
the media.
The common denominator in the U.S., Canada, Australia, the U.K., NZ and others is that the
thieves den is a triumvirate: Old Money 'elite' (read: scum), New Money Jews and the
politicos (multi-generational civil servant families and the con artists talking head actors
who play president, pm, etc.).
The West has been systematically destroyed. Every institution has been corrupted including
our religions. The Vatican, for example, was completely corrupted in the early 1960's when,
according to Father Malachi Martin, Satan formally enthroned himself in Vatican City.
There is a common denominator here gentlemen: destruction. Satan is always close to any such
destruction which is why Communism has always been so anti-Christian and anti-religion (China
destroyed Buddhism and is destroying Falun Gong, or trying to). Our elites and the elite Jews
have a religion of their own: Luciferianism.
It is time to pray gentlemen. We need a miracle. It isn't too late to turn this ship around.
We just need the willpower to do it. Prayer is the beginning of building the strength to do
what is needed for our progeny.
@Passer by{ the US is extremely concerned about Russia's decapitating first strike
capability} {How can a US president sleep if he knows that a russian tactical nuclear missile could
arrive in 1-2 minutes?}
By making sure US does not initiate a nuke strike on Russia.
Why would Russia initiate a 'decapitating* nuke strike' on US?
What will she gain by it? Nothing.
Both US and Russia will have more than enough surviving nukes to wipe the other out, and then
some, if one of them initiates a nuke first strike.
My guess is Russia continues developing faster, harder to detect nuke strike systems to
deter the psychopaths in US from doing something stupid and awful. But the problem with all
these developments of ever faster strike capabilities – on both sides – is that
the possibility of an accidental nuke strike by one side or another, keeps increasing.
Because it takes a few minutes for a missile to reach its target, you cannot afford to wait:
if your defenses falsely detect a 'launch', then you _have_ to launch and then the runaway
chain reaction of strike-counterstrike-countercounterstrike begins ..and everything ends.
______________________________
* there is no such thing as 'decapitating' nuke strike against US or Russia. Both are
large enough and have enough nuke warheads (8,000-10,000) to render the idea of a
'decapitating' strike meaningless. Just one (surviving) boomer sub (US or Russia) carries
enough nuke warheads/megatons to wipe most of US/Russia.
"... Primacists use the security threats that are responding to the unnecessary use of U.S. military force to justify why the U.S. shouldn't stop, or in fact increase, the use of force. ..."
"... These stale arguments claim there will be consequences of leaving while conveniently ignoring the consequences of staying, which of course are far from trivial. For example, veteran suicide is an epidemics and military spending to perpetuate U.S. primacy continues at unnecessarily high rates. The presence of U.S. soldiers in these complex conflicts can even draw us into more unnecessary wars. The United States can engage the world in ways that don't induce the security dilemma to undermine our own security; reduce our military presence in the Middle East, engage Iran and other states in the region diplomatically and economically, and don't walk away from already agreed upon diplomatic arraignments that are favorable to all parties involved. ..."
"... September 11th was planned in Germany and the United States, the ability to exist in Afghanistan under the Taliban without persecution didn't enable 9/11, and denying this space wouldn't have prevented it. ..."
"... For those arguing to maintain the ongoing forever wars, American credibility will always be ruined in the aftermath of withdrawal. Here's the WSJ piece on that point: "When America withdraws from the Middle East unilaterally, the Russians internalize this and move into Crimea and Ukraine; the Chinese internalize it and move into the South China Sea and beyond in the Pacific." ..."
"... The exorbitant costs of the U.S.'s numerous military engagements around the world need to be justified by arguing that they secure vital U.S. interests. Without it, Primacists couldn't justify the cost in American lives. Whether the military even has the ability to solve all problems in international relations aside, not all interests are equal in severity and importance. ..."
"... This article originally appeared on LobeLog.com . ..."
The unrivaled and unchallenged exertion of American military power around the world, or
what's known as "primacy," has been the basis for U.S. Grand Strategy over the past 70 years
and has faced few intellectual and political challenges. The result has been stagnant ideas,
poor logic, and an ineffective foreign policy. As global security challenges have evolved, our
foreign policy debate has remained in favor of primacy, repeatedly relying on a select few,
poorly conceived ideas and arguments. Primacy's greatest hits arguments are played on repeat
throughout the policy and journalism worlds and its latest presentation is in a recent
article in
the Wall Street Journal, written by its chief foreign policy correspondent, titled,
"America Can't Escape the Middle East." The piece provides a case study in how stagnant these
ideas have become, and how different actors throughout the system present them without serious
thought or contemplation.
Hyping the threat of withdrawal
The WSJ piece trotted out one of the most well-worn cases for unending American military
deployments in the region. "The 2003 invasion of Iraq proved to be a debacle," it rightly
notes. However, there's always a "but":[B]ut subsequent attempts to pivot away from the region
or ignore it altogether have contributed to humanitarian catastrophes, terrorist outrages and
geopolitical setbacks, further eroding America's standing in the world."
Primacists often warn of the dire security threats that will result from leaving Middle East
conflict zones. The reality is that the threats they cite are actually caused by the
unnecessary use of force by the United States in the first place. For example, the U.S. sends
military assets to deter Iran, only to have Iran increase attacks or provocations in response.
