Alexandra Chalupa is a lawyer who acted as anti-Russian operative fuelling Spygate (aka Russiagate). She is a daughter of Ukrainian
immigrants and claims (we should not take for granted her words here) that her grandparents came from Eastern Ukraine. Usually
people from Eastern Ukraine assimilate and lose the language and ties to the original country very quickly( typically in one generation),
but she maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian diaspora and the US Embassy in Ukraine which is more typical for emigrants from Western
Ukraine, especially children of families of former
OUN members.
Her mother, Tanya Chalupa, an activist who according to her sister "passed laws in California (if you get a ticket for not
wearing your seatbelt, Californians, thank her!) wrote a book about organized crime called
A Rookie Cop vs. the West Coast Mafia."
She is originally from Davis, California and is married with children. She has a law degree (I think with distinction) from
UC Davis and now lives in Washington D.C.
On Facebook, Chalupa wrote that she “studied Voting Rights and International Law at UC Davis School of Law” and “Studied Peace
& Conflict Studies at UC Berkeley.”
...At UC Davis, Chalupa was involved in Alpha Phi Omega, and was senior editor of the Journal of International Law and Policy.
She was founder of King Hall Students for Gore-Lieberman. She studied “voting rights, international law, criminal law, and negotiations.”
On Facebook, her husband states that he is the “Project Director at CRB Consulting Engineers, INC.” and is from Salisbury, North
Carolina.
Alexandra Chalupa previously had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went
on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. In 2012, she was campaign manager for Adam Cook
for Congress. From 2006 to 2011, she was director of Office of Party Leaders for the DNC. She was executive director of Democrats Abroad,
and, in 2003, for one year, she was online constituency outreach director for John Kerry’s presidential campaign. According to
George Eliason (see below) she might be connected
to Ukrainian SBU, which is partially staffed by Ukrainian emigrants and pro-USA figures like Nalivachenko and is controlled by CIA.
George Ellison, an American journalist living in Ukraine clamed that Alexandra Chalupa sister
Irena is one of the
leading figures of the Ukrainian
Diaspora who is active in Congressional Ukrainian Caucus (CUC). He suggests that "The Chalupa's are the 1st family of Ukrainian propaganda. She works with
and for Ukrainian Intelligence through the Atlantic Council, Stopfake, and her sisters Andrea
(Euromaidanpr) and Alexandra." (PropOrNot Unmasked ...
Zero Hedge Zero Hedge, 01/25/2018 )
StopFake- Irena Chalupa- Chalupa is the sister to the same Alexandra
Chalupa that brought the term Russian hacking to worldwide attention. Irena Chalupa
is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. She is
also a senior correspondent at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has worked
for more than twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the Atlantic
Council, where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the news anchor
for Ukraine's propaganda channel Stopfake.org She is a Ukrainian
Diaspora leader. The Chalupa's are the 1st family of Ukrainian propaganda. She works with
and for Ukrainian Intelligence through the Atlantic Council, Stopfake, and her sisters Andrea
(Euromaidanpr) and Alexandra.
Irena Chalupa was a Fulbright scholar and spend in Ukraine 2015, the
year just after Euromaydan, collecting stories about Ukrainina dissent (dissent to what ?)
Alexandra Chalupa met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington pressing them to expose ties between Trump top campaign aide Paul Manafort, and Russia
Chalupa's efforts had a direct impact on the race, forcing Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s
campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. Ukrainians probably also played a role in conversion of DNC leak into
alleged Russian hack which is at the core of Russiagate ( Crowdstrike founder Alperovich is also an immigrant from Ukraine, but a more
recent one). Trump mentioned something about Crowdstrike server in Kiev in his conversation with President Zeleneski. That
might well be the servers from which this false flag operation was conducted are un Ukraine (Beyond
The DNC - Leaks, Hacks, and Treason By George Eliason , Aug 14, 2018)
There are a couple of caveats that need to be made when identifying
the Fancy Bear hackers. The first is the identifier
used by Mueller as Russian FSB and GRU may have been true- 10 years ago. This group was on the run
trying to stay a step ahead of Russian law enforcement until October 2016. So we have part of the Fancy bear
hacking group identified as Ruskie traitors and possibly former Russian state security. The majority of the
group are Ukrainians making up Ukraine’s Cyber Warfare groups.
Some interesting connections in Russiagate-Ukrainegate saga run through the Atlantic Council,
which like the State Department is a real nest of neocons:
Dimitry Alperovich – the CEO of Crowdstrike that “investigated” the hacking of the DNC’s servers is a
Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Atlantic.
The FBI was refused access to independently examine the DNC servers. Interestingly, Alperovich’s bio appears to have been disabled.
The Crowdstrike findings have been repeatedly called into questioned:
Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’
Evidence – DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Forensics
show that the copying was performed on the East coast of the U.S.
New Questions Over Claim
Russia Hacked the Election – Cybersecurity experts who were first to conclude that Putin hacked presidential election abandon
some of their claims against Russia – and refuse to co-operate with Congress.
... ... ...
Evelyn Farkas – who famously
disclosed the
plan to disseminate information gathered on President Trump, is a
Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Atlantic. Farkas served
as Obama’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia.
The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that
they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence.
Irena Chalupa – does not appear to be related to
Alexandra
Chalupa (I’ve been unable to confirm and have seen conflicting reports) – is a
Non-Resident Fellow at Atlantic. Irena Chalupa is also
a senior correspondent at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. She is a
former Director of the Ukrainian National Information Service (UNIS) – the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America’s Washington
public affairs bureau.
Irena Chalupa is also a member of StopFake.org – Struggle Against Fake
Information About Events In Ukraine.
Irena Chalupa’s ideological interests in Ukraine are aligned directly with those of Alexandra Chalupa.
Evelyn Farkas and Irena Chalupa worked together in 2014 on the Atlantic Council’s
Coordinating
on Ukraine.
Her attempt to dog dirt on former Donald Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort and Trump’s ties to Russia
during the 2016 presidential election, have provoked controversy.
“Chalupa’s actions appear to show that she was simultaneously working on behalf of a foreign government, Ukraine, and on behalf
of the DNC and Clinton campaign, in an effort to influence not only the U.S voting population but U.S. government officials,” Republican
Sen. Chuck Grassley, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman,
alleged in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in 2017.
As a Democratic Party consultant and proud Ukrainian-American, Alexandra Chalupa was outraged last spring when
Donald Trump named Paul Manafort as his campaign manager. Chalupa had been following Manafort’s career ever since he popped up in
Kiev more than a decade ago as an adviser and campaign consultant to the pro-Russian political party in Ukraine. As she saw it, Manafort
was a key figure in advancing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s agenda inside her ancestral homeland — and she was determined to
expose it.
Soon enough, Chalupa — who was in charge of the Democratic National Committee’s “ethnic outreach” efforts — began circulating
memos and emails laying out Manafort’s connections. She exchanged messages about him with investigative journalists in Kiev. She
even helped organize a rally among Ukrainian-Americans in New Britain, Conn. (Manafort’s hometown). Protesters railed against Manafort
as “Putin’s Trojan Horse” and demanded that Trump fire him.
As she was doing so, Chalupa discovered she herself had become a target. On April 20, she got the first of a series of pop-up
messages from Yahoo security notifying her she had been the victim of a “state sponsored” cyberattack. It was an early sign of what
would soon become one of the biggest political stories of the year: a massive cyberattack on the Democratic National Committee and
other political organizations that U.S. intelligence has now concluded was the work of Russian intelligence. “I was freaked out,”
Chalupa told Yahoo News in August. “This was really scary.”
Since then, FBI agents have questioned Chalupa — and imaged her laptop and smartphone — as part of a wide-ranging investigation
into the Russian cyberattacks. But even though she has since left the DNC, and Manafort has resigned from the Trump campaign, Chalupa
hasn’t abandoned her efforts to publicize what she sees as the overly cozy relationship between the GOP nominee and Moscow. She’s
still helping to organize Ukrainian-Americans and other ethnic groups to oppose Trump in the election. And when Trump seemed to question
during the Oct. 9 debate whether the Russians were behind any cyberattacks (“Maybe there is no hacking,” he said), Chalupa
fired back on Twitter. “Trump doing a great job promoting Putin this debate,” she tweeted. Underneath she posted a mock photo
of a smug Russian president holding up a toy doll with the smiling face of the GOP nominee. — By Michael Isikoff
Alexandra Chalupa, Alexander Vindman, Dmitry Alperovich (one of the founders and CTO of
Crowdstrike), Maria Yovanovich and Fiona Hill represents an interesting set of figures in the US establishment -- of sons/daughters of emigrants who were born abroad,
but grow up in the USA. Crowdstrike founder Alperovich, an important figure in Russiagate witch hunt also belongs to this category.
Less recent member of the Ukrainian diaspora who also played a role in Russiagate and Ukrainegate is Alexandra Chalupa, a daughter
of emigrants who got to the USA from WWII internment camps, which suggest that they may
found against the
Soviets in WWII (that is true for many members of OUN -- Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists). After WWII members of OUN the
cornerstone of resistance in to Soviet annexation of Western Ukraine and were crushed only in 1950th. They were used by CIA as a
part of underground network direct against Soviets (Operation Gladio).
They also work in the staff of Voice of America and similar organizations (which is natural as they know a lot about their country
of origin and can speak the language). That worked well during the existence of the USSR. But not so well after the USSR was
dissolved.
The worldview of this category of US citizens is deeply influenced by emigrant community and culture, hatred
and prejudices of their country of birth. This is clearly visible in Chalupa case. This also was visible not only with Vindman case (he is an economic
emigrant from
Ukraine) also with Fiona Hill (emigrant via marriage from GB)
and Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. (she
is a daughter of emigrants but she was born in Canada, moved to Connecticut at the age of three,
and became a
naturalized
American citizen at age eighteen. She grew up
speaking Russian.)
Such people probably should
be kept at arm length from the high levels of decision making related to the xUSSR and Central European countries. Case of Fiona Hill
is more complex and less clear, but it was really difficult to distinguish
her position and the position of Her Majesty government. The level of rabid Russophobia are absolutely identical.
Vindman looks like a close analog of Max Boot (who is an emigrant for Russia). Such people try to compensate with extreme hawkishness
their sense of inferiority.
Being an émigré from Ukraine (and speaking the language -- although most probably it is Russian, not Ukrainian ;-), he also
has connections via his brother with shadow Ukrainian circles (the classic representative of which were Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko), which
plunder Ukraine to enrich themselves and their Western sponsors and protectors. This view of diaspora on Ukraine as a milking
cow is actually quite widespread.
And post 2014 Ukrainian government (actually not that
different in this respect from the government before that; Biden was the best friend and mentor of Yanukovich; Manafort was his campaign
strategist) actively recruited lobbyists in the USA both openly and covertly, spending enormous for such a poor country
amounts of cash (for example oligarch Pinchuk close to former President Kuchma
has donated from $10 to $25 million to the Clinton
Foundation between 1994 and 2005). And this is true not only such major figures like ex-president Poroshenko, Clinton benefactor
Pinchuk, and the power behind Zelenski --
Kolomoyskyi (who along with Poroshenko was also the major sponsor of 2014
coup, but later was sidelined), but also a large number of smaller sharks. Rumors are that Ukrainians, at one time, proposed Vindman
the position of the Minister of Defense.
His testimony raises an important question of influence of emigrant circles on the USA foreign policy and this wisdom of appointing
people with strong ties to foreign countries into the top levels of the USA government. They bring ancient hatred into the mainstream
of the USA politics and strengthen neocons, the most hawkish and militarist strata within the US government. At least Vindman is not
a chickenhawk like most neocons
Vindman testimony raises an important question of influence of emigrant circles on the USA foreign policy and this wisdom
of appointing people with strong ties to foreign countries into the top levels of the USA government. They bring ancient
hatred into the mainstream of the USA politics and strengthen neocons, the most hawkish and militarist strata within the US government.
At least Vindman is not a chickenhawk like most neocons.
They also bring with them their own, biased, and somewhat provincial understanding of the USA national security interests, which
usually include assigning outsized importance to their country of birth. The classic example of this was Brzezinski
Russophobia
and his role in creating Political Islam. While it proved to be a useful and potent proxy for fighting Soviets in Afghanistan
(who BTW installed a secular regime in this country and achieved the status of woman about which current Afghan government and its USA
handlers can only dream ), it acquired the life of its own. As the result of Brzezinski efforts, Afghanistan might serve as a
graveyard of the USA global neoliberal empire. As George Washington observed in his famous farewell address (1796):
So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation,
facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the
enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement
or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure
the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will,
and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded
citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without
odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for
public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
Vindman case is slightly bizarre as for a person with a father from Ukraine, who emigrated as a refugee in 1979 (formally escaping
persecution of Jews in Ukraine; in reality an economic migrant) he should be allergic to Western Ukrainian far right nationalists, who
came to power in 2014, and the last thing he should want is to send arms to Ukraine. Western Ukrainian nationalists
during WWII committed horrible crimes against Polish, Jewish and Russian people.
Growing in diaspora circles entails certain political views and prejudices, which not necessary are beneficial for Ukraine, or the
USA. For example, she did not understand that Manafort was doing the USA bidding in Ukraine, which can be characterized as extremely
strange for a lawyer, who graduated with distinction from US Davis. In the quote below she sounds like a narrow-mined low level
member of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists,
This orgnaization is know for carried out large-scale ethnic cleansing
against Polish people.[3]
Historians estimate that 100,000 Polish civilians were massacred in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia.[5][6][7]
After World War II the UPA fought against Soviet and Polish government forces:
She discussed how she started focusing on Paul Manafort, saying, “I was like, ‘Who is this jerk who’s going in our grandparents’
homeland and working for Moscow’s interest?’ Like, who is this guy? Then I started seeing him from the political strategy perspective,
and I said, ‘Who is this guy that is able to get away with this and is running this entire operation and going unchecked?’”
In September 2019, the pro Trump Committee to Defend the President filed a Federal Election Commission Complaint against the Democratic
National Committee that names Alexandra Chalupa.
According to Fox News, the complaint alleges that Chalupa acted “improperly to gather information on Paul Manafort and Donald Trump
in the 2016 election.” Fox reports that Chalupa was a DNC contractor during that election (Heavy.com)
The complaint alleges that the DNC “tasked Chalupa with obtaining incriminating or derogatory information about Donald Trump …
[and] Paul Manfort,” Fox News reported, alleging that Chalupa “pushed for Ukrainian officials to publicly mention Manafort’s financial
and political ties to” Ukraine and “sought to have the Ukrainian government provide her information about Manafort’s work in the
country.”
...Chalupa’s emails appeared in the WikiLeaks document dump against the DNC. One, in the name Ali Chalupa, as she is also known,
stated she was “digging into
Manafort.”
“A lot more coming down the pipe,” the email to then DNC Comms Director Luis Miranda states. “I spoke to a delegation of 68 investigative
journalists from Ukraine last Wednesday at the Library of Congress – the Open World Society’s forum – they put me on the program
to speak specifically about Paul Manafort and I invited Michael Isikoff whom I’ve been working with for the past few weeks and connected
him to the Ukrainians. More offline tomorrow since there is a big Trump component you and Lauren need to be aware of that will hit
in next few weeks and something I’m working on you should be aware of.”
John Solomon, an opinion writer for The Hill,
wrote, “Ambassador Valeriy Chaly’s office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government
on Paul Manafort’s dealings inside the country in hopes of forcing the issue before Congress.” He also claimed that, according to
the ambassador, “Chalupa later tried to arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort’s Russian ties on
a U.S. visit during the 2016 campaign.”
...
After Manafort “gets on my radar,” Alexandra was working on efforts “to combat Russian propaganda” and “address the human rights
crisis” in Ukraine. She worked with Vice President Joe Biden’s team, “setting up conference calls with his staff with ethnic leaders
so that they can get a first-hand briefing of what the developments in Ukraine were, what the White House was doing to support, what
Congress was doing to support.” She said it was “done in a non-partisan way” while she was keeping her “eye on Manafort.”
In one
unusual exchange, the transcript says,
Alexandra: “[Inaudible] are already in the campaign system. And the DNC asked me to do a hit on Trump when he did a Ukraine speech
in September 2015.”
Andrea Chalupa responded, “You have to clarify. People think you’re like the Illuminati, Ali. You can’t just say the DNC asked
me to do a hit. What does that mean?”
Alexandra responded, “Not a hit, sorry. September 2015, Trump was invited, this is part of Mueller’s investigation, to speak via
livestream. He got paid $150,000 his foundation, to speak at a conference in Yalta. And so he did the livestream, and the DNC asked
me as the ethnic engagement director and also in the official position I had in ethnic engagement, was asked to do a statement to
react to his messaging at that event. I went public and criticized him for some of the things that he was saying.”
Andrea labeled Alexandra as being like “Moby Dick with his white whale” and said she “went to Manafort’s hometown and started
digging around there.”
Alexandra said she “quit the DNC the morning that WikiLeaks dropped the emails.”
...Chalupa’s Twitter Page Is a String of Anti-Trump Tweets (She Calls Him a ‘Fake President’ & ‘Putin Puppet’) & She Writes a
Lot About the Impeachment Probe
Chalupa wrote on Twitter: “Team Putin-Trump made a big mistake with a conspiracy hit to out the whistleblower. It attacked Ukraine’s
Chief Rabbi, Catholic Patriarch, & Orthodox Patriarch. They are the spiritual leaders of Ukraine and its global diaspora and powerful
uniters. Prayers for the GOP. 🙏”
She also wrote, “All roads may lead back to Putin but quite a few of them seem to first run through
Devin Nunes. Looks like Rudy Giuliani had a lot of support from a top Nunes former trusted advisor planted inside the White House
who got caught playing ‘Ukraine expert.’”
...She strongly criticized those who have criticized Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who testified about his concerns regarding Trump’s
handling of Ukraine in the wake of a whistleblower’s complaint. “Republicans who have spent the past three years covering-up for
Putin’s hybrid warfare against the U.S. are now attacking an American decorated Army Officer who has devoted his life to protecting
U.S. national security,” Chalupa wrote on her Twitter page. “These Republicans are traitors.”
Chalupa also wrote: “A stadium full
of red hats & chants of ‘lock him up’ directed at special guest Donald Trump. Locals in our nation’s capital don’t appreciate him
branding our home a ‘swamp’ or anything else the Putin Puppet does to hurt our country; the list is long. #FakePresident.”
On Facebook, she wrote, “The Putin backed and beholden President of the United States who lost the popular vote by almost 3 million
votes and who won the Electoral College due to three states where his Putin-linked campaign manager Paul Manafort provided Russians
with internal data and polling information for, reacted badly to this morning’s press conference focused on the House impeachment
inquiry, which was led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff….”
She also wrote, “You never know who will show up at the #KremlinAnnex, especially on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s birthday.
A little birdie told me Trump and his criminal associates are in a lot of trouble as Mueller’s team continues to follow the money
and the tweets.”
In 2017, she wrote, “Congresswoman Maxine Waters who is one of the strongest voices on Russia. We had a great meeting tonight.
She’s fearless.” Her Facebook page is full of photos of anti Trump protests.
Chalupa has denied that she was working to derail Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other
clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC’s arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.
Alexandra Chalupa was cited by Yahoo News as one of "16 people who shaped the 2016 election:."
2014 (undetermined) -Chalupa begins to investigate Paul Manafort. Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing
pro bono work for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching Manafort's role in Yanukovych's rise,
as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych's political party.
Late 2015 – Chalupa expands her opposition research into Manafort to include Trump's ties to Russia. Chalupa told
Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials
and private intelligence operatives. When Trump's unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing
more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well. She occasionally shared her findings with
officials from the DNC and Clinton's campaign
January 2016 – Chalupa informs a senior DNC official that she feels there is a Russia connection with the Trump Campaign.Chalupa
told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump's campaign, "I felt there was a Russia connection," Chalupa recalled. "And
that, if there was, that we can expect Paul Manafort to be involved in this election," said Chalupa, who at the time also was
warning leaders in the Ukrainian-American community that Manafort was "Putin's political brain for manipulating U.S. foreign policy
and elections."
March 25 2016 – Chalupa shared her concerns with the Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S. She said she shared her concern
with Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly, and one of his top aides, Oksana Shulyar, during a March 2016 meeting at
the Ukrainian Embassy. According to someone briefed on the meeting, Chaly said that Manafort was very much on his radar, but that
he wasn't particularly concerned about the operative's ties to Trump.
March 29 2016 – Chalupa briefs DNC Communication staff. The day after Manafort's hiring was revealed, she briefed the
DNC's communications staff on Manafort, Trump and their ties to Russia, according to an operative familiar with the situation.
A former DNC staffer and the operative familiar with the situation agreed that with the DNC's encouragement, Chalupa asked embassy
staff to try to arrange an interview in which Poroshenko might discuss Manafort's ties to Yanukovych. While the embassy declined
that request, officials there became "helpful" in Chalupa's efforts, she said, explaining that she traded information and leads
with them. Chalupa said the embassy also worked directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and Russia to point them in
the right directions.
April 4 – April 12 2016 – Ukrainian Parliamentarian Olga Bielkov has
four meetings – with Samuel Charap (International Institute for Strategic Studies), Liz Zentos (National Security Council),
Michael Kimmage (State Dept) and David Kramer (McCain Institute). Doug Schoen files
FARA documents that show he
was paid $40,000 a month by Ukrainian Billionaire Victor Pinchuk (page 5) to arrange these meetings. Schoen attempts to arrange
another 72 meetings with Congressmen and media (page 10). It is unknown how many meetings took place.
April 6 2016 – Chalupa holds a meeting with an assistant of Representative Marcy Kaptur. Chalupa confirmed that, a
week after Manafort's hiring was announced, she discussed the possibility of a congressional investigation with a foreign policy
legislative assistant in the office of Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), who co-chairs the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus.
April 26 2016 – Investigative reporter Michael Isikoff
publishes
story on Yahoo News about Paul Manafort's business dealings with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.
April 28 2016 – Chalupa appears on a panel to discuss her research on Manafort with a group of 68 Ukrainian investigative
journalists gathered at the Library of Congress for a program sponsored by a U.S. congressional agency called the Open World Leadership
Center.
From a Wikileaks email sent by Chalupa to Luis
Miranda, Communications Director of the DNC:
I spoke to a delegation of 68 investigative journalists from Ukraine last Wednesday at the Library of Congress – the Open
World Society's forum – they put me on the program to speak specifically about Paul Manafort and I invited Michael Isikoff
whom I've been working with for the past few weeks and connected him to the Ukrainians.
Two points.
Open World is a supposedly non-partisan Congressional agency.
Michael Isikoff is the same journalist Christopher Steele
leaked
to in September 2016:
The Carter Page FISA application extensively cited a September 23, 2016,
Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focused on Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow. This information was
used to corroborate the Steele Dossier. Steele leaked to Isikoff who wrote the article for Yahoo News. The Isikoff article
was then used to help obtain a Title I FISA grant to gather information on Page. This search was then leaked by Steele to David
Corn at Mother Jones.
Isikoff accompanied Chalupa to a reception at the Ukrainian Embassy immediately after the Library of Congress event.
May 3 2016 – Chalupa emails Luis Miranda,
Communications Director of the DNC (same email referenced above).
A lot more coming down the pipe More offline tomorrow since there is a big Trump component you and Lauren need to be aware
of that will hit in next few weeks and something I'm working on you should be aware of.
Late July 2016 – Chalupa leaves the DNC to work full-time on her research into Manafort. Chalupa left the DNC after
the Democratic convention in late July to focus full-time on her research into Manafort, Trump and Russia . She said she
provided off-the-record information and guidance to "a lot of journalists" working on stories related to Manafort and Trump's
Russia connections.
August 4 2016 – Ukrainian ambassador to U.S.
writes op-ed against Trump.
August 15 2016 –
CNN reports
that Manafort is named in a Ukrainian probe over potentially illegal payments received from Ukraine's pro-Russian ruling party.
August 19 2016 –
CNN reports
the FBI is conducting an inquiry into Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort's payments from pro-Russia interests in Ukraine in 2007
and 2009.
August 19 2016 – Ukrainian parliament member Sergii Leshchenko
holds news conference to draw attention to Paul Manafort and Trump's "pro-Russia" ties.
September 19 2016 – At UN General Assembly meeting in New York, Ukrainian President
Poroshenko meets
with Hillary Clinton.
November 28 2016 – McCain associate
David Kramer flies to London to meet Christopher Steele for a briefing on the Dossier. Upon Kramer's return, Fusion GPS provided
McCain with a copy of the Dossier.
July 24 2017 – Senator Charles Grassley
sends a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein regarding the actions taken by Chalupa.
According to news reports, during the 2016 presidential election, "Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton
and undermine Trump" and did so by "disseminat[ing] documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were
investigating the matter.
At the center of this plan was Alexandra Chalupa, described by reports as a Ukrainian-American operative "who was consulting for
the Democratic National Committee" and reportedly met with Ukrainian officials during the presidential election for the express purpose
of exposing alleged ties between then-candidate Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia.
Chalupa's actions appear to show that she was simultaneously working on behalf of a foreign government, Ukraine, and on behalf
of the DNC and Clinton campaign, in an effort to influence not only the U.S voting population but U.S. government officials.
Aside from the apparent evidence of collusion between the DNC, Clinton campaign, and Ukrainian government, Chalupa's actions implicate
the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Republican Senators raised FARA concerns about Chalupa’s work but so far it want nowhere:
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley
wrote to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in 2017 “raising concerns over yet another instance of deficient enforcement
of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) as it relates to the 2016 presidential election.” The letter focuses on Chalupa.
“At the center of this plan was Alexandra Chalupa, described by reports as a Ukrainian-American operative ‘who was consulting
for the Democratic National Committee’ and reportedly met with Ukrainian officials during the presidential election for the express
purpose of exposing alleged ties between then-candidate Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia,” Grassley wrote Rosenstein.
“Reporting indicates that the Democratic National Committee encouraged Chalupa to interface with Ukrainian embassy staff to ‘arrange
an interview in which Poroshenko [the president of Ukraine] might discuss Manafort’s ties to Yanukovych,'” the letter continues.
“Chalupa also met with Valeriy Chaly, Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., and Oksana Shulyar, a top aid to the Ukrainian ambassador
in March 2016 and shared her alleged concerns about Manafort. Reports state that the purpose of their initial meeting was to ‘organize
a June reception at the embassy to promote Ukraine.’ However, another Ukrainian embassy official, Andrii Telizhenko, told Politico
that Shulyar instructed him to assist Chalupa with research to connect Trump, Manafort, and the Russians. He reportedly said, ‘[t]hey
were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa” and that “Oksana [Shulyar] was
keeping it all quiet…the embassy worked very closely with” Chalupa.'” You can read the full Grassley letter
here.
Chalupa, a Ukrainian American who calls herself a “human rights lobbyist,” made a cameo minutes into the opening statement
of House Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) in which he railed against the Democrats’ secretive impeachment
process.
“Violating their own guidelines, Democrats repeatedly redacted from transcripts the name of Alexandra Chalupa, a contractor for
the Democratic National Committee who worked with Ukrainian officials to collect dirt on the Trump campaign which she provided to
the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign,” Nunes said.
...Still, a Politico investigation
published in November 2017 detailed how Ukrainian government officials tried to “help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump,” and named
Chalupa as a Democratic operative who met with Ukrainian officials to try to expose ties between Trump and Russia.
Republicans last month named Chalupa as one of the witnesses they wanted to testify during this month’s impeachment hearings,
and on Tuesday she told Politico
she was on a “mission to testify.”
As
we reported in December 2018, Ukrainian official Andrii Telizhenko was approached by DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa
in early 2016. Chalupa wanted dirt on candidate Trump and his campaign manager Paul Manafort. The Ukrainian embassy in
Washington DC worked CLOSELY with the DNC
operative Chalupa.
Chalupa told Andrii she wanted Russian “dirt” on the Trump campaign.
The Gateway Pundit spoke with Telizhenko on the DNC Russia-gate Scandal –
Alexandra Chalupa was apparently hired by the DNC going as far back as 2013. According to
Politico, shortly after the election:
A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine,
Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing pro bono work for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis and began
researching Manafort’s role in Yanukovych’s rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych’s political
party.”
According to Politico, Chalupa claimed that in October of 2015 she began investigating Trump’s ties to Russia. Why she
began this investigation is completely unknown. The only thing of significance that had happened at this point was
that Trump announced he was running for office. There was no apparent triggering event. Candidate Trump had very
limited contact with Russia or Russia businessmen.
Lying Adam Schiff’s dungeon impeachment sham is based on this exact same scenario. President Trump asked the Ukraine’s newly
elected leader to look into the beginnings of the Russia Witchhunt in the Ukraine. Liberal Democrats believe this is a crime
even though their bogus Mueller investigation started based on the exact same bogus actions tied to the Ukraine and Chalupa.
And now we know that the CIA “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella worked with Chalupa in the creation of the Trump-Russia hoax.
Ciaramella worked closely with corrupt DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa back in 2015.
And Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016
election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa,
a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government.
“He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive
matter.
Documents confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella in November 2015.
She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine.
With Ciaramella’s name long under wraps, interest in the intelligence analyst has become so high that a handful of former colleagues
have compiled a roughly 40-page research dossier on him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill,
and briefings have been conducted based on it. One briefed Republican has been planning to unmask the whistleblower in a speech
on the House floor.
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
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.
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.
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:
"... 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.
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.
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.
"... 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...
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 .
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.
"... Lavrov told reporters Thursday: "I think that it is difficult to unbalance us and China. We are well aware of what is happening. We have an answer to all the threats that the Alliance is multiplying in this world." He also said the West is seeking to dominate the Middle East under the guise of NATO as well. ..."
"... "Naturally, we cannot but feel worried over what has been happening within NATO," Lavrov stated. "The problem is NATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only NATO is in the position to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West dislikes for some reason ." ..."
"... NATO still exists, according to Lavrov, in order to "eliminate competitors" and ensure a West-dominated global system in search of new official enemies. ..."
"... I'm wondering how many NATO states don't have US Military Bases positioned in them. It's a small distance between a forward operating base and an occupying forces. ..."
"... What NATO is doing is called racketeering. Only the problem of Europe is not Russia, but the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same Americans and NATO. ..."
"... Children sometimes need a made-up friend, and these bastards need a made-up enemy. Russia is perfect for this. ..."
"... LOL. The NATO ONLY serves US interests. It has the same function as always. Keep the US in, Russia out and Germany down. ..."
"... The collapse of the US empire has been underway for years. Nobody is excited about it because, instead of gracefully adapting to change with the dignity of a great nation, the US will continue to cling to denial, lashing out at all and sundry as reality intrudes upon the myth of American exceptionalism. ..."
"... US geopolitics has created a foe it cannot defeat without itself being destroyed. ..."
"... Technocratic sociopaths, doing a CYA for their incompetence. ..."
"... ZATO cries out in pain as it strikes you. ..."
NATO Seeking To "Dominate The World" & Eliminate Competitors: Russia's Lavrov by
Tyler Durden Mon,
12/09/2019 - 02:45 0 SHARES
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has charged NATO with wanting to "dominate the world"
a day after 70th anniversary events of the alliance concluded in London.
"We absolutely understand that NATO wants to dominate the world and wants to eliminate any
competitors, including resorting to an information war, trying to unbalance us and China,"
Lavrov said from Bratislava,
the capital of Slovakia, while attending the 26th Ministerial Council of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
He seized upon NATO leaders' comments this week, specifically Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg, naming China as a new enemy alongside Russia . Stoltenberg declared
at the summit that NATO has to "tackle the issue" of China's growing
capabilities.
Lavrov told reporters Thursday: "I think that it is difficult to unbalance us and China. We
are well aware of what is happening. We have an answer to all the threats that the Alliance is
multiplying in this world." He also said the West is seeking to dominate the Middle East under
the guise of NATO as well.
The new accusation of 'world domination'
comes at a crisis moment of growing and deep divisions over the future of the Cold War era
military alliance, including back-and-forth comments on Macron's "brain death" remarks, and
looming questions over Turkey's fitness to remain in NATO, and the ongoing debate over cost
sharing burdens and the scope of the mission.
"Naturally, we cannot but feel worried over what has been happening within NATO," Lavrov
stated. "The problem is NATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to
persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only NATO is in the position
to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West dislikes for
some reason ."
A consistent theme of Lavrov's has been
to call for a "post-West world order" but that NATO has "remained a Cold War institution"
hindering balance in global relations where countries can pursue their own national
interests.
NATO still exists, according to Lavrov, in order to "eliminate competitors" and ensure a West-dominated global system in
search of new official enemies.
Remember the last Bilderberg meeting. Russia and China were not invited. The globalists
have planned this, and apparently, Russia has better intelligence to know what's going on,
and they will take the necessary precautions, along with China. Let's just hope it's not
going to lead us to WW3.
I'm wondering how many NATO states don't have US Military Bases positioned in them. It's a small distance between a forward operating base and an occupying forces.
NATO is not trying to dominate, NATO is trying to extend its profit from frightened
European donkeys who still believe that the USSR exists, and Uncle Joe sits in the Kremlin
and eats a Christian baby in garlic sauce for lunch.
What NATO is doing is called racketeering. Only the problem of Europe is not Russia, but
the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same Americans and NATO.
So there will
be a big "raspathosovka" with shooting and explosions, do not even doubt it.. Only the problem of
Europe is not Russia, but the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same
Americans and NATO. So there will be a big **** with shooting and explosions, do not even
doubt it.
I'll just repeat the erased: NATO - lovers of freebies and they don't refuse this
freebie voluntarily. Children sometimes need a made-up friend, and these bastards need a
made-up enemy. Russia is perfect for this.
NATO is obsolete. The organization no longer serves US interests, and quite frankly,
hasn't for some time. I respectfully suggest the USA move all forces out of Germany on day 1, and station them
at Fort Trump in Poland.
Day 2, the US forms a new "mutual defense pact" with Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.
(Former Eastern Bloc nations)
Russia and Germany can duke it out, just not where our guys are hanging out. Hades,
Germany and France can limp wrist at each other as they have done in the past so many
times. But insofar as US troops leaving continental Europe forever? Sorry Sergei, that ain't happening, no matter how much
propaganda you shove up western
europe's (willing) ***.
Meanwhile Vlad makes new friends around the world... Last year Putin signed accords with President Macri of Argentina which included Russia
recognizing Argentina's Falklands claim. (La Voz, 23 Jan 2018).
An Argentinian claim based upon 'usurpation' – meaningless in the 18th century and
inheritance from Spain just like Mexico inherited California and Texas.
The NATO advantage right now is of the least dirty shirt variety. As it stands, I am not
excited about the thought of the US empire collapsing. People have been predicting that for
a while and for the moment, I don't see a legit replacement stepping up to the plate. The
US is a crooked gangster, but the other countries are not exactly ready for the big
league.
The NATO advantage right now is of the least dirty shirt variety.
The NATO disadvantage right now is of the "sitting with pants full of **** and asking
others who farted" variety.
As it stands, I am not excited about the thought of the US empire collapsing.
The collapse of the US empire has been underway for years. Nobody is excited about it
because, instead of gracefully adapting to change with the dignity of a great nation, the
US will continue to cling to denial, lashing out at all and sundry as reality intrudes upon
the myth of American exceptionalism.
I don't see a legit replacement stepping up to the plate.
US imperial decline is reminiscent of Casey at the Bat.
but the other countries are not exactly ready for the big league.
Or they've decided the US game is not worth playing.
Since 2013 I have followed Russian foreign policy and actions in the middle east and
elsewhere,thanks to statesmen like Lavrov they have crossed every t and dotted every i
following international law and convention, true history will be a lot kinder to Russia than
N ot A nother T errorist O rganisation
What is happening to Europe is the same as what's happening to Russia, only Russia
didn't ask for it. Nevertheless, Azeris and Tatars are on the rise demographically, and
Russians are on the decline.
I don't think Russia ... or China for that matter ... need to worry much. The West is imploding and NATO will implode along with it. The West can't even depend on its technical superiority anymore ( see Boeing 737MAX
); it sure can't depend on (most of) its people to do any real fighting.
NATO is fading and becoming a contradictory mess. China and Russia will be the foe, with possibly India, and far more effective,
economically and militarily. Europe doesn't stand a chance against these no matter how they posture, their slope is
downward.
US geopolitics has created a foe it cannot defeat without itself being destroyed.
"The problem is ZATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to
persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only ZATO is in the
position to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West
dislikes for some reason ."
"A botched assassination attempt against Ukrainian politician and businessman Vyacheslav
Sobolev has resulted in the death of his three-year-old son, Alexander.
"While Sobolev and his wife were leaving his high-end restaurant "Mario" in Kiev this past
Sunday, right-wing thugs opened fire on Sobolev's Range Rover, missing him but hitting his
son who was seated in the back of the vehicle. The three-year-old died on the way to the
hospital.
"Police later apprehended two men who had fled the scene in a black Lexus sedan, Oleksiy
Semenov, 19, and Andrei Lavrega, 20. Both are veterans of the war in Donbass in eastern
Ukraine where they served as members of the fascist Right Sector's paramilitary formation
until June of this year.
"The Right Sector was instrumental in the US- and EU-backed, fascist-led coup in February
2014 that toppled the Yanukovitch government and replaced it with a pro-Western and
anti-Russian regime. Since then, the Right Sector has been among the far-right forces that
have been heavily involved in the war against Russian-backed separatists in East Ukraine.
"As is usual when members of neo-Nazi groups carry out political attacks, the Right Sector
and their former battalion commander fraudulently attempted to distance themselves from
Lavrega and Semenov, claiming they had lost contact with them since they left Ukraine's armed
forces in June. These claims are not credible.
"Lavrega, who has been identified as the principal shooter in the killing, has been a
member of the Right Sector for at least half a decade. He had participated in the Maidan
movement of 2014 as a member of the Right Sector and perfected his shooting skills as a
sniper killing separatist soldiers in eastern Ukraine. According to his Right Sector
battalion commander, Andrei Herhert, Lavrega -- also known as "Quiet" -- was "one of the best
snipers in the war" and "very ideological."
"As a thanks for his service to the right-wing Kiev government, Lavrega received a
military decoration from former President Petro Poroshenko for "courage" just last year, in
October of 2018." ..........
"Whoever is ultimately responsible for ordering this political assassination and the
murder of the three-year-old boy, it is clear that the same far-right forces that were
instrumental in the coup in February 2014 and the civil war are now being employed to carry
out political assassinations by the Ukrainian oligarchy.
"Since the 2014 coup, the number of targeted political assassinations by right-wing
neo-Nazi groups like C14 and the Right Sector has skyrocketed. At least 15 people have been
murdered in such hit jobs by the far right since 2014. Among them was the well-known
Belarusian journalist Pavel Sheremet and the politician Kateryna Handziuk, who was killed in
a horrific acid attack by right-wing thugs last year.
"In virtually all these cases, the perpetrators have been protected from serious legal
prosecution. One of the murderers of Handziuk received a barely three-year prison sentence. A
critical role in shielding the neo-Nazis is played by Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs'
Arsen Avakov, who controls the country's police force and possesses well-known ties to
Ukraine's most notorious fascist militia, the Azov Battalion.
"Avakov is one of the few members of the previous Poroshenko government that have remained
in the current Cabinet of Ministers under President Volodmyr Zelensky. He was recently
praised by former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch while testifying before the
House of Representatives regarding the Trump impeachment investigation (see also: "The
impeachment crisis and American imperialism").
"President Zelensky, who was elected in April this year on the basis of promises that he
would bring an end to the widely despised civil war in eastern Ukraine that has claimed the
lives of over 13,000 people, has maintained a conspicuous silence on this latest political
assassination attempt by the far right. Instead, the day after the murder, he posted a
message on Facebook to honor two Ukrainian soldiers who were killed while fighting in eastern
Ukraine this past weekend."
The rest of the story can be found at the WSWS https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/07/ukra-d06.html
The Right Sector links with the former US Ambassador-Democratic heroine- are topical.
Thank you for that insight. I cannot see how Zelensky will manage the Nazi Ukrainians
short of a virtual civil war against one western district. The USA will foment a major
insurrection to destroy him if he does a deal with Gazprom. Your suggestion as to where those
issues are discussed would be welcome.
A User #72
Thank you and well said. The eurocentric kabuki does mesmerise the information providers.
I too seek escape from that dominance and spent a good time today researching the Power of
Siberia implications and issues of South America. The global assault on all things African is
a matter of deep despair for me and I feel totally powerless to reverse the relentless
assault on their world.
@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.
"... 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.
"... Thanks again for making explicit what I have long known: To America, Ukraine is nothing but a weapon against Russia. The whole point of support for Ukraine is to make Russia bleed—doesn’t matter how many people die or suffer in the process or how much of Ukraine is destroyed. https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1202267180219478024 … ..."
"... So fomenting on a war on Russia's border is, it appears, self-evidently aids our national security. What's next? A war scare? Ramping up MH17? ..."
"'Our Democracy Is at Stake.' Pelosi Orders Democrats to Draft Articles of Impeachment
Against Trump" [ Time ]. With autoplay video.
""The President abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of
our national security by withholding military aid and a crucial Oval Office meeting in
exchange for an announcement of an investigation into his political rival." • So now when
a President doesn't allow The Blob to dictate Ukraine policy it's an impeachable offense?
Really? Yasha Levine quotes Democrat impeachment witness Karlan (see below) but the point is
the same:
Yasha Levine ✔ @yashalevine
Thanks again for making explicit what I have long known: To America, Ukraine is nothing but a weapon
against Russia. The whole point of support for Ukraine is to make Russia bleed—doesn’t matter how many people die or
suffer in the process or how much of Ukraine is destroyed.
https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1202267180219478024 …
So fomenting on a war on Russia's border is, it appears, self-evidently aids our
national security. What's next? A war scare? Ramping up MH17?