The U.S. then beefs up its military presence
to protect the forces that are already there. Primacists use the security threats that
are responding to the unnecessary use of U.S. military force to justify why the U.S. shouldn't
stop, or in fact increase, the use of force.
These stale arguments claim there will be consequences of leaving while conveniently
ignoring the consequences of staying, which of course are far from trivial. For example,
veteran suicide is an epidemics and military spending to perpetuate U.S. primacy continues at
unnecessarily high rates. The presence of U.S. soldiers in these complex conflicts can even
draw us into more unnecessary wars. The United States can engage the world in ways that don't
induce the security dilemma to undermine our own security; reduce our military presence in the
Middle East, engage Iran and other states in the region diplomatically and economically, and
don't walk away from already agreed upon diplomatic arraignments that are favorable to all
parties involved.
Terrorism safe havens
And how many times have we heard that we must defend some undefined geographical space to
prevent extremists from plotting attacks? "In the past, jihadists used havens in Afghanistan,
Yemen, Syria and Iraq to plot more ambitious and deadly attacks, including 9/11," the WSJ piece
says. "Though Islamic State's self-styled 'caliphate' has been dismantled, the extremist
movement still hasn't been eliminated -- and can bounce back."
The myth of the terrorism safe havens enabling transnational attacks on the United States
has
persisted despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and significant scholarly research
that contradicts it. The myth persists because it provides a simple and comforting narrative
that's easy to understand. September 11th was planned in Germany and the United States, the
ability to exist in Afghanistan under the Taliban without persecution didn't enable 9/11, and
denying this space wouldn't have prevented it.
Terrorists don't need safe havens to operate, and only gain marginal increases in
capabilities by having access to them. Organizations engage in terrorism because they have such
weak capabilities in the first place. These movements are designed to operate underground with
the constant threat of arrest and execution. The Weatherman Underground in the United States
successfully carried out bombings while operating within the United States itself. The Earth
Liberation Front did the same by organizing into cells where no cell knew anything about the
other cells to prevent the identification of other members if members of one cell were
arrested. Organizations that engage in terrorism can operate with or without safe havens.
Although safe havens don't add significantly to a terrorist groups' capabilities, governing
your own territory is something completely different. ISIS is a commonly used, and misused,
example for why wars should be fought to deny safe havens. A safe haven is a country or region
in which a terrorist group is free from harassment or persecution. This is different from what
ISIS created in 2014. What ISIS had when it swept across Syria and Iraq in 2014 was a
proto-state. This gave them access to a tax base, oil revenues, and governing resources. Safe
havens don't provide any of this, at least not at substantial levels. The Islamic State's
construction of a proto-state in Syria and Iraq did give them operational capabilities they
wouldn't have had otherwise, but this isn't the same as the possible safe havens that would be
gained from a military withdrawal from Middle Eastern conflicts. The conditions of ISIS's rise
in 2014 don't exist today and the fears of an ISIS resurgence like their initial rise are
unfounded .
Credibility doesn't work how you think it works
For those arguing to maintain the ongoing forever wars, American credibility will always
be ruined in the aftermath of withdrawal. Here's the WSJ piece on that point: "When America
withdraws from the Middle East unilaterally, the Russians internalize this and move into Crimea
and Ukraine; the Chinese internalize it and move into the South China Sea and beyond in the
Pacific."
Most commentators have made this claim without recognition of their own contradictions that
abandoning the Kurds in Syria would damage American credibility. They then list all the other
times we've abandoned the Kurds. Each of these betrayals didn't stop them from working with the
United States again, and this latest iteration will be the same. People don't work with the
United States because they trust or respect us, they do it because we have a common interest
and the United States has the capability to get things done. As we were abandoning the Kurds
this time to be attacked by the Turks, Kurdish officials were continuing to
share intelligence with U.S. officials to facilitate the raid on ISIS leader Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi because both the United States and the Kurds wanted Baghdadi eliminated and only
the United States had the capability to get it done.
Similarly, the idea that pulling out militarily in one region results in a direct chain of
events where our adversaries move into countries or areas in a completely different region is
quite a stretch of the imagination. Russia moved into Crimea because it's a strategic asset and
it was taking advantage of what it saw as an opportunity: instability and chaos in Kiev. Even
if we left troops in every conflict country we've ever been in, Russia would have correctly
assessed that Ukraine just wasn't important enough to spark a U.S. invasion. When the Soviets
withdrew from Afghanistan, did the United States invade Cuba? What alliance did the Soviets or
Chinese abandon before the United States entered the Korean War?
Assessments of credibility , especially in times of crisis (like that in Ukraine), are made
based on what leaders think the other country's interests are and the capabilities they have to
pursue those interests. There is no evidence to support -- in fact there is a lot of evidence
that contradicts -- the idea that withdrawing militarily from one region or ending an alliance
has any impact on assessments of a country's reliability or credibility.
Not all interests are created equal
Threat inflation isn't just common from those who promote a primacy-based foreign policy,
it's necessary. Indeed, as the WSJ piece claimed, "There is no avoiding the fact that the
Middle East still matters a great deal to U.S. interests."