"Read opening statements from witnesses at the House Judiciary hearing" [
Politico ]. "Democrats' impeachment witnesses at Wednesday's judiciary committee hearing
plan to say in their prepared remarks that President Donald Trump's actions toward Ukraine were
the worst examples of misconduct in presidential history." • So again, it's all about
Ukraine. I feel like I've entered an alternate dimension. Aaron Maté comments:
My very subjective impression: I've skimmed three, and read Turley. Karlan, in particular,
is simply not a serious effort. Turley may be wrong -- a ton of tribal dunking on Twitter --
but at least he's making a serious effort. I'm gonna have to wait to see if somebody, say at
Lawfare, does a serious effort on Turley. Everything I've read hitherto is and posturing and
preaching to the choir. (Sad that Larry Tribe has so completely discredited himself, but that's
where we are.)
Lambert, while Trump was unable to complete his attempt to extort the President of
Ukraine, as someone who practiced the criminal law for 34 years, let me be the first to clue
you in to the concept in the criminal law of the inchoate offense . This is
criminal law, not contract law.
An inchoate offense includes an attempt, a conspiracy, and the solicitation of a crime.
All focus on the state of mind of the perpetrator, and none require that the offense be
completed -- only that a person or persons having the required criminal intent took material
steps toward completing the crime. Such a person becomes a principal in the contemplated
crime, and in the eyes of the law is just as guilty as if he or she had completed the
attempted offense.
(The details of Trump's offense differ from what David in Santa Cruz said they would be.)
"Inchoate" appears only in Turley's piece, indicating, to me, that his was the only serious
effort.
In its most detailed account yet, the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington says a Democratic
National Committee (DNC) insider during the 2016 election solicited dirt on Donald Trump's
campaign chairman and even tried to enlist the country's president to help.
In written answers to questions, Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor
Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort dealings inside the country in
hopes of forcing the issue before Congress.
Chalupa later tried to arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on
Manafort's Russian ties on a U.S. visit during the 2016 campaign, the ambassador said.
Chaly says that, at the time of the contacts in 2016, the embassy knew Chalupa primarily as
a Ukrainian American activist and learned only later of her ties to the DNC. He says the
embassy considered her requests an inappropriate solicitation of interference in the U.S.
election.
"The Embassy got to know Ms. Chalupa because of her engagement with Ukrainian and other
diasporas in Washington D.C., and not in her DNC capacity. We've learned about her DNC
involvement later," Chaly said in a statement issued by his embassy. "We were surprised to
see Alexandra's interest in Mr. Paul Manafort's case. It was her own cause. The Embassy
representatives unambiguously refused to get involved in any way, as we were convinced that
this is a strictly U.S. domestic matter."
"All ideas floated by Alexandra were related to approaching a Member of Congress with a
purpose to initiate hearings on Paul Manafort or letting an investigative journalist ask
President Poroshenko a question about Mr. Manafort during his public talk in Washington,
D.C.," the ambassador explained.
Reached by phone last week, Chalupa said she was too busy to talk. She did not respond to
email and phone messages seeking subsequent comment.
Chaly's written answers mark the most direct acknowledgement by Ukraine's government that an
American tied to the Democratic Party sought the country's help in the 2016 election, and they
confirm the main points of a January 2017
story by Politico on Chalupa's efforts.
... ... ...
In addition, I
wrote last month that the Obama White House invited Ukrainian law enforcement officials to
a meeting in January 2016 as Trump rose in the polls on his improbable path to the presidency.
The meeting led to U.S. requests to the Ukrainians to help investigate Manafort, setting in
motion a series of events that led to the Ukrainians leaking the documents about Manafort in
May 2016.
The DNC's embassy contacts add a new dimension, though. Chalupa discussed in the 2017
Politico article about her efforts to dig up dirt on Trump and Manafort, including at the
Ukrainian Embassy.
Exactly how the Ukrainian Embassy responded to Chalupa's inquiries remains in dispute.
Chaly's statement says the embassy rebuffed her requests for information: "No documents related
to Trump campaign or any individuals involved in the campaign have been passed to Ms. Chalupa
or the DNC neither from the Embassy nor via the Embassy. No documents exchange was even
discussed."
But Andrii Telizhenko, a former political officer who worked under Chaly from December 2015
through June 2016, told me he was instructed by the ambassador and his top deputy to meet with
Chalupa in March 2016 and to gather whatever dirt Ukraine had in its government files about
Trump and Manafort.
Telizhenko said that when he was told by the embassy to arrange the meeting, both Chaly and
the ambassador's top deputy identified Chalupa "as someone working for the DNC and trying to
get Clinton elected." Over lunch at a Washington restaurant, Chalupa told Telizhenko in
stark terms what she hoped the Ukrainians could provide the DNC and the Clinton campaign,
according to his account.
"She said the DNC wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization and Manafort
were Russian assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with [Russian President Vladimir]
Putin against the U.S. interests. She indicated if we could find the evidence they would
introduce it in Congress in September and try to build a case that Trump should be removed
from the ballot, from the election," he recalled.
After the meeting, Telizhenko said he became concerned about the legality of using his
country's assets to help an American political party win a U.S. election. But he proceeded with
his assignment. Telizhenko said that as he began his research, he discovered that Fusion GPS
was nosing around Ukraine, seeking similar information, and he believed they, too, worked for
the Democrats. As a former aide inside the general prosecutor's office in Kiev, Telizhenko used
contacts with intelligence, police and prosecutors across the country to secure information
connecting Russian figures to assistance on some of the Trump organization's real estate deals
overseas, including a tower in Toronto.
Telizhenko said he did not want to provide the intelligence he collected directly to Chalupa
and instead handed the materials to Chaly: "I told him what we were doing was illegal, that it
was unethical doing this as diplomats." He said the ambassador told him he would handle the
matter and had opened a second channel back in Ukraine to continue finding dirt on Trump.
Telizhenko said he also was instructed by his bosses to meet with an American journalist
researching Manafort's ties to Ukraine.
About a month later, he said his relationship with the ambassador soured and, by June 2016,
he was ordered to return to Ukraine. There, he reported his concerns about the embassy's
contacts with the Democrats to the former prosecutor general's office and officials in the
Poroshenko administration: "Everybody already knew what was going on and told me it had been
approved at the highest levels."
Telizhenko said he never was able to confirm whether the information he collected for
Chalupa was delivered to her, the DNC or the Clinton campaign.
Chalupa, meanwhile, continued to build a case that Manafort and Trump were tied to
Russia.
In April 2016, she attended an international symposium where she reported back to the DNC
that she had met with 68 Ukrainian investigative journalists to talk about Manafort. She also
wrote that she invited American reporter Michael Isikoff to speak with her. Isikoff wrote some
of the
seminal stories tying Manafort to Ukraine and Trump to Russia; he later wrote a
book making a case for Russian collusion.
"A lot more coming down the pipe," Chalupa wrote a top DNC official on May 3, 2016 ,
recounting her effort to educate Ukrainian journalists and Isikoff about Manafort.
Then she added, "More offline tomorrow since there is a big Trump component you and Lauren
need to be aware of that will hit in next few weeks and something I'm working on you should be
aware of."
Less than a month later, the " black
ledger " identifying payments to Manafort was announced in Ukraine, forcing Manafort to
resign as Trump's campaign chairman and eventually to face criminal prosecution for improper
foreign lobbying.
DNC officials have suggested in the past that Chalupa's efforts were personal, not
officially on behalf of the DNC. But Chalupa's May 2016 email clearly informed a senior DNC
official that she was "digging into Manafort" and she suspected someone was trying to hack into
her email account.
Chaly over the years has tried to portray his role as Ukraine's ambassador in Washington as
one of neutrality during the 2016 election. But in August 2016 he raised eyebrows in some
diplomatic circles when he wrote an
op-ed for The Hill skewering Trump for some of his comments on Russia. "Trump's comments
send wrong message to world," Chaly's article blared in the headline.
... ... ...
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years
has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists'
misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political
corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at
The Hill. Follow him on Twitter @jsolomonReports .
The fraction of RussiaGate/UkraineGate that can be taken seriously is quite small. An
enormous amount of it is "it's ok when we do it"-level material. Difficult to sort without
presenting a range encompassing all factions.
It's possible I'm too jaded, but "reporters presents material derived from his political
faction" isn't all that exciting, since I don't belong to either of the factions engaged in
this battle. I remember the Lewinsky Matter, WMDs, and (see today's Links), being smeared by
Prop0rNot, and UkraineGate just a little too well.
One of the problems with show trials is that they usually backfire...
Notable quotes:
"... What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella - there are penalties for filing false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the whistle-blower law. ..."
"... Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint. Only if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant. ..."
"... The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job isn't it? ..."
"... turcopolier , 20 November 2019 at 09:46 PM ..."
"... I will try again. The law has nothing to do with non-intelligence matters and there were no intelligence matters in the phone call. ..."
"... The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal destruction. While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint of irony) to be the one candidate who can "bring the country together again" after Trump alone has torn it asunder. ..."
"... If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires. ..."
"... Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating complaints about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect luggage at the airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint; an intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'. ..."
"... Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway. ..."
"... Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting. ..."
"... Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse. ..."
Only way out is to call for the impeachment, have a vote and either lick their wounds if
they lose (mainly Schiff and Nadler get sacrificed - Fancy Nancy has been dancing on a tight
rope so she gets a pass); or vote to pass articles of impeachment and finally send this
turkey on to the senate.
Wild card, how many Democrats not engaged in this blatant publicity stunt also want no
part in it. What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella - there are penalties for
filing false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the
whistle-blower law.
Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint.
Only if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant.
Otherwise, all you have are the opening opinion statements in tonights DNC debate, sneered
out by Rachael Maddow, picked up with even more sneers by Kamala Harris and echoed by every
single DNC candidate as already a fait accompli.
The unocntested party line tonight is this "whistle blower" busted Trump wide open as a
crook and a self-confessed crook at that.
That political message flowing from this "irrelevant complaint "is hard to overcome as the
DNC debate crowd cheered, unless the perpetrator is brought to justice under the relevance of
this law. We shall wait patiently for that moment. As the Democrats all stated tonight - 2020
election is all about JUSTICE AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
I do, which is what I meant by
"In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act."
The point I was making is that, as drafted, there is in adequate redress/protection for
those who witness acts which are clearly covered. This is not conducive to keeping government
on the straight and narrow. The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been
massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and
saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job
isn't it?
The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal
destruction. While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint
of irony) to be the one candidate who can "bring the country together again" after Trump
alone has torn it asunder.
Exactly right. If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower
complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence
activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires.
Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating
complaints about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect
luggage at the airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson
is the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint;
an intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information
of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also
the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901)
originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of
the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes
Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the
DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA
court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI
contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations
as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very
epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
Republicans are afraid to raise this key question. Democrats are afraid of even mentioning CrowdStrike in Ukrainegate hearings.
The Deep State wants to suppress this matter entirely.
Alperovisch connections to Ukraine and his Russophobia are well known. Did Alperovich people played the role of "Fancy Bear"? Or
Ukrainian SBU was engaged? George Eliason clams that
"I have already clearly shown the Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian Intelligence Operators." ... "Since there is so much crap surrounding
the supposed hack such as law enforcement teams never examining the DNC server or maintaining control of it as evidence, could the hacks
have been a cover-up?"
Notable quotes:
"... So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual 'false flag' hack. A possible calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious questions about the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility. ..."
"... What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich's laptop, designed as part of a 'false flag' operation. ..."
"... On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant 'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48. Both are short, and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining the truth about 'Russiagate.' (See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6775665/clevenger-v-us-department-of-justice/ .) ..."
"... And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard drives' can be changed, and that the level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high. Another matter of some importance is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims' site is back up online. (See http://debunkingrodwheelersclaims.net ) ..."
"... The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.' ..."
"... Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the "Russian" conclusion instead. Why has that methodology been sealed? ..."
"... Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers. ..."
"... What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Mueller team that conspired to reach this Russian conclusion. ..."
"... Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's evidentiary demand to ascertain how exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian link ..."
"... Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -- Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question when you don't already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth ..."
"... Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike. ..."
"... In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives. ..."
"... His role in what we may define as "converting DNC leak into DNC hack" (I would agree with you that this probably was a false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services, is very suspicious indeed. ..."
"... Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with "kid gloves" may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time. ..."
The favor was for Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the 2016 DNC computer breach.
Reliance on Crowdstrike to investigate the DNC computer, and not an independent FBI investigation, was tied very closely to
the years long anti-Trump Russiagate hoax and waste of US taxpayer time and money.
Why is this issue ignored by both the media and the Democrats. The ladies doth protest far too much.
what exactly, to the extend I recall, could the Ukraine contribute the the DNC's server/"fake malware" troubles? Beyond, that
I seem to vaguely recall, the supposed malware was distributed via an Ukrainan address.
On the other hand, there seems to be the (consensus here?) argument there was no malware breach at all, simply an insider copying
files on a USB stick.
If people discovered there had been a leak, it would perfectly natural that in order to give 'resilience' to their cover-up
strategies, they could have organised a planting of evidence on the servers, in conjunction with elements in Ukraine.
So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual 'false flag' hack. A possible
calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious
questions about the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility.
The issues involved become all the more important, in the light of the progress of Ty Clevenger's attempts to exploit the clear
contradiction between the claims by the FBI, in response to FOIA requests, to have no evidence relating to Seth Rich, and the
remarks by Ms. Deborah Sines quoted by Michael Isikoff.
What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich's laptop, designed as part of
a 'false flag' operation.
On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against
the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant 'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48. Both are short,
and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining
the truth about 'Russiagate.' (See
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6775665/clevenger-v-us-department-of-justice/
.)
It is eminently possible that Ms. Hines has simply made an 'unforced error.'
However, I do not – yet – feel able totally to discount the possibility that what is actually at issue is a 'ruse', produced
as a contingency plan to ensure that if it becomes impossible to maintain the cover-up over Rich's involvement in its original
form, his laptop shows 'evidence' compatible with the 'Russiagate' narrative.
And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard drives' can be changed, and that the
level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high. Another matter of some importance
is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims' site is back up online. (See
http://debunkingrodwheelersclaims.net )
Looking at it from the perspective of an old television current affairs hack, I do think that, while it is very helpful to
have some key material available in a single place, it would useful if more attention was paid to presentation.
In particular, it would be a most helpful 'teaching aid', if a full and accurate transcript was made of the conversation with
Seymour Hersh which Ed Butowsky covertly recorded. What seems clear is that both these figures ended up in very difficult positions,
and that the latter clearly engaged in 'sleight of hand' in relation to his dealings with the former. That said, the fact that
Butowsky's claims about his grounds for believing that Hersh's FBI informant was Andrew McCabe are clearly disingenuous does not
justify the conclusion that he is wrong.
It is absolutely clear to me – despite what 'TTG', following that 'Grub Street' hack Folkenflik, claimed – that when Hersh
talked to Butowsky, he believed he had been given accurate information. Indeed, I have difficulty seeing how anyone whose eyes
were not hopelessly blinded by prejudice, a\nd possibly fear of where a quest for the truth might lead, could not see that, in
this conversation, both men were telling the truth, as they saw it.
However, all of us, including the finest and most honourable of journalists can, from time to time, fall for disinformation.
(If anyone says they can always spot when they are being played, all I can say is, if you're right, you're clearly Superman, but
it is more likely that you are a fool or knave, if not both.)
The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise
the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak
before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.'
1. Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What
was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the "Russian" conclusion instead. Why has that methodology been sealed?
2. Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently
put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to
help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.
3. What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Mueller team that conspired to reach this Russian
conclusion.
4. Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's evidentiary demand to ascertain how
exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian
link .
5. Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -- Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are
any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question
when you don't already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth .
Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently
put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted
to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.
Alperovich is really a very suspicious figure. Rumors are that he was involved in compromising PGP while in MacAfee( June 2nd,
2018 Alperovich's DNC Cover Stories Soon To Match With His Hacking Teams - YouTube ):
Investigative Journalist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the CEO Bill Larsen bought a small,
Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to Silicon Valley.
MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate to reduce NSA spying on the
public.
The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order
to crack encrypted communications to write a back door for law enforcement.
Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would
go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike.
In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted
communications for covert action operatives.
His role in what we may define as "converting DNC leak into DNC hack" (I would agree with you that this probably was a
false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services,
is very suspicious indeed.
Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with "kid gloves" may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After
all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time.
While all this DNC hack saga is completely unclear due to lack of facts and the access to the evidence, there are some stories
on Internet that indirectly somewhat strengthen your hypothesis:
"... Fact 10 : Shokin stated in interviews with me and ABC News that he was told he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy the Burisma investigation wasn't shut down. He made that claim anew in this sworn deposition prepared for a court in Europe. You can read that here . ..."
"... Fact 11 : The day Shokin's firing was announced in March 2016, Burisma's legal representatives sought an immediate meeting with his temporary replacement to address the ongoing investigation. You can read the text of their emails here . ..."
"... Fact 13 : Burisma officials eventually settled the Ukraine investigations in late 2016 and early 2017, paying a multimillion dollar fine for tax issues. You can read their lawyer's February 2017 announcement of the end of the investigations here . ..."
"... Fact 15 : The Ukraine embassy in Washington issued a statement in April 2019 admitting that a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa solicited Ukrainian officials in spring 2016 for dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in hopes of staging a congressional hearing close to the 2016 election that would damage Trump's election chances. You can read the embassy's statement here and here . Your colleague, Dr. Fiona Hill, confirmed this episode, testifying "Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They bet on Hillary Clinton winning." You can read her testimony here . ..."
"... Fact 18 : A Ukrainian district court ruled in December 2018 that the summer 2016 release of information by Ukrainian Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko and NABU director Artem Sytnyk about an ongoing investigation of Manafort amounted to an improper interference by Ukraine's government in the 2016 U.S. election. You can read the court ruling here . Leschenko and Sytnyk deny the allegations, and have won an appeal to suspend that ruling on a jurisdictional technicality. ..."
"... Fact 21 : In April 2016, US embassy charge d'affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office demanding that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down a series of investigations into how Ukrainian nonprofits spent U.S. aid dollars, including the Anti-Corruption Actions Centre. You can read that letter here . Kent testified he signed the letter here . ..."
"... Fact 22 : Then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a televised interview with me that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch during a 2016 meeting provided the lists of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups she did want to see prosecuted. You can see I accurately quoted him by watching the video here . ..."
"... Fact 27 : In May 2016, one of George Soros' top aides secured a meeting with the top Eurasia policy official in the State Department to discuss Russian bond issues. You can read the State memos on that meeting here . ..."
"... Fact 28 : In June 2016, Soros himself secured a telephonic meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to discuss Ukraine policy. You can read the State memos on that meeting here . ..."
honor and applaud Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's service to his country. He's a hero. I also respect his decision to testify
at the impeachment proceedings. I suspect neither his service nor his testimony was easy.
But I also know the liberties that Lt. Col. Vindman fought on the battlefield to preserve permit for a free and honest debate
in America, one that can't be muted by the color of uniform or the crushing power of the state.
So I want to exercise my right to debate Lt. Col. Vindman about the testimony he gave about me. You see, under oath to Congress,
he asserted all the factual elements in my columns at The Hill about Ukraine were false, except maybe my grammar
"I think all the key elements were false," Vindman testified.
Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y, pressed him about what he meant. "Just so I understand what you mean when you say key elements, are you
referring to everything John Solomon stated or just some of it?"
"All the elements that I just laid out for you. The criticisms of corruption were false . Were there more items in there, frankly,
congressman? I don't recall. I haven't looked at the article in quite some time, but you know, his grammar might have been right."
Such testimony has been injurious to my reputation, one earned during 30 years of impactful reporting for news organizations that
included The Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Washington Times and The Daily Beast/Newsweek.
And so Lt. Col. Vindman, here are the 28 primary factual elements in my Ukraine columns, complete with attribution and links to
sourcing. Please tell me which, if any, was factually wrong.
Fact 1 : Hunter Biden was hired in May 2014 by Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas company, at a time when his father
Joe Biden was Vice President and overseeing US-Ukraine Policy.
Here
is the announcement. Hunter Biden's hiring came just a few short weeks after Joe Biden urged Ukraine to expand natural gas production
and use Americans to help. You can read his comments to the Ukrainian prime minister
here . Hunter Biden's firm then began receiving monthly payments totaling $166,666. You can see those payments
here .
Fact 2 : Burisma was under investigation by
British authorities for corruption
and soon came under investigation by
Ukrainian authorities led by Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
Fact 3 : Vice President Joe Biden and his office were alerted by a
December 2015 New York Times article that Shokin's office was investigating Burisma and that Hunter Biden's role at the company
was undercutting his father's anticorruption efforts in Ukraine.
Fact 4 : The Biden-Burisma issue created the appearance of a conflict of interest, especially for State Department officials.
I especially refer you to State official George Kent's testimony
here . He testified he viewed
Burisma as corrupt and the Bidens as creating the perception of a conflict of interest. His concerns both caused him to contact the
vice president's office and to block a project that State's USAID agency was planning with Burisma in 2016. In addition, Ambassador
Yovanovitch testified she, too, saw the Bidens-Burisma connection as creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. You can read
her testimony
here .
Fact 5 : The Obama White House invited Shokin's prosecutorial team to Washington for meetings in January 2016 to discuss
their anticorruption investigations. You can read about that
here . Also, here is the official agenda for that meeting in
Ukraine and
English
. I call your attention to the NSC organizer of the meeting.
Fact 6 : The Ukraine investigation of Hunter Biden's employer, Burisma Holdings, escalated in February 2016 when Shokin's
office raided the home of company owner Mykola Zlochevsky and seized his property.
Here is the announcement of that court-approved
raid.
Fact 7 : Shokin was making plans in February 2016 to interview Hunter Biden as part of his investigation. You can read
his interview with me here, his sworn deposition to a court
here and his interview with
ABC News
here .
Fact 8 : Burisma's American representatives lobbied the State Department in late February 2016 to help end the corruption
allegations against the company, and specifically invoked Hunter Biden's name as a reason to intervene. You can read State officials'
account of that effort here
Fact 9 : Joe Biden boasted in a
2018 videotape
that he forced Ukraine's president to fire Shokin in March 2016 by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid. You can view his
videotape here
.
Fact 10 : Shokin stated in interviews with me and
ABC News that he was told he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy the Burisma investigation wasn't shut down. He made that
claim anew in this sworn deposition prepared for a court in Europe. You can read that
here .
Fact 11 : The day Shokin's firing was announced in March 2016, Burisma's legal representatives sought an immediate meeting
with his temporary replacement to address the ongoing investigation. You can read the text of their emails
here .
Fact 12 : Burisma's legal representatives secured that meeting April 6, 2016 and told Ukrainian prosecutors that "false
information" had been spread to justify Shokin's firing, according to a Ukrainian government memo about the meeting. The representatives
also offered to arrange for the remaining Ukrainian prosecutors to meet with U.S State and Justice officials. You can read the Ukrainian
prosecutors' summary memo of the meeting here and here and the Burisma lawyers' invite to Washington
here .
Fact 13 : Burisma officials eventually settled the Ukraine investigations in late 2016 and early 2017, paying a multimillion
dollar fine for tax issues. You can read their lawyer's February 2017 announcement of the end of the investigations
here .
Fact 14 : In March 2019, Ukraine authorities reopened an investigation against Burisma and Zlochevsky based on new evidence
of money laundering. You can read NABU's February 2019 recommendation to re-open the case
here , the March 2019 notice of suspicion by Ukraine prosecutors
here and a
May 2019 interview
here
with a Ukrainian senior law enforcement official stating the investigation was ongoing. And
here is an announcement this week that the Zlochevsky/Burisma probe has been expanded to include allegations of theft of Ukrainian
state funds.
Fact 15 : The Ukraine embassy in Washington issued a statement in April 2019 admitting that a Democratic National Committee
contractor named Alexandra Chalupa solicited Ukrainian officials in spring 2016 for dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
in hopes of staging a congressional hearing close to the 2016 election that would damage Trump's election chances. You can read the
embassy's statement
here and
here . Your colleague, Dr. Fiona Hill, confirmed this episode, testifying "Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They bet on Hillary
Clinton winning." You can read her testimony
here .
Fact 16 : Chalupa sent an email to top DNC officials in May 2016 acknowledging she was working on the Manafort issue. You
can read the email here .
Fact 17 : Ukraine's ambassador to Washington, Valeriy Chaly, wrote an OpEd in The Hill in August 2016 slamming GOP nominee
Donald Trump for his policies on Russia despite a Geneva Convention requirement that ambassadors not become embroiled in the internal
affairs or elections of their host countries. You can read Ambassador Chaly's OpEd
here and the Geneva Convention rules of conduct for foreign diplomats
here . And your colleagues
Ambassador Yovanovitch and Dr. Hill both confirmed this, with Dr. Hill
testifying this
week that Chaly's OpEd was "probably not the most advisable thing to do."
Fact 18 : A Ukrainian district court ruled in December 2018 that the summer 2016 release of information by Ukrainian Parliamentary
member Sergey Leschenko and NABU director Artem Sytnyk about an ongoing investigation of Manafort amounted to an improper interference
by Ukraine's government in the 2016 U.S. election. You can read the court ruling
here . Leschenko and Sytnyk deny the allegations, and have won an appeal to suspend that ruling on a jurisdictional technicality.
Fact 19 : George Soros' Open Society Foundation issued a memo in February 2016 on its strategy for Ukraine, identifying
the nonprofit Anti-Corruption Action Centre as the lead for its efforts. You can read the memo
here .
Fact 20 : The State Department and Soros' foundation jointly funded the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. You can read about
that funding here from the Centre's own funding records and George
Kent's testimony about it here
.
Fact 21 : In April 2016, US embassy charge d'affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office
demanding that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down a series of investigations into how Ukrainian nonprofits spent U.S. aid dollars,
including the Anti-Corruption Actions Centre. You can read that letter
here . Kent testified he signed the
letter here .
Fact 22 : Then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a televised interview with me that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch
during a 2016 meeting provided the lists of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups she did want to see prosecuted. You can see I
accurately quoted him by watching the video
here .
Fact 23 : Ambassador Yovanovitch and her embassy denied Lutsenko's claim, calling it a "fabrication." I reported their
reaction
here .
Fact 24 : Despite the differing accounts of what happened at the Lutsenko-Yovanovitch meeting, a senior U.S. official in
an interview arranged by the State Department stated to me in spring 2019 that US officials did pressure Lutsenko's office on several
occasions not to "prosecute, investigate or harass" certain Ukrainian activists, including Parliamentary member Leschenko, journalist
Vitali Shabunin, the Anti-Corruption Action Centre and NABU director Sytnyk. You can read that official's comments
here . In addition, George Kent confirmed this same information in his deposition
here .
Fact 25 : In May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions sent an official congressional letter to Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo asking that Yovanovitch be recalled as ambassador to Ukraine. Sessions and State confirmed the official letter,
which you can read here
.
Fact 26 : In fall 2018, Ukrainian prosecutors, using a third party, hired an American lawyer (a former U.S. attorney) to
proffer information to the U.S. government about certain activities at the U.S. embassy, involving Burisma and involving the 2016
election, that they believed might have violated U.S. law. You can read their account
here . You can also confirm it independently by talking to the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan or the American lawyer representing
the Ukrainian prosecutors' interests.
Fact 27 : In May 2016, one of George Soros' top aides secured a meeting with the top Eurasia policy official in the State
Department to discuss Russian bond issues. You can read the State memos on that meeting
here .
Fact 28 : In June 2016, Soros himself secured a telephonic meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to
discuss Ukraine policy. You can read the State memos on that meeting
here .
Lt. Col. Vindman, if you have information that contradicts any of these 28 factual elements in my columns I ask that you make
it publicly available. Your testimony did not.
If you don't have evidence these 28 facts are wrong, I ask that you correct your testimony because any effort to call factually
accurate reporting false only misleads America and chills the free debate our Constitutional framers so cherished to protect.
Pelosi interference in elections might cost democrats a victory. She enraged Trump base and
strengthened Trump, who before was floundering. Now election changed into "us vs them" question,
which is very unfavorable to neoliberal Dems. as neolibelism as ideology is dead. She also
brought back Trump some independents who othersie would stay home or vote for Dem candidate. No
action of House of Representatives can changes this. Bringing Vindman and Fiona Hill to testify
were huge blunders as they enhance the narrative that the Deep State, unaccountable Security
Establishment, controls the government, to which Trump represents very weak, but still a
challenge. As such they strengthened Trump
Essentially Dems had driven themselves into a trap. Moreover actions of the Senate can drag
democrats in dirt till the elections, diminishing their chances further and firther. Can you
image the effect if Schiff would be called testify under oath about his contacts with Ciaramella?
Or Biden questioning about his dirty dealing with both Yanukovich administration and Provisional
Government after the 2014 coup d'état (aka EuroMaydan, aka "the Revolution of dignity"
?
Notable quotes:
"... It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over "withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one. Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed "isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to criticize a president. ..."
"... Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe, Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S. involvement overseas are reducing it. ..."
"... We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually been adding to them. ..."
Gideon Rachman tries to find
similarities between the foreign policies of Trump and Obama:
Both men would detest the thought. But, in crucial respects, the foreign policies of
Donald Trump and Barack Obama are looking strikingly similar.
The wildly different styles of the two presidents have disguised the underlying
continuities between their approaches to the world. But look at substance, rather than style,
and the similarities are impressive.
There is usually considerable continuity in U.S. foreign policy from one president to
another, but Rachman is making a stronger and somewhat different claim than that. He is arguing
that their foreign policy agendas are very much alike in ways that put both presidents at odds
with the foreign policy establishment, and he cites "disengagement from the Middle East" and a
"pivot to Asia" as two examples of these similarities. This seems superficially plausible, but
it is misleading. Despite talking a lot about disengagement, Obama and Trump chose to keep the
U.S. involved in several conflicts, and Trump actually escalated the wars he inherited from
Obama. To the extent that there is continuity between Obama and Trump, it has been that both of
them have acceded to the conventional wisdom of "the Blob" and refused to disentangle the U.S.
from Middle Eastern conflicts. Ongoing support for the war on Yemen is the ugliest and most
destructive example of this continuity.
In reality, neither Obama nor Trump "focused" on Asia, and Trump's foray into
pseudo-engagement with North Korea has little in common with Obama's would-be "pivot" or
"rebalance." U.S. participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a major part of Obama's
policy in Asia. Trump pulled out of that agreement and waged destructive trade wars instead.
Once we get past generalizations and look at details, the two presidents are often
diametrically opposed to one another in practice. That is what one would expect when we
remember that Trump has made dismantling Obama's foreign policy achievements one of his main
priorities.
The significant differences between the two become much more apparent when we look at other
issues. On arms control and nonproliferation, the two could not be more different. Obama
negotiated a new arms reduction treaty with New START at the start of his presidency, and he
wrapped up a major nonproliferation agreement with Iran and the other members of the P5+1 in
2015. Trump reneged on the latter and seems determined to kill the former. Obama touted the
benefits of genuine diplomatic engagement, while Trump has made a point of reversing and
undoing most of the results of Obama's engagement with Cuba and Iran. Trump's overall hostility
to genuine diplomacy makes another one of Rachman claims quite baffling:
The result is that, after his warlike "fire and fury" phase, Mr Trump is now pursuing a
diplomacy-first strategy that is strongly reminiscent of Mr Obama.
Calling Trump's clumsy pattern of making threats and ultimatums a "diplomacy-first strategy"
is a mistake. This is akin to saying that he is adhering to foreign policy restraint because
the U.S. hasn't invaded any new countries on Trump's watch. It takes something true (Trump
hasn't started a new war yet) and misrepresents it as proof that the president is serious about
diplomacy and that he wants to reduce U.S. military engagement overseas. Trump enjoys the
spectacle of meeting with foreign leaders, but he isn't interested in doing the work or taking
the risks that successful diplomacy requires. He has shown repeatedly through his own behavior,
his policy preferences, and his proposed budgets that he has no use for diplomacy or diplomats,
and instead he expects to be able to bully or flatter adversaries into submission.
So Rachman is simply wrong he reaches this conclusion:
Mr Trump's reluctance to attack Iran was significant. It underlines the fact that his
tough-guy rhetoric disguises a strong preference for diplomacy over force.
Let's recall that the near-miss of starting a war with Iran came as a result of the downing
of an unmanned drone. The fact that the U.S. was seriously considering an attack on another
country over the loss of a drone is a worrisome sign that this administration is prepared to go
to war at the drop of a hat. Calling off such an insane attack was the right thing to do, but
there should never have been an attack to call off. That episode does not show a "strong
preference for diplomacy over force." If Trump had a strong preference for diplomacy over
force, his policy would not be one of relentless hostility towards Iran. Trump does not believe
in diplomatic compromise, but expects the other side to capitulate under pressure. That
actually makes conflict more likely and reduces the chances of meaningful negotiations.
It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over
"withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that
they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one.
Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed
"isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been
criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies
because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to
criticize a president.
Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most
of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is
guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe,
Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think
there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world.
Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn
non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S.
involvement overseas are reducing it.
Rachman ends his column with this assertion:
In their very different ways, both Mr Obama and Mr Trump have reduced America's global
commitments -- and adjusted the US to a more modest international role.
The problem here is that there has been no meaningful reduction in America's "global
commitments." Which commitments have been reduced or eliminated? It would be helpful if someone
could be specific about this. The U.S. has more security dependents today than it did when
Trump took office. NATO has been expanded to include two new countries in just the last three
years. U.S. troops are engaged in hostilities in just as many countries as they were when Trump
was elected. There are more troops deployed to the Middle East at the end of this year than
there were at the beginning, and that is a direct consequence of Trump's bankrupt Iran
policy.
We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really
have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually
been adding to them.
"... Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward Russia. The Council in turn is financed by Google Inc. ..."
"... In a perhaps unexpected development, another Atlantic Council funder is Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Those allegations were the subject of Trump's inquiry with Zelemsky related to Biden. The Biden allegations concern significant questions about Biden's role in Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. This took place during a period when Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from Burisma. ..."
"... Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower's complaint alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country" in the 2020 presidential race. ..."
"... Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. ..."
"... Together with Soros's Open Society, Omidyar also funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are "disputed." ..."
There are common threads that run through an organization repeatedly relied upon in the
so-called whistleblower's complaint about President Donald Trump and CrowdStrike, the outside
firm utilized to conclude that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee's servers
since the DNC would not allow the U.S. government to inspect the servers.
One of several themes is financing tied to Google, whose Google Capital led a $100 million
funding drive that financed Crowdstrike. Google Capital, which now goes by the name of
CapitalG, is an arm of Alphabet Inc., Google's parent company. Eric Schmidt, the chairman of
Alphabet, has been a staunch and active supporter of Hillary Clinton and is a longtime donor
to the Democratic Party.
CrowdStrike was mentioned by Trump in his call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign,
reportedly helped draft CrowdStrike to aid with the DNC's allegedly hacked server.
On behalf of the DNC and Clinton's campaign, Perkins Coie also paid the controversial
Fusion GPS firm to produce the infamous, largely-discredited anti-Trump dossier compiled by
former British spy Christopher Steele.
CrowdStrike is a California-based cybersecurity technology company co-founded by Dmitri
Alperovitch.
Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the
Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward
Russia. The Council in turn is financed
by Google Inc.
In a perhaps unexpected development, another Atlantic Council
funder is Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe
Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Those allegations were the subject of Trump's inquiry with
Zelemsky related to Biden. The Biden allegations concern significant questions about Biden's
role in Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. This took place during a period when
Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from Burisma.
Besides Google and Burisma funding, the Council is also financed by billionaire activist
George Soros's Open Society Foundations as well as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. and
the U.S. State Department.
Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State
Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization
repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower's complaint
alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign
country" in the 2020 presidential race.
The charges in the July 22 report referenced in the whistleblower's document and released
by the Google and Soros-funded organization, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting
Project (OCCRP), seem to be the public precursors for a lot of the so-called whistleblower's
own claims, as Breitbart News
documented .
One key section of the so-called whistleblower's document claims that "multiple U.S.
officials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of
other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the
Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov."
This was allegedly to follow up on Trump's call with Zelensky in order to discuss the
"cases" mentioned in that call, according to the so-called whistleblower's narrative. The
complainer was clearly referencing Trump's request for Ukraine to investigate the Biden
corruption allegations.
Even though the statement was written in first person – "multiple U.S. officials
told me" – it contains a footnote referencing a report by the Organized Crime and
Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
That footnote reads:
In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on
22 July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met
with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir.
The so-called whistleblower's account goes on to rely upon that same OCCRP report on three
more occasions. It does so to:
Write that Ukraine's Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko
"also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these
matters." Document that Trump adviser Rudi Giuliani "had spoken in late 2018 to former
Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani."
Bolster the charge that, "I also learned from a U.S. official that 'associates' of Mr.
Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team." The so-called
whistleblower then relates in another footnote, "I do not know whether these associates of
Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced
above."
The OCCRP
report repeatedly referenced is actually a "joint investigation by the Organized Crime
and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and BuzzFeed News, based on interviews and court and
business records in the United States and Ukraine."
BuzzFeed infamously also first
published the full anti-Trump dossier alleging unsubstantiated collusion between Trump's
presidential campaign and Russia. The dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign and
the Democratic National Committee and was produced by the Fusion GPS opposition dirt
outfit.
The OCCRP and BuzzFeed "joint investigation" resulted in both OCCRP and BuzzFeed
publishing similar lengthy pieces on July 22 claiming that Giuliani was attempting to use
connections to have Ukraine investigate Trump's political rivals.
The so-called whistleblower's document, however, only mentions the largely unknown OCCRP
and does not reference BuzzFeed, which has faced scrutiny over its reporting on the Russia
collusion claims.
Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal
billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.
Together with Soros's Open Society, Omidyar also
funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International
Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are
"disputed."
Like OCCRP, the Poynter Institute's so-called news fact-checking project is openly
funded by not only Soros' Open Society Foundations but also Google and the National
Endowment for Democracy.
CrowdStrike and DNC servers
CrowdStrike, meanwhile, was brought up by Trump in his phone call with Zelensky. According to the transcript, Trump told Zelensky, "I would like you to find out what
happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike I guess you have one of
your wealthy people The server, they say Ukraine has it."
In his extensive
report , Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller notes that his investigative team did not
"obtain or examine" the servers of the DNC in determining whether those servers were hacked
by Russia.
The DNC famously refused to allow the FBI to access its servers to verify the allegation
that Russia carried out a hack during the 2016 presidential campaign. Instead, the DNC
reached an arrangement with the FBI in which CrowdStrike conducted forensics on the server
and shared details with the FBI.
In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in January 2017, then-FBI Director
James Comey
confirmed that the FBI registered "multiple requests at different levels," to review the
DNC's hacked servers. Ultimately, the DNC and FBI came to an agreement in which a "highly
respected private company" -- a reference to CrowdStrike -- would carry out forensics on the
servers and share any information that it discovered with the FBI, Comey testified.
A senior law enforcement official stressed the importance of the FBI gaining direct access
to the servers, a request that was denied by the DNC.
"The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to
servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been
mitigated," the official was quoted by the news media as saying.
"This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions
caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier," the
official continued.
... ... ...
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter.
He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "
Aaron Klein Investigative
Radio ." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.
Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.
Russians did not hack the DNC system, a Russian named Dmitri Alperovitch is the hacker
and he works for President Obama. In the last five years the Obama administration has
turned exclusively to one Russian to solve every major cyber-attack in America, whether the
attack was on the U.S. government or a corporation. Only one "super-hero cyber-warrior" seems
to "have the codes" to figure out "if" a system was hacked and by "whom."
Dmitri's company, CrowdStrike has been called in by Obama to solve mysterious attacks on
many high level government agencies and American corporations, including: German Bundestag,
Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the White
House, the State Department, SONY, and many others.
CrowdStrike's philosophy is: "You don't have a malware problem; you have an adversary
problem."
CrowdStrike has played a critical role in the development of America's cyber-defense policy.
Dmitri Alperovitch and George Kurtz, a former head of the FBI cyberwarfare unit founded
CrowdStrike. Shawn Henry, former executive assistant director at the FBI is now CrowdStrike's
president of services. The company is crawling with former U.S. intelligence agents.
Before Alperovitch founded CrowdStrike in 2011, he was working in Atlanta as the chief
threat officer at the antivirus software firm McAfee, owned by Intel (a DARPA company). During
that time, he "discovered" the Chinese had compromised at least seventy-one companies and
organizations, including thirteen defense contractors, three electronics firms, and the
International Olympic Committee. He was the only person to notice the biggest cyberattack in
history! Nothing suspicious about that.
Alperovitch and the DNC
After CrowdStrike was hired as an independent "vendor" by the DNC to investigate a possible
cyberattack on their system, Alperovitch sent the DNC a proprietary software package called
Falcon that monitors the networks of its clients in real time. According to Alperovitch,
Falcon "lit up," within ten seconds of being installed at the DNC. Alperovitch had his
"proof" in TEN SECONDS that Russia was in the network. This "alleged" evidence of Russian
hacking has yet to be shared with anyone.
As Donald Trump has pointed out, the FBI, the agency that should have been immediately
involved in hacking that effects "National Security," has yet to even examine the DNC system to
begin an investigation. Instead, the FBI and 16 other U.S. "intelligence" agencies simply
"agree" with Obama's most trusted "cyberwarfare" expert Dmitri Alperovitch's "TEN SECOND"
assessment that produced no evidence to support the claim.
Also remember that it is only Alperovitch and CrowdStrike that claim to have evidence
that it was Russian hackers . In fact, only two hackers were found to have been in the
system and were both identified by Alperovitch as Russian FSB (CIA) and the Russian GRU (DoD).
It is only Alperovitch who claims that he knows that it is Putin behind these two hackers.
Alperovitch failed to mention in his conclusive "TEN SECOND" assessment that Guccifer 2.0
had already hacked the DNC and made available to the public the documents he hacked –
before Alperovitch did his ten second assessment. Alperovitch reported that no other hackers
were found, ignoring the fact that Guccifer 2.0 had already hacked and released DNC documents
to the public. Alperovitch's assessment also goes directly against Julian Assange's repeated
statements that the DNC leaks did not come from the Russians.