The exorbitant costs of the U.S.'s numerous military engagements around the world need
to be justified by arguing that they secure vital U.S. interests. Without it, Primacists
couldn't justify the cost in American lives. Whether the military even has the ability to solve
all problems in international relations aside, not all interests are equal in severity and
importance. Vital interests are those that directly impact the survival of the United
States. The only thing that can threaten the survival of the United States is another powerful
state consolidating complete control of either Europe or East Asia. This would give them the
capabilities and freedom to strike directly at the territorial United States. This is why the
United States stayed in Europe after WWII, to prevent the consolidation of Europe by the
Soviets. Addressing the rise of China -- which will require some combination of cooperation and
competition -- is America's vital interest today and keeping troops in Afghanistan to prevent a
terrorism safe haven barely registers as a peripheral interest. There are U.S. interests in the
Middle East, but these interests are not important enough to sacrifice American soldiers for
and can't easily be secured through military force anyway.
Consequences
Most of these myths and arguments can be summarized by the claim that any disengagement of
any kind by the United States from the Middle East comes with consequences. This isn't entirely
wrong, but it isn't really relevant either unless compared with the consequences of continuing
engagement at current levels. We currently have 67,000 troops in the
Middle East and Afghanistan and those troops are targets of adversaries, contribute to
instability, empower hardliners in Iran, and provide continuing legitimacy to insurgent and
terrorist organizations fighting against a foreign occupation. One
article in The Atlantic argued that the problem with a progressive foreign policy
is that restraint comes with costs, almost ironically ignoring the fact that the U.S.'s current
foreign policy also comes with, arguably greater, costs. A military withdrawal, or even
drawdown, from the Middle East does come with consequences, but it's only believable that these
costs are higher than staying through the perpetuation of myths and misconceptions that inflate
such risks and costs. No wonder then that these myths have become the greatest hits of a
foreign policy that's stuck in the past.
From page 12 of Martyanov's RRMA, " people such as Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, none of whom had spent a
day serving in cadre officer uniform "
Rumsfeld was in fact a Naval Aviator who flew ASW aircraft for a number of years and retired from the Navy Reserve as a full
Captain.
Rumsfeld was in fact a Naval Aviator who flew ASW aircraft for a number of years
A Tracker, in 1950s for a couple of years, while having a degree in Political Science. That sure qualifies him for making strategic
decisions, right? Especially in the 21st century. Well, we all saw results, didn't we?
@Jim Christian Jim, a lot of truth in what you say. But especially this:
As for the military? A reflection of our society. When I went into the Navy in 1975, it was Stars and Stripes and we served
in large part for Mom, Apple Pie and Chevrolet.
Here is a quote from one of Russian undercover intelligence assets which was outed when Anna Chapman was outed. Unlike her,
however, this guy was a real deal. Here is what he had to say recently about US:
What is THEIR weakness? As enemies these guys are mediocrities, second rate. They overate. Their previous generation was
stronger. They respected us, we respected them. We don't respect these ones,they didn't deserve it. They can bully, as for
the real fight–we'll see about that They are enraged that soon they will have to live within their means.They forgot how to
do so long time ago. That is why they want to solve a problem with us now, while others are still afraid of them.
I remember 70s and 80s clearly, being myself a Cold Warrior, these were different times. many different people. Today, as you
say, I see decay everywhere in everything, the country (the US) was literally robbed, people blinded and all for a reasons of
bottom line in "business" and for Israel's, Saudi and corporate interests. The America I encountered in 1990s is gone.
"... Today USA even is no more an entity. You can not negotiate a thing with "America" because there is no such institution any more, but a hellish swarm of infighting spiders, each delightfully breaking anything negotiated by a rival spider. ..."
US political "elites" are generally appallingly incompetent in matters of war and are
"educated" mostly through Hollywood and Clansiesque "literature". I am not even sure that
they comprehend what Congressional Research Service prepares for them as compressed
briefings. Neocon wing of US political elite is simply mentally inadequate.
Very true, especially the part about "Hollywood and Clansiesque 'literature.'" I used to
read Clancy's books and, while entertaining, in retrospect they appear ridiculous, even
childish. But they probably capture the popular notion of American military invincibility
better than any other.
Most of Hollywood's output is garbage anyway, and its grasp of real war and military
matters appears to be that of a not so precocious third grader.
Katyn, whoever did it, was much before Cold War and before even first relatively small
nuclear blast.
And if you want to go that far – why not remember crisis over West Berlin, where
tank armees were watching one another, but no one pulled trigger?
Afghanistan was attacking one's own ally. Same as Prague 1968 and Hungary 1956.
If you want to compare – that is like USA invading Panama to remove their no longer
reliable puppet Norriega.
Did American attack on their own Panama risk USSR going ballistic? Hardly so. There was no Soviet invasion into Pakistan nor there was Chinese/American invasion into
India.
And looking away from purely military events, there was no attempt to arrest the whole
embassy stuff them, neither in Moscow nor in DC. No killing Soviet ambassadors in NATO states
during official events.
Those dirty games had red lines, both sides maintained. Today? Today USA even is no more
an entity. You can not negotiate a thing with "America" because there is no such institution
any more, but a hellish swarm of infighting spiders, each delightfully breaking anything
negotiated by a rival spider.
> deploying conventional anti-ballistic missile defenses around their most important
cities.
No, by then effective treaty both USSR and USA had only ONE region they were allowed to
protect.
Those were some nuclear launchpads in USA i guess, and one single city (Moscow) in USSR. No
more.
> deterrence [did not] worked > See the last phrase in bullet 2.
You suppose USSR killed itself trying to keep deterrence working.
That does not show it did not work, already.