The ridiculously fake cyber-attack assessment done by Alperovitch and CrowdStrike
naïvely flies in the face of the fact that a DNC insider admitted that he had released the
DNC documents. Julian Assange implied in an interview that the murdered Democratic
National Committee staffer, Seth Rich, was the source of a trove of damaging emails the website
posted just days before the party's convention. Seth was on his way to testify about the DNC
leaks to the FBI when he was shot dead in the street.
It is also absurd to hear Alperovitch state that the Russian FSB (equivalent to the CIA) had
been monitoring the DNC site for over a year and had done nothing. No attack, no theft, and no
harm was done to the system by this "false-flag cyber-attack" on the DNC – or at least,
Alperovitch "reported" there was an attack. The second hacker, the supposed Russian military
(GRU – like the U.S. DoD) hacker, had just entered the system two weeks before and also
had done "nothing" but observe.
It is only Alperovitch's word that reports that the Russian FSB was "looking for files on
Donald Trump."
It is only this false claim that spuriously ties Trump to the "alleged"
attack. It is also only Alperovitch who believes that this hack that was supposedly "looking
for Trump files" was an attempt to "influence" the election. No files were found about Trump by
the second hacker, as we know from Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0's leaks. To confabulate that
"Russian's hacked the DNC to influence the elections" is the claim of one well-known Russian
spy. Then, 17 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously confirm that Alperovitch is correct
– even though there is no evidence and no investigation was ever conducted .
How does Dmitri Alperovitch have such power? Why did Obama again and again use Alperovitch's
company, CrowdStrike, when they have miserably failed to stop further cyber-attacks on the
systems they were hired to protect? Why should anyone believe CrowdStrikes false-flag
report?
After documents from the DNC continued to leak, and Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks made
CrowdStrike's report look foolish, Alperovitch decided the situation was far worse than he had
reported. He single-handedly concluded that the Russians were conducting an "influence
operation" to help win the election for Trump . This false assertion had absolutely no
evidence to back it up.
On July 22, three days before the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks dumped a
massive cache of emails that had been "stolen" (not hacked) from the DNC. Reporters soon found
emails suggesting that the DNC leadership had favored Hillary Clinton in her primary race
against Bernie Sanders, which led Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair, along with three
other officials, to resign.
Just days later, it was discovered that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
(DCCC) had been hacked. CrowdStrike was called in again and once again, Alperovitch immediately
"believed" that Russia was responsible. A lawyer for the DCCC gave Alperovitch permission to
confirm the leak and to name Russia as the suspected author. Two weeks later, files from the
DCCC began to appear on Guccifer 2.0's website. This time Guccifer released information about
Democratic congressional candidates who were running close races in Florida, Ohio, Illinois,
and Pennsylvania. On August 12, Guccifer went further, publishing a spreadsheet that included
the personal email addresses and phone numbers of nearly two hundred Democratic members of
Congress.
Once again, Guccifer 2.0 proved Alperovitch and CrowdStrike's claims to be grossly incorrect
about the hack originating from Russia, with Putin masterminding it all. Nancy Pelosi offered
members of Congress Alperovitch's suggestion of installing Falcon , the system that
failed to stop cyberattacks at the DNC, on all congressional laptops.
Key Point: Once Falcon was installed on the computers of members of the U.S.
Congress, CrowdStrike had even further full access into U.S. government accounts.
Alperovitch's "Unbelievable" History
Dmitri was born in 1980 in Moscow where his father, Michael, was a nuclear physicist, (so
Dmitri claims). Dmitri's father was supposedly involved at the highest levels of Russian
nuclear science. He also claims that his father taught him to write code as a child.
In 1990, his father was sent to Maryland as part of a nuclear-safety training program for
scientists. In 1994, Michael Alperovitch was granted a visa to Canada, and a year later the
family moved to Chattanooga, where Michael took a job with the Tennessee Valley Authority.
While Dmitri Alperovitch was still in high school, he and his father started an
encryption-technology business. Dmitri studied computer science at Georgia Tech and went on to
work at an antispam software firm. It was at this time that he realized that cyber-defense was
more about psychology than it was about technology. A very odd thing to conclude.
Dmitri Alperovitch posed as a "Russian gangster" on spam discussion forums which brought his
illegal activity to the attention of the FBI – as a criminal. In 2005, Dmitri flew to
Pittsburgh to meet an FBI agent named Keith Mularski, who had been asked to lead an undercover
operation against a vast Russian credit-card-theft syndicate. Alperovitch worked closely with
Mularski's sting operation which took two years, but it ultimately brought about fifty-six
arrests. Dmitri Alperovitch then became a pawn of the FBI and CIA.
In 2010, while he was at McAfee, the head of cybersecurity at Google told Dmitri that Gmail
accounts belonging to human-rights activists in China had been breached. Google suspected the
Chinese government. Alperovitch found that the breach was unprecedented in scale; it affected
more than a dozen of McAfee's clients and involved the Chinese government. Three days after his
supposed discovery, Alperovitch was on a plane to Washington where he had been asked to vet a
paragraph in a speech by the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.
2014, Sony called in CrowdStrike to investigate a breach of its network. Alperovitch needed
just "two hours" to identify North Korea as the adversary. Executives at Sony asked Alperovitch
to go public with the information immediately, but it took the FBI another three weeks before
it confirmed the attribution.
Alperovitch then developed a list of "usual suspects" who were well-known hackers who had
identifiable malware that they commonly used. Many people use the same malware and
Alperovitch's obsession with believing he has the only accurate list of hackers in the world is
plain idiocy exacerbated by the U.S. government's belief in his nonsense. Alperovitch even
speaks like a "nut-case" in his personal Twitters, which generally have absolutely no
references to the technology he is supposedly the best at in the entire world.
Dmitri – Front Man for His Father's Russian Espionage Mission
After taking a close look at the disinformation around Dmitri and his father, it is clear to
see that Michael Alperovitch became a CIA operative during his first visit to America.
Upon his return to Russia, he stole the best Russian encryption codes that were used to protect
the top-secret work of nuclear physics in which his father is alleged to have been a major
player. Upon surrendering the codes to the CIA when he returned to Canada, the CIA made it
possible for a Russian nuclear scientist to become an American citizen overnight and gain a
top-secret security clearance to work at the Oakridge plant, one of the most secure and
protected nuclear facilities in America . Only the CIA can transform a Russian into an
American with a top-secret clearance overnight.
We can see on Michael Alperovitch's Linked In page that he went from one fantastically
top-secret job to the next without a break from the time he entered America. He seemed to be on
a career path to work in every major U.S. agency in America. In every job he was hired as the
top expert in the field and the leader of the company. All of these jobs after the first one
were in cryptology, not nuclear physics. As a matter of fact, Michael became the top expert in
America overnight and has stayed the top expert to this day.
Most of the work of cyber-security is creating secure interactions on a non-secure system
like the Internet. The cryptologist who assigns the encryption codes controls the system
from that point on .
Key Point: Cryptologists are well known for leaving a "back-door" in the base-code so
that they can always have over-riding control.
Michael Alperovitch essentially has the "codes" for all Department of Defense sites, the
Treasury, the State Department, cell-phones, satellites, and public media . There is hardly
any powerful agency or company that he has not written the "codes" for. One might ask, why do
American companies and the U.S. government use his particular codes? What are so special about
Michael's codes?
Stolen Russian Codes
In December, Obama ordered the U.S. military to conduct cyberattacks against Russia in
retaliation for the alleged DNC hacks. All of the attempts to attack Russia's military and
intelligence agencies failed miserably. Russia laughed at Obama's attempts to hack their
systems. Even the Russian companies targeted by the attacks were not harmed by Obama's
cyber-attacks. Hardly any news of these massive and embarrassing failed cyber-attacks were
reported by the Main Stream Media. The internet has been scrubbed clean of the reports that
said Russia's cyber-defenses were impenetrable due to the sophistication of their encryption
codes.
Michael Alperovitch was in possession of those impenetrable codes when he was a top
scientist in Russia. It was these very codes that he shared with the CIA on his first trip
to America . These codes got him spirited into America and "turned into" the best
cryptologist in the world. Michael is simply using the effective codes of Russia to design
his codes for the many systems he has created in America for the CIA .
KEY POINT: It is crucial to understand at this junction that the CIA is not solely working
for America . The CIA works for itself and there are three branches to the CIA – two of
which are hostile to American national interests and support globalism.
Michael and Dmitri Alperovitch work for the CIA (and international intelligence
corporations) who support globalism . They, and the globalists for whom they work, are
not friends of America or Russia. It is highly likely that the criminal activities of Dmitri,
which were supported and sponsored by the FBI, created the very hackers who he often claims are
responsible for cyberattacks. None of these supposed "attackers" have ever been found or
arrested; they simply exist in the files of CrowdStrike and are used as the "usual culprits"
when the FBI or CIA calls in Dmitri to give the one and only opinion that counts. Only Dmitri's
"suspicions" are offered as evidence and yet 17 U.S. intelligence agencies stand behind the
CrowdStrike report and Dmitri's suspicions.
Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys
Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who
works with PKI. A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and
distribution of digital certificates which are used to
verify that a particular public key belongs to a certain entity. The PKI creates digital
certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores these certificates in a central
repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a
cryptographic
technique that enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure
public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an entity via digital signatures .
Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key
bound to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user
key relies on one's trust in the validity of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is
considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the
market .
Michael's past is clouded in confusion and lies. Dmitri states that his father was a nuclear
physicist and that he came to America the first time in a nuclear based shared program between
America and Russia. But if we look at his current personal Linked In page, Michael claims he
has a Master Degree in Applied Mathematics from Gorky State University. From 1932 to 1956, its
name was State University of Gorky. Now it is known as Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni
Novgorod – National Research University (UNN), also known as Lobachevsky University. Does
Michael not even know the name of the University he graduated from? And when does a person with
a Master's Degree become a leading nuclear physicist who comes to "visit" America. In Michael's
Linked In page there is a long list of his skills and there is no mention of nuclear
physics.
Also on Michael Alperovitch's Linked In page we find some of his illustrious history that
paints a picture of either the most brilliant mind in computer security, encryption, and
cyberwarfare, or a CIA/FBI backed Russian spy. Imagine that out of all the people in the world
to put in charge of the encryption keys for the Department of Defense, the U.S. Treasury, U.S.
military satellites, the flow of network news, cell phone encryption, the Pathfire (media control)
Program, the Defense Information Systems Agency, the Global Information Grid, and TriCipher
Armored Credential System among many others, the government hires a Russian spy . Go
figure.
Michael Alperovitch's Linked In Page
Education:
Gorky State University, Russia, MS in Applied Mathematics
VT
IDirect -2014 – Designing security architecture for satellite communications
including cryptographic protocols, authentication.
Principal SME (Contractor)
DISA
-Defense Information Systems Agency (Manager of the Global Information Grid) – 2012-2014
– Worked on PKI and identity management projects for DISA utilizing Elliptic Curve
Cryptography. Performed application security and penetration testing.
Technical Lead (Contractor)
U.S.
Department of the Treasury – 2011 – Designed enterprise validation service
architecture for PKI certificate credentials with Single Sign On authentication.
Comtech Mobile
Datacom – 2007-2010 – Subject matter expert on latest information security
practices, including authentication, encryption and key management.
BellSouth – 2003-2006 – Designed and built server-side Jabber-based messaging
platform with Single Sign On authentication.
Principal Software Research Engineer
Pathfire – 2001-2002
– Designed and developed Digital Rights Management Server for Video on Demand and content
distribution applications. Pathfire provides digital media distribution and management
solutions to the television, media, and entertainment industries. The company offers Digital
Media Gateway, a digital IP store-and-forward platform, delivering news stories, syndicated
programming, advertising spots, and video news releases to broadcasters. It provides solutions
for content providers and broadcasters, as well as station solutions.
Obama – No Friend of America
Obama is no friend of America in the war against cyber-attacks. The very agencies and
departments being defended by Michael Alperovitch's "singular and most brilliant" ability to
write encryption codes have all been successfully attacked and compromised since Michael set up
the codes. But we shouldn't worry, because if there is a cyberattack in the Obama
administration, Michael's son Dmitri is called in to "prove" that it isn't the fault of his
father's codes. It was the "damn Russians", or even "Putin himself" who attacked American
networks.
Not one of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies is capable of figuring out a successful
cyberattack against America without Michael and Dmitri's help. Those same 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies were not able to effectively launch a successful cyberattack against Russia. It seems
like the Russian's have strong codes and America has weak codes. We can thank Michael and
Dmitri Alperovitch for that.
It is clear that there was no DNC hack beyond Guccifer 2.0. Dmitri Alperovitch is a
"frontman" for his father's encryption espionage mission.
Is it any wonder that Trump says that he has "his own people" to deliver his intelligence
to him that is outside of the infiltrated U.S. government intelligence agencies and the Obama
administration ? Isn't any wonder that citizens have to go anywhere BUT the MSM to find
real news or that the new administration has to go to independent news to get good intel?
It is hard to say anything more damnable than to again quote Dmitri on these very
issues: "If someone steals your keys to encrypt the data, it doesn't matter how secure the
algorithms are." Dmitri Alperovitch, founder of CrowdStrike
"... And RUH8 is allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. ..."
"... Russia was probably not one of the hacking groups. The willful destruction of evidence by the DNC themselves probably points to Russia not being one of the those groups. The DNC wouldn't destroy evidence that supported their position. Also, government spy agencies keep info like that closely held. They might leak out tidbits, but they don't do wholesale dumps, like, ever. ..."
"... That's what the DNC is lying about. Not that hacks happened (they undoubtedly did), but about who did them (probably not Russian gov), and if hacks mattered (they didn't since everything was getting leaked anyway). ..."
"... The DNC/Mueller/etc are lying, but like most practiced liars they're mixing the lies with half-truths and unrelated facts to muddy the waters: ..."
"... An interesting question is, since it's basically guaranteed the DNC got hacked, but probably not by the Russians, is, what groups did hack the DNC, and why did the DNC scramble madly to hide their identities? ..."
"... And while you think about that question, consider the close parallel with the Awan case, where Dems were ostensibly the victims, but they again scrambled to cover up for the people who supposedly harmed them. level 2 ..."
"... DNC wasn't even hacked. Emails were leaked. They didn't even examine the server. Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools that we know about from wikileaks. It's important to know how each new lie is a lie. But man I am just so done with all this Russia shit. level 2 ..."
"... Crowdstrike claims that malware was found on DNC server. I agree that this has nothing to do with the Wikileaks releases. What I am wondering is whether Crowdstrike may have arranged for the DNC to be hacked so that Russia could be blamed. Continue this thread level 1 ..."
"... George Eliason promises additional essays: *The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear's hot/cold ongoing relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following: Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing Information War material as evidence for MH17: ..."
"... Fancy Bear is an inside unit of the Atlantic Council and their Digital Forensics Lab ..."
Cyberanalyst George Eliason has written some intriguing blogs recently claiming that the
"Fancy Bear" which hacked the DNC server in mid-2016 was in fact a branch of Ukrainian intelligence linked to the Atlantic
Council and Crowdstrike. I invite you to have a go at one of his recent essays:
Since I am not very computer savvy and don't know much about the world of hackers - added
to the fact that Eliason's writing is too cute and convoluted - I have difficulty navigating Eliason's thought. Nonetheless,
here is what I can make of Eliasons' claims, as supported by independent literature:
Russian hacker Konstantin Kozlovsky, in Moscow court filings, has claimed that he did the
DNC hack – and can prove it, because he left some specific code on the DNC server.
Kozlovsky states that he did so by order of Dimitry Dokuchaev (formerly of the FSB, and
currently in prison in Russia on treason charges) who works with the Russian traitor hacker group Shaltai Boltai.
According to Eliason, Shaltai Boltai works in collaboration with the Ukrainian hacker group
RUH8, a group of neo-Nazis (Privat Sektor) who are affiliated with Ukrainian intelligence.
And RUH8 is allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike.
Cyberexpert Jeffrey Carr has stated that RUH8 has the X-Agent malware which our
intelligence community has erroneously claimed is possessed only by Russian intelligence, and used by "Fancy Bear".
This might help explain why Adam Carter has determined that some of the malware found on
the DNC server was compiled AFTER Crowdstrike was working on the DNC server – Crowdstrike was in collusion with Fancy Bear
(RUH8).
In other words, Crowdstrike likely arranged for a
hack by Ukrainian intelligence that they could then attribute to Russia.
As far as I can tell, none of this is pertinent to how Wikileaks obtained their DNC emails,
which most likely were leaked.
How curious that our Deep State and the recent Mueller indictment have had nothing to say
about Kozlovsky's confession - whom I tend to take seriously because he offers a simple way to confirm his claim. Also
interesting that the FBI has shown no interest in looking at the DNC server to check whether Kozlovsky's code is there.
Its worth noting that Dimitri Alperovich's (Crowdstrike) hatred of Putin is
second only to Hillary's hatred for taking responsibility for her actions.
level 1
Thanks - I'll continue to follow Eliason's work. The thesis that Ukrainian
intelligence is hacking a number of targets so that Russia gets blamed for it has intuitive appeal.
level 1
and have to cringe.
Any hacks weren't related to Wikileaks, who got their info from leakers, but
that is not the same thing as no hack. Leaks and hacks aren't mutually exclusive. They actually occur together
pretty commonly.
DNC's security was utter shit. Systems with shit security and obviously
valuable info usually get hacked by multiple groups. In the case of the DNC, Hillary's email servers, etc.,
it's basically impossible they weren't hacked by dozens of intruders. A plastic bag of 100s will not sit
untouched on a NYC street corner for 4 weeks. Not. fucking. happening.
Interestingly, Russia was probably not
one of the hacking groups. The willful destruction of evidence by the DNC themselves probably points to Russia
not being one of the those groups. The DNC wouldn't destroy evidence that supported their position. Also,
government spy agencies keep info like that closely held. They might leak out tidbits, but they don't do
wholesale dumps, like, ever.
That's
what the DNC is lying about.
Not that hacks
happened
(they undoubtedly did), but about
who
did them (probably not Russian gov), and if hacks mattered
(they didn't since everything was getting leaked anyway).
The DNC/Mueller/etc are lying, but like most practiced liars they're mixing
the lies with half-truths and unrelated facts to muddy the waters:
Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools
Yes, but that spoofed 'evidence' is not the direct opposite of the truth,
like I see people assuming. Bad assumption, and the establishment plays on that to make critic look bad. The
spoofed evidence is just mud.
An interesting question is, since it's basically guaranteed the DNC got
hacked, but probably not by the Russians, is, what groups
did
hack the
DNC, and why did the DNC scramble madly to hide their identities?
And while you think about that question, consider the close parallel with
the Awan case, where Dems were ostensibly the victims, but they again scrambled to cover up for the people who
supposedly harmed them.
level 2
What's hilarious about the 2 down-votes is I can't tell if their from
pro-Russiagate trolls, or from people who who can't get past binary thinking.
level 1
DNC wasn't even hacked. Emails were leaked. They didn't even examine the
server.
Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools that we know about
from wikileaks. It's important to know how each new lie is a lie. But man I am just so done
with all this Russia shit.
level 2
Crowdstrike claims that malware was found on DNC server. I agree that this
has nothing to do with the Wikileaks releases. What I am wondering is whether Crowdstrike may have arranged for
the DNC to be hacked so that Russia could be blamed.
Continue this thread
level 1
George Eliason promises additional essays: *The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear's hot/cold ongoing
relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following: Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing
Information War material as evidence for MH17:
Fancy Bear is an inside unit of the Atlantic Council and their Digital
Forensics Lab
Fancy Bear worked with Crowdstrike and Dimitri Alperovich Fancy Bear is
Ukrainian Intelligence
How Fancy Bear tried to sway the US election for Team Hillary
Fancy Bear worked against US Intel gathering by providing consistently
fraudulent data
Fancy Bear contributed to James Clapper's January 2017 ODNI Report on Fancy
Bear and Russian Influence. [You really can't make this shit up.]
Fancy Bear had access to US government secure servers while working as
foreign spies.*
level 1
Fancy Bear (also know as Strontium Group, or APT28) is a Ukrainian cyber espionage group. Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike incorrectly has said
with a medium level of confidence that it is associated with the Russian military intelligence
agency GRU . CrowdStrike
founder,
Dmitri Alperovitch , has colluded with Fancy Bear. American journalist
George Eliason has written extensively on the subject.
There are a couple of caveats that need to be made when identifying the Fancy Bear hackers.
The first is the identifier used by Mueller as Russian FSB and GRU may have been true- 10 years
ago. This group was on the run trying to stay a step ahead of Russian law enforcement until
October 2016. So we have part of the Fancy bear hacking group identified as Ruskie traitors and
possibly former Russian state security. The majority of the group are Ukrainians making up
Ukraine's Cyber Warfare groups.