That shows it worked so well (at least from Soviet perspective) that they gambled all they
had on the futile effort of keeping that deterrence working into the future.
"... It may be as simple as Trump does not really know what he's doing. He doesn't seem to understand the complexity and dynamics of foreign policy. The way he handled Israel is an example as well as some of the bombs he ordered dropped on Afghanistan and Syria. Was he behind that or was someone else? ..."
"... After Bolton came onboard, and then Eliot Abrams, the 24/7 Russia-gate suddenly stopped. That was also around the time USA was fomenting a Venezuelan coup. Was obvious that Russia-Gate was designed to control Trump. ..."
"... The US had power, and no-one else had any. That's all they needed to know, and set about creating new, wonderfully intoxicating realities. As Rove famously inverted the MO they'll act first, creating realities and the analysis and calculation can come later. In awe of their creations, they failed to notice that while history may have ended in Washington, elsewhere it moved on to surround them with a reality where they found themselves in zugzwang, with no understanding how they got there. Flailing (and wailing) like a Mastodon in a tar pit, they've managed only to attract an unhelpful crowd of onlookers, fascinated by the abomination. ..."
"... If that's so, his is the most extraordinary political performance I thought I'd ever see. Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he promised to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing. I guess we'll see if he abandons buffoonery when his opponents finally sink into the tar. ..."
@Z-man I
wasn't sure how to characterize McMaster and Kelly. My sense was that they represented the
foreign policy establishment consensus, ergo neocon by default.
I share your optimism about Trump -- because it's the only strand of hope out there, and
his enemies are so impeccably loathsome -- but am fully prepared to be proved wrong.
"How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it
was the doing and legacy of the neocon John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security
adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate such
appointees."
It started before Bolton came on board.
Believe Trump when he says "Loyalty to me first". And that begins with his son in law
Jared .his former personal attorney Jason Greenblatt .his former bankruptcy attorney David
Friedman and his largest donor Sheldon Adelson .
Trump is too stupid to see that his Zios have no loyalty to him. Trump doesn't appoint anyone, doesn't even know anyone to appoint to national security or
foreign policy. He never had any associations or confidents in his business life in NY except
the above Jews .
Ask yourself how a 29 year old Jewish boy (now gone) with zero experience got brought onto
the WH NSC. He was recommended by Gen. Flynn who did it as a favor to Zio Frank Gaffney of
Iraq fame, and Jared because he was a friend of Jared and Gaffney was a friend Ezra's family.
..getting the picture?
All Trumps appointments look like a chain letter started by Kushner and his Zio
connections.
It may be as simple as Trump does not really know what he's doing. He doesn't seem to
understand the complexity and dynamics of foreign policy. The way he handled Israel is an
example as well as some of the bombs he ordered dropped on Afghanistan and Syria. Was he
behind that or was someone else?
He's a walking contradiction.
After Bolton came onboard, and then Eliot Abrams, the 24/7 Russia-gate suddenly stopped.
That was also around the time USA was fomenting a Venezuelan coup. Was obvious that
Russia-Gate was designed to control Trump.
There was a lull in the attacks on Trump between the time they stopped the 24/7
Russia-gate garbage and start of Impeachment inquiry.
He did something else to tick them all off, so now impeachment is on front burner.
In the days of Kissinger, Baker, et al the Imperial Staff were well coached in the
Calculus of Power, knew the limits to Empire and thrived within them. Since the end of
history, and the apparent end of limits, policy makers had no more need of realists and their
confusing calculations and analyses.
The US had power, and no-one else had any. That's all they needed to know, and set about
creating new, wonderfully intoxicating realities. As Rove famously inverted the MO they'll
act first, creating realities and the analysis and calculation can come later. In awe of
their creations, they failed to notice that while history may have ended in Washington,
elsewhere it moved on to surround them with a reality where they found themselves in
zugzwang, with no understanding how they got there. Flailing (and wailing) like a Mastodon in
a tar pit, they've managed only to attract an unhelpful crowd of onlookers, fascinated by the
abomination.
In the second term watch out Trump is not as dumb as they think
I too believe he isn't dumb, but the real question is whether he's playing the fool in
furtherance of a plan, or whether it's just who he is and his successes are accidental.
The Deep State's (aka: PFPE's) ongoing behaviour indicates that Trump's using buffoonery
to work a plan that's anathema to their created realities, and their increasing shrillness
indicates it's working. At every turn, he's managed to make unavailable the resources their
reality called for. From the M.E., to the Ukraine to N. Korea to Venezuela, things just
aren't working the way they're supposed to. In fact, they're invariably working out in a way
that exposes the Deep State's ineptitude and malevolence, and maximizes its
embarrassment.
If that's so, his is the most extraordinary political performance I thought I'd ever see.
Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he promised
to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing. I guess we'll see
if he abandons buffoonery when his opponents finally sink into the tar.
Decades old rhetorical question and answer-the indolent, indoctrinated and illiterate masses
who only care about the Super Bowl and other sports,Disneyland and burgers. Twelve per cent of
Americans have never heard of the Vice President Mike Pence - that is 30,870,000 American
adults.
It is the same people who have been making it since the creation of central banks in
America (all three of them).
Never in the history of America, probably never in the history of any country, had there
been such open and direct control of governmental activities by the very rich. So long as a
handful of men in Wall Street control the credit and industrial processes of the country,
they will continue to control the press, the government, and, by deception, the people. They
will not only compel the public to work for them in peace, but to fight for them in war.