Eliason lives and works in Donbass. He has been interviewed by and provided analysis for RT,
the BBC , and Press-TV. His
articles have been published in the Security Assistance Monitor, Washingtons Blog, OpedNews,
the Saker, RT, Global Research, and RINF, and the Greanville Post among others. He has been
cited and republished by various academic blogs including Defending History, Michael Hudson,
SWEDHR, Counterpunch, the Justice Integrity Project, among others.
Fancy Bear is Ukrainian IntelligenceShaltai Boltai
The "Fancy Bear hackers" may have been given the passwords to get into the servers at the
DNC because they were part of the Team Clinton opposition research team. It was part of their
job.
According to Politico ,
"In an interview this month, at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing
ethnic communities -- including Ukrainian-Americans -- she said that, when Trump's unlikely
presidential campaign. Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev
and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private
intelligence operatives. While her consulting work began surging in late 2015, she began
focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well."
[1]
The only investigative journalists, government officials, and private intelligence
operatives that work together in 2014-2015-2016 Ukraine are Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine
Cyber Alliance, and the Ministry of Information.
All of these hacking and information operation groups work for Andrea
Chalupa with EuroMaidanPR and Irena
Chalupa at the Atlantic Council. Both Chalupa sisters work directly with the Ukrainian
government's intelligence and propaganda arms.
Since 2014 in Ukraine, these are the only OSINT, hacking, Intel, espionage , terrorist , counter-terrorism, cyber, propaganda , and info war channels
officially recognized and directed by Ukraine's Information Ministry. Along with their American
colleagues, they populate the hit-for-hire website Myrotvorets with people who stand against
Ukraine's criminal activities.
The hackers, OSINT, Cyber, spies, terrorists, etc. call themselves volunteers to keep safe
from State level retaliation, even though a child can follow the money. As volunteers motivated
by politics and patriotism they are protected to a degree from retribution.
They don't claim State sponsorship or governance and the level of attack falls below the
threshold of military action. Special Counsel Robert Mueller had a lot of latitude for
making the attribution Russian, even though the attacks came from Ukrainian Intelligence. Based
on how the rules of the Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber are
written, because the few members of the coalition from Shaltai Boltai are Russian in
nationality, Fancy Bear can be attributed as a Russian entity for the purposes of retribution.
The caveat is if the attribution is proven wrong, the US will be liable for damages caused to
the State which in this case is Russia.
How large is the Fancy Bear unit? According to their propaganda section InformNapalm, they
have the ability to research and work in over 30 different languages.
This can be considered an Information Operation against the people of the United States and
of course Russia. After 2013, Shaltay Boltay was no longer physically available to work for
Russia. The Russian hackers were in Ukraine working for the Ukrainian government's Information
Ministry which is in charge of the cyber war. They were in Ukraine until October 2016 when they
were tricked to return to Moscow and promptly arrested for treason.
From all this information we know the Russian component of Team Fancy Bear is Shaltai
Boltai. We know the Ukrainian Intel component is called CyberHunta and Ukraine Cyber Alliance
which includes the hacker group RUH8. We know both groups work/ worked for Ukrainian
Intelligence. We know they are grouped with InformNapalm which is Ukraine's OSINT unit. We know
their manager is a Ukrainian named Kristina Dobrovolska. And lastly, all of the above work
directly with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich.
In short, the Russian-Ukrainian partnership that became Fancy Bear started in late 2013 to
very early 2014 and ended in October 2016 in what appears to be a squabble over the alleged
data from the Surkov leak.
But during 2014, 2015, and 2016 Shaltai Boltai, the Ukrainian Cyber Alliance, and CyberHunta
went to work for the DNC as opposition researchers .
The
First Time Shaltai Boltai was Handed the Keys to US Gov Servers
The setup to this happened long before the partnership with Ukrainian Intel hackers and
Russia's Shaltai Boltai was forged. The hack that gained access to US top-secret servers
happened just after the partnership was cemented after Euro-Maidan.
In August 2009 Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department Huma Abedin
sent the passwords to her Government laptop to her Yahoo mail account. On August 16, 2010,
Abedin received an email titled "Re: Your yahoo account. We can see where this is going, can't
we?
"After Abedin sent an unspecified number of sensitive emails to her Yahoo account, half a
billion Yahoo accounts were hacked by Russian cybersecurity expert and Russian intelligence
agent, Igor Sushchin, in 2014. The hack, one of the largest in history, allowed Sushchin's
associates to access email accounts into 2015 and 2016."
Igor Sushchin was part of the Shaltai Boltai hacking group that is charged with the Yahoo
hack.
The time frame has to be noted. The hack happened in 2014. Access to the email accounts
continued through 2016. The Ukrainian Intel partnership was already blossoming and Shaltai
Boltai was working from Kiev, Ukraine.
So when we look at the INFRASTRUCTURE HACKS, WHITE HOUSE HACKS, CONGRESS, start with looking
at the time frame. Ukraine had the keys already in hand in 2014.
Alexandra
Chalupa hired this particular hacking terrorist group, which Dimitry Alperovich and
Crowdstrike dubbed "Fancy Bear", in 2015 at the latest. While the Ukrainian hackers worked for
the DNC, Fancy Bear had to send in progress reports, turn in research, and communicate on the
state of the projects they were working on. Let's face it, once you're in, setting up your
Fancy Bear toolkit doesn't get any easier. This is why I said the DNC hack isn't the big crime.
It's a big con and all the parties were in on it.
Hillary Clinton exposed secrets to hacking threats by using private email instead of secured
servers. Given the information provided she was probably being monitored by our intrepid
Ruskie-Ukie union made in hell hackers. Anthony Weiner exposed himself and his wife
Huma Abedin using
Weiner's computer for top-secret State Department emails. And of course Huma Abedin exposed
herself along with her top-secret passwords at Yahoo and it looks like the hackers the DNC hired to
do opposition research hacked her.
Here's a question. Did Huma Abedin have Hillary Clinton's passwords for her private email
server? It would seem logical given her position with Clinton at the State Department and
afterward. This means that Hillary Clinton and the US government top secret servers were most
likely compromised by Fancy Bear before the DNC and Team Clinton hired them by using legitimate
passwords.
Dobrovolska
Hillary Clinton retained State Dept. top secret clearance passwords for 6 of her former
staff from 2013 through prepping for the 2016 election. [2][3] Alexandra Chalupa was
running a research department that is rich in (foreign) Ukrainian Intelligence operatives,
hackers, terrorists, and a couple Ruskie traitors.
Kristina Dobrovolska was acting as a handler and translator for the US State Department in
2016. She is the Fancy Bear *opposition researcher handler manager. Kristina goes to Washington
to meet with Chalupa.
Alexandra types in her password to show Dobrovolska something she found and her eager to
please Ukrainian apprentice finds the keystrokes are seared into her memory. She tells the
Fancy Bear crew about it and they immediately get to work looking for Trump material on the US
secret servers with legitimate access. I mean, what else could they do with this? Turn over
sensitive information to the ever corrupt Ukrainian government?
According to the Politico article, Alexandra Chalupa was meeting with the Ukrainian embassy
in June of 2016 to discuss getting more help sticking it to candidate Trump. At the same time
she was meeting, the embassy had a reception that highlighted female Ukrainian leaders.
Four Verkhovna Rada [parlaiment] deputies there for the event included: Viktoriia Y.
Ptashnyk, Anna A. Romanova, Alyona I. Shkrum, and Taras T. Pastukh. [4]
According to CNN ,
[5] DNC sources said Chalupa
told DNC operatives the Ukrainian government would be willing to deliver damaging information
against Trump's campaign. Later, Chalupa would lead the charge to try to unseat president-elect
Trump starting on Nov 10, 2016.
Accompanying them Kristina Dobrovolska who was a U.S. Embassy-assigned government liaison
and translator who escorted the delegates from Kyiv during their visits to Albany and
Washington.
Kristina Dobrovolska is the handler manager working with Ukraine's DNC Fancy Bear Hackers.
[6] She took the Rada
[parliament] members to dinner to meet Joel Harding who designed Ukraine's infamous Information
Policy which opened up their kill-for-hire-website Myrotvorets. Then she took them to meet the
Ukrainian Diaspora leader doing the hiring. Nestor Paslawsky is the surviving nephew to the
infamous torturer The WWII OUNb leader, Mykola Lebed.
Fancy Bear's Second Chance at Top
Secret Passwords From Team Clinton
One very successful method of hacking is called
social engineering . You gain access to the office space and any related properties and
physically locate the passwords or clues to get you into the hardware you want to hack. This
includes something as simple as looking over the shoulder of the person typing in
passwords.
The Fancy Bear hackers were hired by Alexandra Chalupa to work for DNC opposition research.
On different occasions, Fancy Bear handler Kristina Dobrovolska traveled to the US to meet the
Diaspora leaders, her boss Alexandra Chalupa, Irena Chalupa, Andrea Chalupa, US Dept of State
personnel, and most likely Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich. Alperovich was working with the
hackers in 2015-16. In 2016, the only groups known to have Fancy Bear's signature tools called
X-tunnel and X-Agent were Alperovich, Crowdstrike, and Fancy Bear (Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta,
Ukraine Cyber Alliance, and RUH8/RUX8. Yes, that does explain a few things.
Alleged DNC
hack
There were multiple DNC hacks. There is also clear proof supporting the download to a USB
stick and subsequent information exchange (leak) to Wikileaks . All are separate events.
The group I previously identified as Fancy Bear was given access to request password
privileges at the DNC. And it looks like the DNC provided them with it.
the Podesta email hack looks like a revenge hack.
The reason Republican opposition research files were stolen can be put into context now
because we know who the hackers are and what motivates them.
At the same time this story developed, it overshadowed the Hillary Clinton email scandal. It
is a matter of public record that Team Clinton provided the DNC hackers with passwords to
State Department
servers on at least 2 occasions, one wittingly and one not. Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian
Intelligence Operators.
If the leak came through Seth Rich , it may have been because he saw
foreign Intel operatives given this access from the presumed winners of the 2016 US presidential
election . The leaker may
have been trying to do something about it. I'm curious what information Wikileaks might
have.
Alperovitch and Fancy Bear
George Eliason, Washingtonsblog: Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell
Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear. investigated. [7]
In the wake of the JAR-16-20296 dated December 29, 2016 about hacking and influencing
the 2016 election, the need for real evidence is clear. The joint report adds nothing
substantial to the October 7th report. It relies on proofs provided by the cyber security
firm Crowdstrike that is clearly not on
par with intelligence findings or evidence. At the top of the report is an "as is"
statement showing this.
The difference bet enough evidence is provided to warrant an investigation of
specific parties for the DNC hacks. The real story involves specific anti-American actors
that need to be investigated for real crimes. For instance, the malware used was an
out-dated version just waiting to be found. The one other interesting point is that the
Russian malware called Grizzly Steppe is from Ukraine. How did Crowdstrike miss this when
it is their business to know?
The bar for identification set by Crowdstrike has never been able to get beyond words
like probably, maybe, could be, or should be, in their attribution. The bar Dimitri
Alperovitch set for identifying the hackers involved is that low. Other than asking
America to trust them, how many solid facts has Alperovitch provided to back his claim of
Russian involvement?
information from outside intelligence agencies has the value of rumor or
unsubstantiated information at best according to policy. Usable intelligence needs to be
free from partisan politics and verifiable. Intel agencies noted back in the early 90's
that every private actor in the information game was radically political.
Alperovitch first gained notice when he was the VP in charge of threat research with
McAfee. Asked to comment on Alperovitch's discovery of Russian hacks on Larry King, John
McAfee had this to say. "Based on all of his experience, McAfee does not believe that
Russians were behind the hacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC), John Podesta's
emails, and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. As he told RT, "if it looks like
the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians."
How does Crowdstrike's story part with reality? First is the admission that it is
probably, maybe, could be Russia hacking the DNC. "Intelligence agencies do not have
specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin 'directing' the identified
individuals to pass the Democratic emails to Wiki Leaks." The public evidence never goes
beyond the word possibility. While never going beyond that or using facts, Crowdstrike
insists that it's Russia behind both Clinton's and the Ukrainian losses.
NBC carried the story because one of the partners in Crowdstrike is also a consultant
for NBC. According to NBC the story reads like this."The company, Crowdstrike, was hired
by the DNC to investigate the hack and issued a report publicly attributing it to Russian
intelligence. One of Crowdstrike's senior executives is Shawn Henry , a former senior FBI
official who consults for NBC News.
In June, Crowdstrike went public with its findings that two separate Russian
intelligence agencies had hacked the DNC. One, which Crowdstrike and other researchers
call Cozy Bear, is believed to be linked to Russia's CIA, known as the FSB. The other,
known as Fancy Bear, is believed to be tied to the military intelligence agency, called
the GRU." The information is so certain the level of proof never rises above "believed to
be." According to the December 12th Intercept article "Most importantly, the Post
adds that "intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in
the Kremlin 'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to
WikiLeaks."
The SBU, Olexander Turchinov, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense all agree that
Crowdstrike is dead wrong in this assessment. Although subtitles aren't on it, the former
Commandant of Ukrainian Army Headquarters thanks God Russia never invaded or Ukraine
would have been in deep trouble. How could Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike be this
wrong on easily checked detail and still get this much media attention?
Crowdstrike CEO Dmitri Alperovitch story about Russian hacks that cost Hillary
Clinton the election was broadsided by the SBU (Ukrainian Intelligence and Security) in
Ukraine. If Dimitri Alperovitch is working for Ukrainian Intelligence and is providing
intelligence to 17 US Intelligence Agencies is it a conflict of interest?
Is giving misleading or false information to 17 US Intelligence Agencies a crime? If
it's done by a cyber security industry leader like Crowdstrike should that be
investigated? If unwinding the story from the "targeting of Ukrainian volunteers" side
isn't enough, we should look at this from the American perspective. How did the Russia
influencing the election and DNC hack story evolve? Who's involved? Does this pose
conflicts of interest for Dmitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? And let's face it, a
hacking story isn't complete until real hackers with the skills, motivation, and reason
are exposed.
According to journalist and DNC activist Andrea Chalupa on her Facebook page "After
Chalupa sent the email to Miranda (which mentions that she had invited this reporter to a
meeting with Ukrainian journalists in Washington), it triggered high-level concerns
within the DNC, given the sensitive nature of her work. "That's when we knew it was the
Russians," said a Democratic Party source who has been directly involved in the internal
probe into the hacked emails. In order to stem the damage, the source said, "we told her
to stop her research."" July 25, 2016
If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her
sister Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news.
The DNC hacking investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by
Russian actors based on the work done byAlexandra Chalupa? That is the
conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the
Russian government connection.
How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he
should have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a
presidential election in a new direction. According to Esquire.com, Alperovitch has
vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the past. Because of
his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said the
measures taken were directly because of his work.
Alperovitch's relationships with the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian
propagandists, and Ukrainian state supported hackers [show a conflict of interest]. When
it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that tried hard to
influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016.
The Chalupas are not Democrat or Republican. They are OUNb. The OUNb worked hard
to start a war between the USA and Russia for the last 50 years. According to the
Ukrainian Weekly in a rare open statement of their existence in 2011, "Other
statements were issued in the Ukrainian language by the leadership of the
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (B) and the International Conference in
Support of Ukraine. The OUN (Bandera wing) called for" What is
OUNb Bandera? They follow the same political policy and platform that was developed
in the 1930's by Stepan Bandera . When these
people go to a Holocaust memorial they are celebrating
both the dead and the OUNb SS that killed.[8] There is no
getting around this fact. The OUNb have no concept of democratic values and want an
authoritarian
fascism .
Alexandra Chalupa- According to the Ukrainian Weekly , [9]
"The effort, known as Digital Miadan, gained momentum following the initial Twitter storms.
Leading the effort were: Lara Chelak, Andrea Chalupa, Alexandra Chalupa, Constatin Kostenko
and others." The Digital Maidan was also how they raised money for the coup. This was how the
Ukrainian emigres bought the bullets that were used on Euromaidan. Ukraine's chubby nazi,
Dima Yarosh stated openly he was taking money from the Ukrainian emigres during Euromaidan
and Pravy Sektor still fundraises openly in North America. The "Sniper Massacre" on the
Maidan in Ukraine by Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, University of Ottowa shows clearly detailed
evidence how the massacre happened. It has Pravy Sektor confessions that show who created the
"heavenly hundred. Their admitted involvement as leaders of Digital Maidan by both Chalupas
is a clear violation of the Neutrality Act and has up to a 25 year prison sentence attached
to it because it ended in a coup.
Andrea Chalupa-2014, in a Huff Post article Sept. 1 2016, Andrea Chalupa
described Sviatoslav Yurash as one of Ukraine's important "dreamers." He is a young
activist that founded Euromaidan Press. Beyond the gushing glow what she doesn't say
is who he actually is. Sviatoslav Yurash was Dmitri Yarosh's spokesman just after
Maidan. He is a hardcore Ukrainian nationalist and was rewarded with the Deputy
Director position for the UWC (Ukrainian World Congress) in Kiev.
In January, 2014 when he showed up at the Maidan protests he was 17 years old. He
became the foreign language media representative for Vitali Klitschko, Arseni
Yatsenyuk, and Oleh Tyahnybok. All press enquiries went through Yurash. To meet
Dimitri Yurash you had to go through Sviatoslav Yurash as a Macleans reporter found
out.
At 18 years old, Sviatoslav Yurash became the spokesman for Ministry of Defense
of Ukraine under Andrei Paruby. He was Dimitri Yarosh's spokesman and can be seen
either behind Yarosh on videos at press conferences or speaking ahead of him to
reporters. From January 2014 onward, to speak to Dimitri Yarosh, you set up an
appointment with Yurash.
Andrea Chalupa has worked with Yurash's Euromaidan Press which is associated with
Informnapalm.org and supplies the state level hackers for Ukraine.
Irene Chalupa- Another involved Chalupa we need to cover to do the story justice
is Irene Chalupa. From her bio– Irena Chalupa is a nonresident fellow with the
Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. She is also a senior correspondent
at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has worked for more than
twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the Atlantic Council,
where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the news anchor
for Ukraine's propaganda channel org She is also a Ukrainian emigre leader.
According to Robert Parry's article [10] At the forefront
of people that would have taken senior positions in a Clinton administration and
especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council . Their main
goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the CEEC (Central
and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with Russia.
Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you
willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support
throughout the campaign.
What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the
Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship
status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite
conflict of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground
and Clinton needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or
Homeland Security?
When you put someone that has so much to gain in charge of an investigation that
could change an election, that is a conflict of interest. If the think tank is linked
heavily to groups that want war with Russia like the Atlantic Council and the CEEC, it
opens up criminal conspiracy.
If the person in charge of the investigation is a fellow at the think tank that wants
a major conflict with Russia it is a definite conflict of interest. Both the Atlantic
Council and clients stood to gain Cabinet and Policy positions based on how the result of
his work affects the election. It clouds the results of the investigation. In Dmitri
Alperovitch's case, he found the perpetrator before he was positive there was a
crime.
Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence
groups is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and
Informnapalm.org which is the outlet for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers.
When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the
CEO of a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm and
its hackers individually. There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for
the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be
investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government. Crowdstrike is
also following their hack of a Russian government official after the DNC hack. It closely
resembles the same method used with the DNC because it was an email hack.
Crowdstrike's product line includes Falcon Host, Falcon Intelligence, Falcon
Overwatch and Falcon DNS. Is it possible the hackers in Falcons Flame are another service
Crowdstrike offers?
In an interview with Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA.
[11] They consider the
CIA amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance
is a quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity,
Falcon Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the
Myrotvorets site, Informnapalm analytical agency."
Although this profile says Virginia, tweets are from the Sofia, Bulgaria time zone and he
writes in Russian. Another curiosity considering the Fancy Bear source code is in Russian. This
image shows Crowdstrike in their network. Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker
network. In the image it shows a network diagram of Crowdstrike following the Surkov leaks. The
network communication goes through a secondary source. Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for
Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence.
The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates
journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could
be on the list.
Should someone tell Dimitri Alperovitch that Gerashchenko, who is now in charge of
Peacekeeper recently threatened president-elect Donald Trump that he would put him on his
"Peacemaker" site as a target? The same has been done with Silvio Berscaloni in the
past.
Trying not to be obvious, the Head of Ukraine's Information Ministry (UA
Intelligence) tweeted something interesting that ties Alperovitch and Crowdstrike to the
Ukrainian Intelligence hackers and the Information Ministry even tighter. This single
tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of Information
Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him and
Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or
shared. If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be
shared heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it
to themselves and not draw unwanted attention.
These same hackers are associated with Alexandra, Andrea, and Irene Chalupa through
the portals and organizations they work with through their OUNb. The hackers are funded
and directed by or through the same OUNb channels that Alperovitch is working for and
with to promote the story of Russian hacking.
When you look at the image for the hacking group in the euromaidanpress article,
one of the hackers identifies themselves as one of Dimitri Yarosh's Pravy Sektor
members by the Pravy Sektor sweatshirt they have on. Noted above, Pravy Sektor
admitted to killing the people at the Maidan protest and sparked the coup.
Going further with the linked Euromaidanpress article the hackers say "Let's
understand that Ukrainian hackers and Russian hackers once constituted a single very
powerful group. Ukrainian hackers have a rather high level of work. So the help of
the USA I don't know, why would we need it? We have all the talent and special means
for this. And I don't think that the USA or any NATO country would make such sharp
movements in international politics."
What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it
out for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored,
Russian language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack
they have the tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are
also laughing at US intel efforts.
The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting
a war between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt
Russia worst. Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by
Alperovitch, both he and these hackers need to be investigated.
According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought
the government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of
the personal in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate
the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any
other way," he told me. "I have."
While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism
is not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering
a conflict with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't
serving US interests. He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to
Ukraine.
The evidence presented deserves investigation because it looks like the case for
conflict of interest is the least Dimitri Alperovitch should look forward to. If these
hackers are the real Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, they really did make sharp movements in
international politics. By pawning it off on Russia, they made a worldwide embarrassment
of an outgoing President of the United States and made the President Elect the suspect of
rumor.
Obama, Brazile, Comey, and CrowdStrike
According to Obama the
hacks continued until September 2016. According to ABC, Donna Brazile says the hacks didn't stop
until after the elections in 2016. According to Crowdstrike the hacks continued into
November.
Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile said Russian hackers persisted in trying
to break into the organization's computers "daily, hourly" until after the election --
contradicting President Obama's assertion that the hacking stopped in September after he warned
Russian President Vladimir Putin to "cut it out."-ABC
This time frame gives a lot of latitude to both hacks and leaks happening on that server and
still agrees with the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs). According to
Bill
Binney , the former Technical Director for the NSA, the only way that data could move off
the server that fast was through a download to a USB stick. The transfer rate of the file does
not agree with a Guciffer 2.0 hack and the information surrounding Guciffer 2.0 is looking
ridiculous and impossible at best.
The DNC fiasco isn't that important of a crime. The reason I say this is the FBI would have
taken control over material evidence right away. No law enforcement agency or Intel agency ever
did. This means none of them considered it a crime Comey should have any part of investigating.
That by itself presents the one question mark which destroys any hope Mueller has proving law
enforcement maintained a chain of custody for any evidence he introduces.
It also says the US government under Barrack Obama and the victimized DNC saw this as a
purely political event. They didn't want this prosecuted or they didn't think it was
prosecutable.
Once proven it shows a degree of criminality that makes treason almost too light a charge in
federal court. Rest assured this isn't a partisan accusation. Team Clinton and the DNC gets the
spotlight but there are Republicans involved.
Investigative Jouralist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the
CEO Bill Larsen bought a small, Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to
Silicon Valley.
MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate
to reduce NSA spying on the public.
The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was
sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order to crack encrypted communications to write a back door
for law enforcement.
Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named
Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking
scandal - Crowdstrike.
In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry
platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives.
Our leaders like to say we value human rights around the world, but what they really manifest
is greed. It all makes sense in a Gekko- or Machiavellian kind of way.
Highly recommended !
Notable quotes:
"... Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise) path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional" belief system, what is? ..."
"... A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for America's vast military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety, especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today, it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right. ..."
"... If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything, it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium. Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life. ..."
"... I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama administration too. ..."
"... Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it. ..."
"... they are not only lobbyists for MIC, but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of militarism. ..."
"... Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower. ..."
"... The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive resources. ..."
"... Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.) ..."
"... The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus, the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world. Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep! ..."
By William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and history professor. His
personal blog is Bracing Views .
Originally published at TomDispatch
Ever since 2007, when I first started writing for TomDispatch , I've been arguing
against America's forever wars, whether in Afghanistan , Iraq , or elsewhere . Unfortunately, it's no surprise that,
despite my more than 60 articles, American blood is still being spilled in war after war across the Greater Middle
East and Africa, even as foreign peoples pay a far higher price in lives lost and cities
ruined . And I keep asking myself: Why, in this century, is the distinctive feature of
America's wars that they never end? Why do our leaders persist in such repetitive folly and the
seemingly eternal disasters that go with it?
Sadly, there isn't just one obvious reason for this generational debacle. If there were, we
could focus on it, tackle it, and perhaps even fix it. But no such luck.
So why do America's disastrous wars
persist ? I can think of many reasons , some obvious and easy to
understand, like the endless pursuit of profit through weapons sales for those very wars, and some more
subtle but no less significant, like a deep-seated conviction in Washington that a willingness
to wage war is a sign of national toughness and seriousness. Before I go on, though, here's
another distinctive aspect of our forever-war moment: Have you noticed that peace is no longer even a topic in America
today? The very word, once at least part of the rhetoric of Washington politicians, has
essentially dropped out of use entirely. Consider the current crop of Democratic candidates for
president. One, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, wants to end regime-change wars, but is otherwise
a self-professed hawk on the
subject of the war on terror. Another, Senator Bernie Sanders, vows to end " endless
wars " but is careful to express strong support for Israel and the ultra-expensive
F-35 fighter jet.
The other dozen or so tend to make vague sounds about cutting defense spending or gradually
withdrawing U.S. troops from various wars, but none of them even consider openly speaking
of peace . And the Republicans? While President Trump may talk of ending wars, since his
inauguration he's sent more
troops to Afghanistan and into the Middle East, while greatly expanding drone and other
air strikes ,
something about which he openly
boasts .
War, in other words, is our new normal, America's default position on global affairs, and
peace, some ancient, long-faded dream. And when your default position is war, whether against
the Taliban, ISIS, "terror" more generally, or possibly even Iran or Russia
or
China , is it any surprise that war is what you get? When you garrison the world with an
unprecedented 800 or so
military bases , when you configure your armed forces for what's called power projection,
when you divide the globe -- the total planet -- into areas of dominance (with acronyms
like CENTCOM, AFRICOM, and SOUTHCOM) commanded by four-star generals and admirals, when you
spend more on your military than the next
seven countries combined, when you insist on modernizing a
nuclear arsenal (to the tune of perhaps $1.7 trillion ) already
quite capable of ending all life on this and several other planets, what can you expect but a
reality of endless war?
Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the
predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise)
path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the
world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation
after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional"
belief system, what is?
If we're ever to put an end to our country's endless twenty-first-century wars, that mindset
will have to be changed. But to do that, we would first have to recognize and confront war's
many uses in American
life and culture.
War, Its Uses (and Abuses)
A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for
America's vast
military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety,
especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of
national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today,
it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right.
As the title of a book by former war reporter Chris Hedges so aptly put it , war is
a force that gives us meaning. And let's face it, a significant part of America's meaning in
this century has involved pride in having the toughest military on the planet, even as
trillions of tax dollars went into a misguided attempt to maintain bragging rights to being
the world's sole superpower.
And keep in mind as well that, among other things, never-ending war
weakens democracy while strengthening authoritarian tendencies in politics and society. In
an age of
gaping inequality , using up the country's resources in such profligate and destructive
ways offers a striking exercise in consumption that profits the few at the expense of the
many.
In other words, for a select few, war pays dividends in ways that peace doesn't. In a
nutshell, or perhaps an artillery shell, war is anti-democratic, anti-progressive,
anti-intellectual, and anti-human. Yet, as we know, history makes heroes out of its
participants and celebrates mass murderers like Napoleon as "great captains."
What the United States needs today is a new strategy of containment -- not against communist
expansion, as in the Cold War, but against war itself. What's stopping us from containing war?
You might say that, in some sense, we've grown addicted to it , which is true enough, but here
are five additional reasons for war's enduring presence in American life:
The
delusional idea that Americans are, by nature, winners and that our wars are therefore
winnable: No American leader wants to be labeled a "loser." Meanwhile, such dubious
conflicts -- see: the Afghan War, now in its 18th year, with
several more years, or even generations
, to go -- continue to be treated by the military as if they were indeed winnable, even though
they visibly aren't. No president, Republican or Democrat, not even Donald J. Trump, despite
his promises that American soldiers will be coming home from such fiascos, has successfully
resisted the Pentagon's siren call for patience (and for yet more trillions of dollars) in the
cause of ultimate victory, however poorly defined, farfetched, or far-off. American
society's almost completeisolationfrom war's deadly
effects: We're not being droned (yet). Our cities are not yet lying in ruins (though
they're certainly suffering from a lack of funding, as is our most essential infrastructure , thanks in part to the
cost of those overseas wars). It's nonetheless remarkable how little attention, either in the
media or elsewhere, this country's never-ending war-making gets here. Unnecessary and
sweeping secrecy: How can you resist what you essentially don't know about? Learning its
lesson from the Vietnam War, the Pentagon now
classifies (in plain speak: covers up) the worst aspects of its disastrous wars. This isn't
because the enemy could exploit such details -- the enemy already knows! -- but because the
American people might be roused to something like anger and action by it. Principled whistleblowers like
Chelsea Manning have been imprisoned or otherwise dismissed or, in the case of Edward Snowden,
pursued and indicted for sharing honest
details about the calamitous Iraq War and America's invasive and intrusive surveillance
state. In the process, a clear message of intimidation has been sent to other would-be
truth-tellers. An unrepresentative government: Long ago, of course, Congress
ceded to
the presidency most of its constitutional powers when it comes to making war. Still, despite
recent
attempts to end America's arms-dealing role in the genocidal Saudi war in Yemen (overridden
by Donald Trump's veto power), America's duly elected representatives generally don't represent
the people when it comes to this country's disastrous wars. They are, to put it bluntly,
largely captives of (and sometimes on leaving politics quite literally go
to work for) the military-industrial complex. As long as money is speech ( thank
you , Supreme Court!), the weapons makers are always likely to be able to shout louder in
Congress than you and I ever will. \America's persistent empathy gap.
Despite our size, we are a remarkably insular nation and suffer from a serious empathy gap when it comes to
understanding foreign cultures and peoples or what we're actually doing to them. Even our
globetrotting troops, when not fighting and killing foreigners in battle, often stay on vast
bases, referred to in the military as "Little Americas," complete with familiar stores, fast
food, you name it. Wherever we go, there we are, eating our big burgers, driving our big
trucks, wielding our big guns, and dropping our very big bombs. But
what those bombs do, whom they hurt or kill, whom they displace from their homes and lives,
these are things that Americans turn out to care remarkably little about.
All this puts me sadly in mind of a song popular in my youth, a time when Cat Stevens sang
of a " peace train " that was
"soundin' louder" in America. Today, that peace train's been derailed and replaced by an armed
and armored one eternally prepared for perpetual war -- and that train is indeed soundin'
louder to the great peril of us all.
War on Spaceship Earth
Here's the rub, though: even the
Pentagon knows that our most serious enemy is
climate change , not China or Russia or terror, though in the age of Donald Trump and his
administration of arsonists
its officials can't express themselves on the subject as openly as they otherwise might.
Assuming we don't annihilate ourselves with nuclear weapons first, that means our
real enemy is the endless war we're waging against Planet Earth.
The U.S. military is also a major consumer of fossil fuels and therefore a significant
driver of climate change. Meanwhile, the Pentagon, like any enormously powerful system, only
wants to grow more so, but what's welfare for the military brass isn't wellness for the
planet.
There is, unfortunately, only one Planet Earth, or Spaceship Earth, if you prefer, since
we're all traveling through our galaxy on it. Thought about a certain way, we're its
crewmembers, yet instead of cooperating effectively as its stewards, we seem determined to
fight one another. If a house divided against itself cannot stand, as Abraham Lincoln pointed
out so long ago, surely a spaceship with a disputatious and self-destructive crew is not likely
to survive, no less thrive.
In other words, in waging endless war, Americans are also, in effect, mutinying against the
planet. In the process, we are spoiling the last, best hope of earth: a concerted and pacific
effort to meet the shared challenges of a rapidly warming and changing planet.
Spaceship Earth should not be allowed to remain Warship Earth as well, not when the
existence of
significant parts of humanity is already becoming ever more precarious. Think of us as
suffering from a coolant leak, causing cabin temperatures
to rise even as food and other resources dwindle .
Under the circumstances, what's the best strategy for survival: killing each other while
ignoring the leak or banding together to fix an increasingly compromised ship?
Unfortunately, for America's leaders, the real "fixes" remain global military and resource
domination, even as those resources continue to shrink on an ever-more fragile globe. And as
we've seen recently, the resource part of that fix breeds its own madness, as in President
Trump's recently stated desire to keep U.S. troops in Syria
to steal that country's oil resources, though its wells are largely wrecked (thanks in
significant part to American bombing) and even when repaired would produce only a miniscule
percentage of the world's petroleum.
If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything,
it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human
as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium.
Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life.
Despite all of war's uses and abuses, its allures and temptations, it's time that we
Americans showed some self-mastery (as well as decency) by putting a stop to the mayhem. Few
enough of us experience "our" wars firsthand and that's precisely why some idealize their
purpose and idolize their practitioners. But war is a bloody, murderous mess and those
practitioners, when not killed or wounded, are marred for life because war functionally makes
everyone involved into a murderer.
We need to stop idealizing war and idolizing its so-called warriors. At stake is
nothing less than the future of humanity and the viability of life, as we know it, on Spaceship
Earth.
I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign
policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the
State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under
Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully
controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama
administration too.
They preach “Full Spectrum Dominance” (Wolfowitz doctrine) and are not shy to
unleash the wars to enhance the USA strategic position in particular region (color revolution
can be used instead of war, like they in 2014 did in Ukraine). Of course, being chichenhawks,
neither they nor members of their families fight in those wars.
For some reason despite his election platform Trump also populated his administration with
neoconservatives. So it might be that maintaining the USA centered global neoliberal empire
is the real reason and the leitmotiv of the USA foreign policy. that’s why it does not
change with the change of Administration: any government that does not play well with the
neoliberal empire gets in the hairlines.
Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected
officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for
the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be
bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and
every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it.
Good point. But why the rise of the neocons? Why did they prosper? I'd say because of the
military-industrial complex. Or you might say they feed each other, but the Complex came
first. And of course the Complex is a dominant part of the Deep State. How could it not be?
Add in 17 intelligence agencies, Homeland Security, the Energy Dept's nukes, and you have a
dominant DoD that swallows up more than half of federal discretionary spending each year.
I agree, but it is a little bit more complex. You need an ideology to promote the interests
of MIC. You can't just say -- let's spend more than a half of federal discretionary spending
each year..
That's where neo-conservatism comes into play. So they are not only lobbyists for MIC,
but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of
militarism.
wjastore December 2, 2019 at 12:25 PM
Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about
containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We
heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling
full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower.
The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put
their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive
resources.
Think about how no one was punished for the colossal intelligence failure of 9/11.
Instead, all the intel agencies were rewarded with more money and authority via the PATRIOT
Act.
The Afghan war is an ongoing disaster, the Iraq war a huge misstep, Libya a total failure,
yet the Complex has even more Teflon than Ronald Reagan. All failures slide off of it.
greglaxer , December 2, 2019 at 4:12 PM
There is a still bigger picture to consider in all this. I don't want to open the door to
conspiracy theory–personally, I find the claim that explosives were placed inside the
World Trade Center prior to the strikes by aircraft on 9/11 risible–but it certainly
was convenient for the Regime Change Gang that the Saudi operatives were able to get away
with what they did on that day, and in preparations leading up to it.
Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the
Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes
human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and
Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for
development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down
business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.)
Once the great majority of folks in Africa have cellphones and subscriptions to Netflix
whither capitalism? Trump denies the severity of the climate crisis because that is part of
the ideology/theology of the GOP.
The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become
ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus,
the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they
advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world.
Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere
on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that
concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep!
"... No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian antipathy to Russia. ..."
Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the
point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest.
That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.
phenomenal cat @64
So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give
a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed
in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that
Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of
Russians do.
Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them.
Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to
restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic
states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)
"So
democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them?"
No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on
U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported
Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll
note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi
Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way
of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic
forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian
antipathy to Russia.
"I'd give a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections."
Yeah, it'd be interesting to see what the U.S. looked like with those dynamics in place.
"Those have been slowly crushed in Russia. The results for transparency have not been
great."
If you say so. For now I'll leave any decisions or actions taken on these outcomes to Russian
citizens. I would, however, kindly tell Victoria Nuland and her ilk to fuck off with their senile
Cold War fantasies, morally bankrupt, third-rate Great Game machinations, and total spectrum dominance
sociopathy.
"Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot
down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do."
There's definitely some of 'em hanging about, but yeah it mostly seems to be a motley assortment
of oligarchs, gangsters, and grifters tied into international neoliberal capital and money flows.
No doubt Russian believe a lot things. I find Americans tend to believe a lot things as well.
"... Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect it, everybody else be damned. ..."
"... Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class". ..."
"... Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch". ..."
Some paranoid claptrap to go along with your usual anti intellectualism.
Interestingly, with your completely unrelated non sequitur, you've actually illustrated something that does relate to Krugmans
post. Namely that there are wingnuts among us. They've taken over the Republican Party, but the left has some too. Fortunately
though the Democratic Party hasn't been taken over by them yet, and is still mostly run by grown ups.
"I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations."
Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially
people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect
it, everybody else be damned.
Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class".
Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch".
An Australian professor has been charged with implementing a bogus harassment campaign
against herself following the controversial cancellation of a degree program.
Dianne Jolley, a professor of environmental chemistry and toxicology at the University of
Technology Sydney, allegedly sent threatening letters to herself between May and September as a
protest against abolition of the degree in traditional Chinese medicine, university officials
believe.
According to Stuff.com, Jolley, who's also the school's Dean of Science, claimed that in
addition to the letters, various articles of clothing had been sent to her ... had clothes
stolen from her backyard.
As a result, "significant security measures" were put in place to protect the professor. But
after an investigation by Sydney Police, officials ended up charging Jolley with "obtaining a
financial advantage by deception, giving false information about a person or property in
danger, and making false representations resulting in a police investigation."
Jolley attorney Aaron Kerneghan said his client would plead "not guilty" to all charges.
"... Vindman appears to believe the national security bureaucracy's account of America's national interests should be immune from civilian challenge. ..."
"... After all, the idea that the United States has a "national security" interest in preventing Russian hegemony in the Donbass region is not obvious, to say the least. American media paints Russia as the unambiguous aggressor in the Ukraine conflict. But as the Cato Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter has written , the truth of the matter is far more complicated: ..."
"... Washington's roster of provocations is long and damaging . With strong U.S. encouragement, NATO's membership has crept inexorably eastward, reaching the western border of the Russian Federation and even incorporating the three Baltic republics, which had been constituent parts of both Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union. Beginning with George W. Bush's administration, Washington has pressed NATO to expand still farther and offer membership to both Georgia and Ukraine. The United States and its allies have greatly increased the number and scope of their military deployments and war games in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea. Barack Obama's administration interfered blatantly in Ukraine's internal political affairs to unseat a democratically elected, pro-Russian government and replace it with a pro-Western regime in 2014. Since then, Washington has made Ukraine a de facto military ally , training and conducting joint military exercises with Ukrainian forces and concluding two significant arms sales to Kiev. ..."
"... John Mearsheimer argues that Putin's annexation of Crimea is best understood as a defensive maneuver: ..."
"... Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a "coup" -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West. ..."
"... In his statement, Vindman suggests that he does not want Americans to have that argument. He posits a Western-aligned Ukraine as self-evidently critical to our national security, and the maintenance of bipartisan support for that premise a duty of a uniformed officer. ..."
"... And Democrats have tacitly affirmed his analysis. From the very beginning of its impeachment inquiry, Nancy Pelosi's caucus has framed Trump's malfeasance in Ukraine as, above all, an affront to America's "national security." ..."
"... Democrats should not let their witnesses (or vestigial attachment to Cold War politics) lead them astray. The notion that America has a clear national security interest in arming Ukraine is dubious on the merits. ..."
...conservatives mustered something approaching a point: that Vindman appears to believe
the national security bureaucracy's account of America's national interests should be immune
from civilian challenge. Or, in the hysterical (and fundamentally
misleading) phrasing of Daily Caller deputy editor J. Arthur Bloom, "This impeachment stuff
is textbook imperial liberalism: the president is accused of thwarting U.S. foreign policy,
because they think foreign policy should not be subject to political control."
Now, there are a few problems with the claim, "Donald Trump is being impeached for nothing
more than challenging the national security Establishment's policy preferences." The biggest,
perhaps, being that Trump has actually done very little to challenge those preferences.
...In explaining why he found Trump's requests of Zelensky alarming enough to merit
reporting, Vindman said:
It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government
investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent. It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued
an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as
a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support,
undermine U.S. national security, and advance Russia's strategic objectives in the region.
[my emphasis]
Vindman's analysis here is tendentious in several respects. For one, his assertion that an
investigation of Biden would "undoubtedly" result in the Democratic Party adopting a dovish
posture toward Russia is mere punditry (and given
the many partisan reasons Democrats have for adopting a hawkish policy toward Vladimir
Putin's regime, it's not even very good punditry). More critically, Vindman's statement
suggests that one of his objectives, as an active military officer, was to safeguard
"bipartisan support" for existing U.S. policy in Ukraine. Which is to say: He felt an
obligation to prevent partisan conflict from producing a change in the orders he received from
civilian leadership. That sentiment is genuinely anti-democratic. It's a forthright assertion
that U.S. policy in the region should not be subject to democratic dispute.