– John Turner, 1922
"... This is just low level Soviet-style propaganda: "Beacon of democracy" and "Hope of all progressive mankind" cliché. My impression is that the train left the station long ago, especially as for democracy. Probably in 1963. The reality is a nasty struggle of corrupt political clans. Which involves intelligence agencies dirty tricks. BTW, how do you like that fact that Corporate Democrats converted themselves in intelligence agencies' cheerleading squad? ..."
"... And both Corporate Dems and opposing them Republican are afraid to discuss the real issues facing the country, such as loss of manufacturing, loss of good middle class jobs (fake labor statistics covers the fact the most new jobs are temps/contractors and McJobs), rampant militarism with Afghan war lasting decades, neocon dominance in foreign policy which led to increase of country debt to level that might soon be unsustainable. ..."
"... Both enjoy impeachment Kabuki theater. With Trump probably enjoying this theatre the most: if they just censure him, he wins, if charges go to Senate, he wins big. ..."
From the founding of this country, the power of the president was understood to have
limits. Indeed, the Founders would never have written an impeachment clause into the
Constitution if they did not foresee scenarios where their descendants might need to remove
an elected president before the end of his term in order to protect the American people and
the nation.
The question before the country now is whether President Trump's misconduct is severe
enough that Congress should exercise that impeachment power, less than a year before the 2020
election. The results of the House Intelligence Committee inquiry, released to the public on
Tuesday, make clear that the answer is an urgent yes. Not only has the president abused his
power by trying to extort a foreign country to meddle in US politics, but he also has
endangered the integrity of the election itself. He has also obstructed the congressional
investigation into his conduct, a precedent that will lead to a permanent diminution of
congressional power if allowed to stand.
The evidence that Trump is a threat to the constitutional system is more than sufficient,
and a slate of legal scholars who testified on Wednesday made clear that Trump's actions are
just the sort of presidential behavior the Founders had in mind when they devised the
recourse of impeachment. The decision by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to proceed with drafting
articles of impeachment is warranted.
Much of the information in the Intelligence Committee report, which was based on witness
interviews, documents, telephone records, and public statements by administration officials,
was already known to the public. The cohesive narrative that emerges, though, is worse than
the sum of its parts. This year, the president and subordinates acting at his behest
repeatedly tried to pressure a foreign country, Ukraine, into taking steps to help the
president's reelection. That was, by itself, an outrageous betrayal: In his dealings with
foreign states, the president has an obligation to represent America's interests, not his
own.
But the president also betrayed the US taxpayer to advance that corrupt agenda. In order
to pressure Ukraine into acceding to his request, Trump's administration held up $391 million
in aid allocated by Congress. In other words, he demanded a bribe in the form of political
favors in exchange for an official act -- the textbook definition of corruption. The fact
that the money was ultimately paid, after a whistle-blower complained, is immaterial: The act
of withholding taxpayer money to support a personal political goal was an impermissible abuse
of the president's power.
Withholding the money also sabotaged American foreign policy. The United States provides
military aid to Ukraine to protect the country from Russian aggression. Ensuring that fragile
young democracy does not fall under Moscow's sway is a key US policy goal, and one that the
president put at risk for his personal benefit. He has shown the world that he is willing to
corrupt the American policy agenda for purposes of political gain, which will cast suspicion
on the motivations of the United States abroad if Congress does not act.
To top off his misconduct, after Congress got wind of the scheme and started the
impeachment inquiry, the Trump administration refused to comply with subpoenas, instructed
witnesses not to testify, and intimidated witnesses who did. That ought to form the basis of
an article of impeachment. When the president obstructs justice and fails to respect the
power of Congress, it strikes at the heart of the separation of powers and will hobble future
oversight of presidents of all parties.
Impeachment does not require a crime. The Constitution entrusts Congress with the
impeachment power in order to protect Americans from a president who is betraying their
interests. And it is very much in Americans' interests to maintain checks and balances in the
federal government; to have a foreign policy that the world can trust is based on our
national interest instead of the president's personal needs; to control federal spending
through their elected representatives; to vote in fair elections untainted by foreign
interference. For generations, Americans have enjoyed those privileges. What's at stake now
is whether we will keep them. The facts show that the president has threatened this country's
core values and the integrity of our democracy. Congress now has a duty to future generations
to impeach him.
How can Trump have sabotaged American foreign policy, when he has full responsibility and
authority to set it?
IMO this impeachment is partly about Trump personally asking a foreign country for help
against a domestic political opponent. But it is mostly about geopolitics and the national
security bureaucracy's need for US world domination.
Just listen to the impeachment testimony--most of it is whining about Trump's failure to
follow the 'interagency' policies of the deep state.
Stalin would approve that. And if so, what is the difference between impeachment and a
show trial, Moscow trials style? The majority can eliminate political rivals, if it wishes
so, right? This was how Bolsheviks were thinking in 30th. Of course, those backward Soviets used "British spy" charge instead modern, sophisticated
"Putin's stooge" charge, but still ;-)
The facts show that the president has threatened this country's core values and the integrity
of our democracy.
This is just low level Soviet-style propaganda: "Beacon of democracy" and "Hope of all
progressive mankind" cliché. My impression is that the train left the station long ago, especially as for democracy.
Probably in 1963. The reality is a nasty struggle of corrupt political clans. Which involves intelligence
agencies dirty tricks. BTW, how do you like that fact that Corporate Democrats converted themselves in
intelligence agencies' cheerleading squad?
In short Boston Globe editors do not want that their audience understand the situation, in
which the county have found itself. They just want to brainwash this audience (with impunity)
And both Corporate Dems and opposing them Republican are afraid to discuss the real issues
facing the country, such as loss of manufacturing, loss of good middle class jobs (fake labor
statistics covers the fact the most new jobs are temps/contractors and McJobs), rampant
militarism with Afghan war lasting decades, neocon dominance in foreign policy which led to
increase of country debt to level that might soon be unsustainable.
Both enjoy impeachment Kabuki theater. With Trump probably enjoying this theatre the most:
if they just censure him, he wins, if charges go to Senate, he wins big.
Can you imagine result for Corporate Dems of Schiff (with his contacts with Ciaramella ) ,
or Hunter Biden (who was just a mule to get money to Biden's family for his father illegal
lobbing) testifying in Senate under oath.
The truth is that they are all criminals (with many being war criminals.) So Beria
statement "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime" is fully applicable. That really is
something that has survived the Soviet Union and has arrived in the good old USA.
"... Such awareness of Manafort's plans could have been obtained either through FBI surveillance , which began in 2014 and ended in early 2016, or through information provided by Manafort associates, for example, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik , who worked for Manafort and was a FBI and Department of State asset, not a Russian agent as later painted by the Mueller investigation. ..."
"... According to White House visitor logs , on January 19, 2016, Eric Ciaramella chaired a meeting of FBI, Department of Justice and Department of State personnel, which had two main objectives: ..."
December 2015 was a pivotal month in many respects...
During the first week of December 2015, Donald Trump began to establish a substantial
lead over his
Republican primary opponents.
Vice President Joseph Biden traveled to Ukraine to announce, on
December 7th, a $190 million program to "fight corruption in law enforcement and reform the
justice sector," but behind the scenes explicitly linked a $1 billion loan guarantee to the
firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who had been investigating the energy company
Burisma, which employed Biden's son Hunter.
On December 9, 2015, the reported whistleblower Eric Ciaramella held a meeting in Room 236
of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building with Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the
Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center, which was 59%- funded by Barack Obama's State Department
and the International Renaissance Foundation, a George Soros organization.
Also attending that meeting was Catherine Newcombe, attorney in the Criminal Division,
Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, with the U.S. Department of Justice, where,
among other duties, she oversaw the Department's legal assistance programs to Ukraine.
By December 2015, Paul Manafort was undoubtedly considering approaching the Trump campaign
to rejuvenate his U.S. political bona fides and mitigate the legal and financial difficulties he was
experiencing at the time.
From the beginning of his association with the Trump campaign, Roger Stone, a long-time
Manafort partner, made a strong case to Trump to bring in
Manafort, who would officially connect to the campaign
immediately after the February 1, 2016 Iowa caucuses.
Based on events occurring during the same period, were Obama Deep State operatives aware of
Manafort's intent and already intending to use his past questionable practices and links to
Russia against Trump?
Such awareness of Manafort's plans could have been obtained either through FBI surveillance , which began
in 2014 and ended in early 2016, or through information provided by Manafort associates, for
example, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik , who worked for
Manafort and was a FBI and Department of State asset, not a Russian agent as later painted by
the Mueller investigation.
According to White House
visitor logs , on January 19, 2016, Eric Ciaramella chaired a meeting of FBI, Department of
Justice and Department of State personnel, which had two main objectives:
To coerce the Ukrainians to drop the Burisma probe , which involved Vice President Joseph
Biden's son Hunter, and allow the FBI to take it over the investigation.
To reopen a closed 2014 FBI investigation that focused heavily on GOP lobbyist Paul
Manafort , whose firm long had been tied to Trump through his partner and Trump pal, Roger
Stone.
That is, contain the investigation of Biden's son and ramp up the investigation of Paul
Manafort.
Again, according to White House
logs , the attendees at the January 19, 2016 meeting in Room 230A of the Eisenhower
Executive Office Building were:
Eric Ciaramella - National Security Council Director for Ukraine
Liz Zentos - National Security Council Director for Eastern Europe
David G. Sakvarelidze - Deputy General Prosecutor of Ukraine
Nazar A. Kholodnitsky, Ukraine's chief anti-corruption prosecutor
Catherine L. Newcombe - attorney in the Criminal Division, Office of Overseas
Prosecutorial Development, with the U.S. Department of Justice
Svitlana V. Pardus – Operations, Department of Justice, U.S. Embassy, Ukraine.
Artem S. Sytnyk - Director of the National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine
Andriy G. Telizhenko, political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington DC
Jeffrey W. Cole - Resident Legal Advisor at U.S. Embassy Ukraine, presumed to be FBI
Just two weeks after that meeting, on February 2, 2016, according to White
House logs , Eric Ciaramella chaired a meeting in Room 374 of the Eisenhower Executive
Office, which seems to be a planning session to re-open an investigation of Paul Manafort
(Note: one of the crimes of which Manafort was accused was money laundering, an area covered by
the Department of the Treasury). The attendees were:
Jose Borrayo - Acting Section Chief, Office of Special Measures, U.S. Department of the
Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Julia Friedlander - Senior Policy Advisor for Europe, Office of Terrorist Financing and
Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury
Michael Lieberman - Deputy Assistant Secretary, Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes,
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Scott Rembrandt - Anti-Money Laundering Task Force, Assistant Director/Director, Office
of Strategic Policy, Department of the Treasury
Justin Rowland - Special Agent (financial crimes), Federal Bureau of Investigation
It appears that Paul Manafort became a vehicle by which the Obama Deep State operatives
could link Trump to nefarious activities involving Russians, which eventually evolved into the
Trump-Russia collusion hoax.
Remember, the key claim of the follow-up Steele dossier, the centerpiece of the Mueller
investigation, was that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was the focal point of a
"well-developed conspiracy between them [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership."
Nellie Ohr, Fusion GPS employee and wife of Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr, not
only worked with Christopher Steele on the so-called Trump dossier, but, in May 2016, was the
conduit of information to her husband and two Department of Justice prosecutors of the
existence of the "black ledger" documents that contributed to Manafort's prosecution.
Bruce Ohr and Steele attempted to get dirt on Manafort from a Russian oligarch, Oleg
Deripaska, efforts that eventually led to a September 2016 meeting in which the FBI asked
Deripaska if he could provide information to prove that Manafort was helping Trump collude with
Russia.
The surveillance and entrapment attempts of Paul Manafort, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos
and others were designed to collect evidence about Trump
without formally documenting that Trump was the target.
After the election, to cover their tracks, James Comey, representing the FBI and the
Department of Justice, misleadingly told Trump that the investigation was about
Russia and a few stray people in his campaign, but they assured him he personally was not under
investigation.
They lied.
Donald Trump always was, and still is, the target of the Deep State , the left-wing media
and their Democrat Party collaborators.
"... A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have kept the allegations alive. ..."
"... The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today, Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even an Obama aide termed it , will remain. ..."
"... Listen to the podcast here ..."
"... War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate ..."
"... The John Batchelor Show ..."
"... Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument. The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline! ..."
"... You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills. ..."
"... It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision. They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy. ..."
"... CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it. ..."
"... We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths. If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or intelligence, so we should stop paying them. ..."
"... Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise. ..."
"... Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is, as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep "in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards. ..."
"... Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes likes it or not, except as . ..."
"... Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to conclude that he's fully on board. ..."
"... There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it, not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe propaganda value. ..."
"... In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination ..."
"... Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie enemies. It makes it ' real '. The ' heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches, etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice. ..."
"... To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens. In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security 'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world. (Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.) ..."
"... or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow continue to believe his campaign rhetoric? ..."
"... The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid. ..."
"... "TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ". Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ? ..."
"... Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics, and that's through America's brutal empire abroad. ..."
"... Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference, except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things. ..."
President Trump campaigned and was elected on an anti-neocon platform: he promised to reduce direct US involvement in areas where,
he believed, America had no vital strategic interest, including in Ukraine. He also promised a new détente ("cooperation") with Moscow.
And yet, as we have learned from their recent congressional testimony, key members of his own National Security Council did not
share his views and indeed were opposed to them. Certainly, this was true of Fiona Hill and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Both of them
seemed prepared for a highly risky confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, though whether retroactively because of Moscow's 2014
annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
Similarly, Trump was slow in withdrawing Marie Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer appointed by President Obama as ambassador
to Kiev, who had made clear, despite her official position in Kiev, that she did not share the new American president's thinking
about Ukraine or Russia. In short, the president was surrounded in his own administration, even in the White House, by opponents
of his foreign policy and presumably not only in regard to Ukraine.
How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it was the doing and legacy of the neocon
John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate
such appointees.
A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the
Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained
a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have
kept the allegations alive.
The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy
establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today,
Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views
of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave
power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even
an Obama aide termed it , will remain.
Listen to the podcast
here . Stephen F. Cohen Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. ANationcontributing editor, his most recent book,War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, is available
in paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host ofThe John Batchelor Show, now in their sixth
year, are available at www.thenation.com .
because of Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
In an otherwise decent overview, this sticks out like a sore thumb. It would be helpful to stop using the word annexation.
While correct in a technical sense – that Crimea was added to the Russian Federation – the word comes with all kinds of connotations,
that imply illegality and or force. Given Crimea was given special status when gifted to Ukraine for administration by the USSR,
one could just as easily apply "annexation" of Crimea to Ukraine. After Ukraine voted to "leave" the USSR, Crimea voted to join
Ukraine. Obviously the "Ukrainian" vote did not include Crimea. Even after voting to join Ukraine, Crimea had special status within
Ukraine, and was semi autonomous. If you can vote to join, you can vote to leave. Either you have the right to self determination,
or you don't.
This is what is so infuriating, Stephen! These silent coups of the executive branch have been taking place for my entire life!
Both parties are guilty of refusing to appoint cabinet members that the elected presidents would have chosen for themselves, because
both parties are more interested in making the president of the opposing party look bad, make him ineffective, and incapable of
carrying out policies that he was elected to carry out. That is the very definition of treason!
Things are a disaster. The JCPOA is at the heart of the issue and Trump and his advisors stubborn refusal to capitulate on
this issue very well may cause Trump to lose the 2020 election. Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the
DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument.
The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline!
The anti-Iranian fever has created so much havoc not only with Iran, but with every country on earth other than Israel, Saudi
Arabia, and the UAE. Germany announced that it is seeking to unite with Russia, not only for Gazprom, but is now considering purchasing
defense systems from Russia, and Germany is dictating EU policy, by and large. Germany has said that Europe must be able to defend
itself independent of America and is requesting an EU military and Italy is on board with this idea, seeking to create jobs and
weapons for its economy and defense.
The EU is fed up with the economic sanctions placed on countries that the U.S. has black-listed, particularly Russia and Iran,
and China as well for Huwaei 5G.
Nobody in their right mind could ever claim this to be the free market capitalism that Larry Kudlow espouses!
You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed
novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens
that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills.
It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this
blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura
Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision.
They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy.
CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them guilty
of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
It is a political game between to competing kleptocratic cults. The DNC and RNC are whores and will do what ever their donors
tell them to do. That is also treason. This country is just a total wasteland.
Everyone has pledged allegiance to fraud.
Too big to fail, like the Titanic and the Hindenberg.
We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or
intelligence, so we should stop paying them.
Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering
Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise.
What kind of stupid question is this? You mean you don't know or asking us for confirmation? If you really don't know then why
are you writing an article about it? If you do know then why are you asking the UNZ readers?
Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is,
as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to
the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep
"in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards.
It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
That's ok but it's a bit unfair to Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths After all most of the country is Hedonistic as hell,
it sells commercials or wtf. Satanic is philosophical and way over the heads of these clowns, though if the be a Satan, then they
are in the plan for sure, and right on the mark. As for psychopaths, those are criminals who are insane, but they can have remorse
and be their own worst enemies, often they just go off and go psycho and bad things happen, but can be unplanned off the wall
stuff, not diabolic.
Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's
are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as
kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes
likes it or not, except as .
So, once upon a time, a people got so hedonistic and they didn't watch the game and theier leaders were low quality
(especially religeous/morals ) and long story short Satan unleashed the Socio's , Things seem to be heading disastrously,
so will bit coin save the day? Green nudeal?
While massive attention is directed towards Russia and the Ukraine, the majority of the public are shown the slight of hand
and their attention is never brought near to the real perpetrators of subverting American and British foreign policy.
Doesn't matter if he's surrounded. A president CAN make foreign policy, and a president CAN fire people who disagree with his
policy. Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy
for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to
conclude that he's fully on board.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them
guilty of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
--
first off the supreme law of the land maybe the Constitution and to oppose it may be Treason, but the Law that is supreme to the
Law of the land is Human rights law.. it is far superior to, and it is the TLD of all laws of the land of all of the Nation States
that mankind has allowed the greedy among its masses, to impose.
There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it,
not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender
of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual
promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe
propaganda value.
If you note the USA constitution has seven articles..
Article 1 is about 525 elected members of congress and their very limited powers to control
foreign activities. Each qualified to vote member of the governed (a citizen so to speak) is allowed to
vote for only 3 of the 525 persons. so basically there is no real national election anywhere .
Article II grants the electoral college the power to appoint two persons full control of the assets,
resources and manpower of America to conquer the entire world or to make peace in the entire world.
Either way: the governed are not allowed to vote for either; the EC vote determines the P or VP.
Article III allows the Article II person to appoint yes men to the judiciary
Where exist the power of the governed to deny USA governors the ability to the use the powers the constitution claims
the governors are to have, against the governed? <==No where I can find? Theoretically, the governed are protected from abuse
for as long as it takes to conduct due process?
One person, the Article II person, is basically the king when in comes to constitutional authority to establish, conduct,
prosecute or defend USA involvement in foreign affairs.
No where does the constitution of the USA deny its President the use of American resources or USA military power, to
make and use diplomat appointments, or to use the USA to use the wealth of America and the hegemonic powers of the USA to make
a private or public profit in a foreign land. <= d/n matter if the profit is personal to the President or if it assigned by appointment
(like the feudal powers granted by the feudal kings to the feudal lords) to corporate feudal lords or oligarch personal interest.
AFAICT, the president can USE the USA to conduct war, invade or otherwise infringe on, even destroy, the territory, or a
private or public interest, within a foreign sovereign more or less at will. So if the President wants to command a private
or secret Army like the CIA, he can as far as I can tell, obviously this president does, because he could with his pen alone shut
it down.
Seems to me the "NO" from Wilson's four points
no more secret diplomacy peace settlement must not lead the way to new wars
no retribution, unjust claims, and huge fines <basically indemnities paid by the losers to the winners.
no more war; includes controls on armaments and arming of nations.
no more Trade Barriers so the nations of the world would become more interdependent.
have been made the essence of nation state operations world wide.
IMO, The CIA exists at the pleasure of the President.
@Curmudgeon all of that,
plus the Kosovo precedent.
In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force
self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination
Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment
there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie
enemies. It makes it ' real '. The 'heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But
the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches,
etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice.
To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens.
In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security
'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there
are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world.
(Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.)
Trump should have kept Steve Bannon as his advisor and should have fired instead his son-in-law. Perhaps "they" are blackmailing
Trump with photos like here: https://www.pinterest.com/richarddesjarla/creepy/
That would explain why Trump is so ineffective at making a reality anything he campaigned for.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
An anti-neocon president appears to have been surrounded by neocons in his own administration.
The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself
with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