This is a contemptible notion in the abstract. And it's even more so in this particular
context. After all, the idea that the United States has a "national security" interest in
preventing Russian hegemony in the Donbass region is not obvious, to say the least. American
media paints Russia as the unambiguous aggressor in the Ukraine conflict. But as the Cato
Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter has
written , the truth of the matter is far more complicated:
Washington's roster of provocations is long
and damaging . With strong U.S. encouragement, NATO's membership has crept inexorably
eastward, reaching the western border of the Russian Federation and even incorporating the
three Baltic republics, which had been constituent parts of both Czarist Russia and the
Soviet Union. Beginning with George W. Bush's administration, Washington has pressed NATO to
expand still farther and offer membership to both Georgia and Ukraine. The United States and
its allies have greatly increased the number and scope of their military deployments and war
games in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea. Barack Obama's administration interfered
blatantly in Ukraine's internal political affairs to unseat a democratically elected,
pro-Russian government and replace it with a pro-Western regime in 2014. Since then,
Washington has made Ukraine
a de facto military ally , training and conducting joint military exercises with
Ukrainian forces and concluding two significant arms sales to Kiev.
In this context of persistent Western interference in its border regions, John Mearsheimer
argues that Putin's annexation of Crimea is best understood as a defensive maneuver:
Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in
recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically
important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of
Ukraine's democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a
"coup" -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would
host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to
join the West.
... one can also argue that America has no significant security or economic interests in who
governs a relatively small, poor country on Russia's border. Or that intervening against Russia
in Ukraine's civil war -- when our country will never be willing to invest as much blood and
treasure into that conflict as Moscow will -- is only going to prolong the fighting and get
more innocent people killed. Or that the U.S. government's finite resources would be better
spent on more classrooms for American children than anti-tank missiles for Ukrainian
soldiers.
In his statement, Vindman suggests that he does not want Americans to have that
argument. He posits a Western-aligned Ukraine as self-evidently critical to our national
security, and the maintenance of bipartisan support for that premise a duty of a uniformed
officer.
And Democrats have tacitly affirmed his analysis. From the very beginning of its
impeachment inquiry, Nancy Pelosi's caucus has framed Trump's malfeasance in Ukraine as, above
all, an
affront to America's "national security." This emphasis is likely dictated by
Democrats' desire to attach impeachment to a maximally nonpartisan cause. For the bulk of
elected Democrats' lifetimes, countering Russian aggression has been the transpartisan national
purpose par excellence. Further, the national security officials willing to blow the whistle on
Trump tend to be more comfortable denouncing the president's activities on Ukraine's behalf
than on Joe Biden's. Like Vindman, acting Ukraine ambassador
Bill Taylor framed his objections to Trump's "quid pro quo" around the needs of the
Ukrainian military, rather than the constitutional authorities of the U.S. Congress.
But Democrats should not let their witnesses (or vestigial attachment to Cold War politics)
lead them astray. The notion that America has a clear national security interest in arming
Ukraine is dubious on the merits. And premising the case for Trump's impeachment on that notion
is politically misguided.
"... Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies. ..."
"... No informed American can afford to not know the names Oded Yinon, AIPAC, The Clean Break, The NEOCONS. Knowledge is indeed power. > ..."
"... Hersh hoped that future historians would document the fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press. Stephen Sniegoski, in The Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved the takeover. ..."
"... The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group attempting to take over America. The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a detailed account of General Smedley Butler's testimony to Congress about a secret plot to overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket. ..."
"... In a recently written best-seller two political scientists at the University of Chicago and Harvard (John Meirsheimer and Stephen J. Walt _The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_) broke a long-standing taboo in the United States and risked charges of anti-Semitism by exposing the role of the powerful Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) in the United States and its push for war against Iraq and with its future sights on Iran. This book echoes many of the claims made by Meirsheimer and Walt and further shows the agenda of the small circle of neoconservatives in directing American foreign policy. The author maintains that the neoconservatives are a "transparent cabal", in that they have operated as a tight-knit secret group but their actions remain transparent. ..."
"... That old canard "anti-semitic" is heard again in one of the reviews of this book. Nonsense!!! If one is anti-semitic simply because he is critical of certain policies followed by Likud, then many Jews living in Israel are also Jew haters. ..."
"... Israeli politicians are, undertandably, looking out for the intestests of their nation state. However, many American pols are beholden to the Israeli lobby (of simply feaful of it) and often place American interests second to that of the lobby. ..."
Although it is generally understood that American neoconservatives pushed hard for the war
in Iraq, this book forcefully argues that the neocons' goal was not the spread of democracy,
but the protection of Israel's interests in the Middle East. Showing that the neocon movement
has always identified closely with the interests of Israel's Likudnik right wing, the
discussion contends that neocon advice on Iraq was the exact opposite of conventional United
States foreign policy, which has always sought to maintain stability in the region to promote
the flow of oil. Various players in the rush to war are assessed according to their motives,
including President Bush, Ariel Sharon, members of the foreign-policy establishment, and the
American people, who are seen not as having been dragged into war against their will, but as
ready after 9/11 for retaliation
Every American should read this superb book about the intimate connection between the
state of Israel and the Americans who planned and promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003
(and who still influence U.S. policy in the Middle East). This very well-researched and
well-argued book will enlighten Americans who want to understand how the Jewish State of
Israel powerfully shapes U.S. Middle East policy.
Stephen Sniegowski provides a detailed look at the network of die-hard pro-Israel
Neoconservatives who have worked in the U.S. government, in think tanks, and in the news
media to shape American foreign policy to serve the needs of Israel at the expense of the
U.S. From media baron Rupert Murdoch, whose 175 newspapers around the world ALL editorialized
in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, to
Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and later Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, to
Vice President Dick Cheney, to the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle, the
neoconservatives successfully persuaded President George W. Bush to invade Iraq to promote
Israel's foreign policy interests.
Sniegowski describes how the Neocons promoted lies about Saddam Hussein's supposed Weapons
of Mass Destruction and his supposed ties to al-Qaeda terrorists from a network of think
tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Middle East Media Research Institute,
Hudson Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Center for Security Policy, and the
Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
He also traces the influence of Israeli Zionist Oded Yinon on the American
Neoconservatives. Yinon wrote an article in 1982 entitled "A Strategy for Israel in the
1980s" that called for Israel to bring about the dissolution of many of the Arab states and
their fragmentation into a mosaic of ethnic and sectarian groupings. This is basically what
is happening to Iraq and Syria today. He also called for Israelis to accelerate the
emigration of Palestinians from Israel, whose border he believed should extend to the Jordan
River and beyond it.
Yinon's article influenced a paper written for the Israeli Likud government of Benjamin
Netanyahu in 1996 by American neoconservatives Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David
Wurmser entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". This paper stated
that Netanyahu should "make a clean break" with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel's
claim to the West Bank and Gaza. Like Yinon's article, it also called for the removal of
Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the weakening of Syria to promote Israel's interests. It was
written five years BEFORE the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. These same three
men - Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser - who advised Netanyahu's Israeli
government on issues of national security would later advise President George W. Bush to
pursue virtually the same policies regarding the Middle East.
If you want to understand how and why powerful pro-Israel neoconservatives in the U.S.
misled Americans and convinced President George W. Bush to order the U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003, and how they persuaded the U.S. Congress to give Bush the authority to order the
invasion, read this outstanding book.
Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper
entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think
tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to
foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies.
The policy was adopted by the Israeli pro-settler right wing and Jewish activists in and
around the Clinton and Bush administrations such as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David
Wurmser (who all helped produce the original document). They identified as targets Iraq,
Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia and were handed a golden opportunity after the 9/11 attack on
the World Trade Centre. Iraq was falsely presented as an Al Qaeda base and the media planted
with stories about an imminent attack on the United States using WMD. Despite the CIA knowing
all along that the WMD didn't exist, the US still invaded Iraq and the story was quietly and
unbelievably changed to "building democracy".
As Sniegoski points out, the war has exceeded the cost of Vietnam and the same activists,
now working through Hillary Clinton are looking for "incidents" in Iraq to trigger the next
phase of the plan which is a US attack on Iran.
UPDATE October 2014:
And it gets worse: The 911 story itself keeps morphing. Google "Building 7", YouTube "911
Missing Links" or check the article at http://911speakout.org/7TOCPJ.pdf. >
Important book for those trying understand the chaos that
is currently reigning in the Middle East. From the lies based NEOCON attack on Iraq trumpeted
by the mainstream USA media as a fight to save Western Civilization, to the rise of ISIL.
This books will make those connections clear. No informed American can afford to not know the
names Oded Yinon, AIPAC, The Clean Break, The NEOCONS. Knowledge is indeed power. >
On January 27, 2005, [...] posted the remarks of Seymour Hersh (The New Yorker
contributor) at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York that a neoconservative cult had
taken over the American government.
Hersh hoped that future historians would document the
fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to
overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press. Stephen Sniegoski, in The
Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved
the takeover.
Other books have stressed how the neoconservative ideology is contrary to traditional
American values: Reclaiming the American Right (Justin Raimondo), America the Virtuous (Claes
Ryn), Where the Right Went Wrong (Patrick Buchanan).
"Memoirs of a Trotskyist" in Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (Irving Kristol)
provided a neoconservative account of the origins of neo-conservatism. Sniegoski noted
correctly that the term neoconservative originated with leftists critical of their former
comrades for attempting to infiltrate the Democratic and Republican parties. Thanks to
leftists who call neoconservatives the ultra-right and to conservative dupes who think that
anyone using a conservative label is a conservative, the neoconservative cancer has spread
through the fragile American political body.
The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group
attempting to take over America. The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a
detailed account of General Smedley Butler's testimony to Congress about a secret plot to
overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket.
Unlike earlier secret plots to take over the American government, Sniegoski explained how it
was possible for the neoconservatives to operate as a relatively transparent cabal. However,
he observed that the neoconservatives used a Trojan horse technique to take over the American
conservative movement. The goal of the neoconservatives is to promote endless wars regardless
of whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power.
The neoconservatives do not represent a popular mass movement in America. Instead, the
neoconservatives rely upon the co-operation of other groups. Sniegoski provided extensive
documentation of which groups enabled the neoconservatives. For example, the Christian
Zionists duped their followers into sacrificing money and soldiers. Zionism originated with
the writings of Moses Hess (who helped Karl Marx write The Communist Manifesto, was nicknamed
the Communist Rabbi, and who is buried in Israel). In 1862, Moses Hess published Rome and
Jerusalem. Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism (Shlomo Avineri) provided a detailed
explanation of the relationship between Communism and Zionism.
The reason for the fragility of American democracy is the failure of many Americans to
understand the most basic aspects of the American political system and of their
religions.
The Transparent Cabal is an important starting point for understanding how a neoconservative
cult opposed to traditional American political and religious values is able to destroy
America with endless wars.
_The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, And the
National Interest of Israel_, published in 2008 by Enigma Editions of IHS Press, by scholar
Stephen J. Sniegoski is a thorough examination of the role of the neoconservatives in pushing
for war in the Middle East (beginning with the war in Iraq and pushing onwards towards Iran)
in order to protect the national interests of Israel. Sniegoski makes the claim that the
neoconservatives have been the fundamental force behind the war efforts of the United States
and have played a particularly prominent role in the Bush administration. While these claims
have now become common knowledge, Sniegoski makes an important contribution by tracing the
history of the neoconservative movement and its links to prominent pro-Jewish and pro-Israel
groups. In particular, Sniegoski claims that neoconservativism is a tool of Zionism and the
Likudniks of Israel. Sniegoski traces out how following the attacks of September 11, the
neoconservative war hawks had a profound influence on the thinking of President Bush and
offered him a ready made solution to his foreign policy agenda. In this book, Sniegoski also
considers and refutes other theories as to the root causes behind America's intervention in
Iraq (such as the role of oil and war profiteering) but explains how these theories lack the
validity of that which lays the blame on the neoconservatives and their goals for Israeli
dominance in the Middle East.
In a recently written best-seller two political scientists at
the University of Chicago and Harvard (John Meirsheimer and Stephen J. Walt _The Israeli
Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_) broke a long-standing taboo in the United States and risked
charges of anti-Semitism by exposing the role of the powerful Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) in the
United States and its push for war against Iraq and with its future sights on Iran. This book
echoes many of the claims made by Meirsheimer and Walt and further shows the agenda of the
small circle of neoconservatives in directing American foreign policy. The author maintains
that the neoconservatives are a "transparent cabal", in that they have operated as a
tight-knit secret group but their actions remain transparent.
This book begins with a Foreword by Congressman Paul Findley (famous author of _They Dare
to Speak Out_ and longtime opponent of the Israeli Lobby) in which he explains the importance
of Sniegoski's book and deflects the spurious charge of anti-Semitism. Following this,
appears an Introduction by noted paleoconservative Paul Gottfried who explains his admiration
for Sniegoski's book, offers some comparisons between Sniegoski's claims and those of other
individuals, and contrasts the old non-interventionist limited government form of
conservativism with that of the neoconservatives.
The first chapter of Sniegoski's book is entitled "The Transparent Cabal" and notes the
disastrous consequences that have followed upon the Iraq war spurred on by the
neoconservatives. The author explains what he means in calling the neoconservatives a
"transparent cabal" and notes the importance of their Middle East, pro-Israeli agenda. The
author explains how following the events of September 11, they came to take on a prominent
role in influencing the thinking of the president (who had previously shown little interest
in the Middle East).
The second chapter is entitled "The "Neocon-Israel" Claim: Bits and
Pieces" and exposes the role of Israel's Likudnik party behind the neoconservatives. The
author deflects claims of "anti-Semitism" which are frequently hurled at those who make these
charges by showing that even many prominent Jews agree with this. Following this appears a
chapter entitled "Who are the Neocons?" which shows how the neocons emigrated from their
original home in the Democratic party of the McGovernite left into the Republican party as
the New Left began to voice criticisms of Israel. The author shows that many of the neocons
are actually socialists and Trotskyites parading under the label of "conservative". Further,
the author shows the role of various intellectuals centering around New York City in creating
the neoconservative movement.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "The Israeli Origins of the
Middle East War Agenda" which shows how the goal of Middle East war to further the interests
of Israel has been supported extensively by hawkish groups in Israel. The author explains how
these groups came to have such a prominent role in influencing the policy of the United
States and in suppressing the native population of Palestinians in Israel. Following, appears
a chapter entitled "Stability and the Gulf War of 1991: Prefigurement and Prelude to the 2003
Iraq War" in which the author explains the importance of the first Gulf War of Bush I in
prefiguring the Iraq War of Bush II. After this, appears a chapter entitled "During the
Clinton Years" in which the author shows the continuing role of the neocons during the
Clinton years.
Following this, appears a chapter entitled "Serbian Interlude and the 2000
Elections" in which the author explains how the war in Yugoslavia paved the way for the
coming Iraq War of President Bush. This also explains the split that occurred among
conservatives between those traditional conservatives who opposed the war and the neocons who
firmly supported it. Following this appears a chapter entitled "George W. Bush
Administration: The Beginning" in which the author explains the role that the neocons came to
take in the Bush administration mentioning in particular the role of such figures as
Wolfowitz and Cheney and the role of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Following
this appears a chapter entitled "September 11", showing how the events of Sept. 11 allowed
the neocon agenda to gain prominence in the mind of President Bush.
Next, appears a chapter
entitled "Move to War" explaining how the neocons pushed for war against Sadaam Hussein
presenting their case to the American people by claiming that Hussein was in possession of
WMDs which could be used against America. Following this appears a chapter entitled "World
War IV" explaining how the conflict in the Middle East came to be dubbed World War IV by
certain intellectuals among the neocons.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "Democracy for the
Middle East" showing the role of the neocons in foisting "democracy" onto various nations and
their goal of global democratic revolution. The author also explains the role of the thinking
of political philosopher Leo Strauss behind many of the neocons and his profoundly
anti-democratic philosophy. Following this, appears a chapter entitled "Neocons'
Post-Invasion Difficulties" showing how the invasion of Iraq turned out to be more serious
and difficult than originally anticipated by the neocons. Next, appears a chapter entitled
"Beginning of the Second Administration" showing the continuing role of the neocons under the
second Bush administration.
Then, appears a chapter entitled "Israel, Lebanon, and the 2006
Election" showing the role of Lebanon and Syria in relationship to Israel and that of the
2006 election.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "2007: On to Iran" showing how the neocons
continued to press for further wars in particular against Iran by alleging among other things
that Ahmedinejad was a mad man with possible access to nuclear weapons. Following, appears a
chapter entitled "The Supporting Cast for War" noting the role of Christian Zionists (which
includes the beliefs of President Bush, although not his father), former Cold Warriors, and
even prominent establishment liberals in supporting the Iraq war. The author notes however
that the traditional foreign policy establishment elites and many in the intelligence
agencies did not support the war, but were disregarded to further the neocon agenda. The
author also contrasts the difference between the liberal elites who frequently were pro-war
and the popular anti-war movement which had very little power.
Following this, the author
turns to a chapter entitled "Oil and Other Arguments" in which the author considers the
claims that the war was fought to obtain access to oil or for the interests of war profiteers
and shows that while both groups certainly benefited they are not the real reason for the
war. The book ends with a "Conclusion" in which the author expounds upon the continuing role
of the neocons in influencing American foreign policy and a "Postscript" in which the author
notes that no matter who wins the 2008 election that the neocon agenda will likely continue
and is not likely to go away anytime soon.
This book offers a fascinating history and account of the role of the neoconservatives in
pushing the United States into war. The author makes clear the influence of the Israeli
Likudnik party behind the neocons and their goal of strengthening the position of Israel in
the Middle East. It is important to understand the fundamental nature of the foreign policy
elites who have been pushing us into war against Iraq and now with eyes towards Iran.
That old canard "anti-semitic" is heard again in one of the reviews of this book.
Nonsense!!! If one is anti-semitic simply because he is critical of certain policies followed
by Likud, then many Jews living in Israel are also Jew haters.
Let's put aside these negative and nasty characterizations and look at the facts.
Israeli politicians are, undertandably, looking out for the intestests of their nation state.
However, many American pols are beholden to the Israeli lobby (of simply feaful of it) and
often place American interests second to that of the lobby.
To suggest that there is such a
lobby and that it is powerful is hardly anti-semitic. Nor is the author. He is simply stating
verifible facts which any student of politics is free to do. He may be mistaken in his
conclusions but that hardly makes him anti-semitic. And he may not be mistaken at all. He is
not the first to suggest that our leaders are fearful of the Israeli lobby and do its bidding
and often to the detriment of American interests .
Stephen Sniegoski, a diplomatic historian, is uniquely qualified to write about the
neoconservatives' involvement in the prolonged Iraq War originating in 2003. He accurately
predicted their activities and allegiance in this entanglement in 1998, three years before
the acts of 9-11 and two additional years before a traumatized nation yielded to a nescient,
misdirected President, his Vice President/administration, and an ostensibly compliant
bi-partisan House and Senate.
The author presents a tight outline which he cogently expands in intelligible detail,
maintaining that the origins of the American war on Iraq revolve around the adoption of a war
agenda whose basic structure was conceived in Israel to advance Israel's interests. The
pro-Israel neoconservatives and a powerful Israel lobby in the United States fervently pushed
its agenda. Ironically, he extracts his most persuasive evidence from an extensive
neoconservative paper trail that's been clearly recognized by a discreet cadre of vigilant
Americans for years. Thus the title, "The Transparent Cabal."
Dr. Sniegoski asks the appropriate question: "Who are the neoconservatives?" He provides
insightful answers on their pertinent activities since 1972, those who shaped and mentored
them, their immediate family/interconnected family networks, their prominent periodical
publications, their past and present leadership, non-Jewish minority members, their
persistent rise to positions of political influence and authority, their embrace of Christian
Zionists, and their close ties to the extremely conservative Likud Party in Israel. He
reveals their tactical affiliations with key, heavily endowed influential think tanks, and a
vast number of powerful Israel-centric lobbying organizations that reactively finance and
nurture their continued success.
Many readers will recognize his references to writers of previous books, articles and
columns -- many of Jewish heritage -- who bravely fight against well financed, mainstream
media-dominant opponents and their psychological surrogates active on the Internet. These
opponents perniciously engage in personal attacks and retribution, indiscriminately applying
irrelevant anti-semitic labels. They persist at attempting to sway public discourse by
spreading misinformation, disinformation, and mostly NO RELEVANT INFORMATION to the
public.
In various places throughout the book, the author notes curious relationships with current
and former elected and appointed officials. He writes about the ongoing 2008 presidential
campaign in a postscript, citing past and existing direct influences on specific candidates
by the neoconservatives, the Israel Lobby and its supporters.
The book concludes with a summary of the paucity of benefits compared to the predictable
losses of the American people over recent years. These are the real consequences of the
Israel-inspired plan to "drain the swamp" (a euphemism for destabilizing perceived enemies
then establishing precarious nominal democracies) that began with our misadventure in Iraq
and was to proceed with subsequent U.S. military interventions in Iran and Syria. The few
meager benefits and the enormous losses to the United States are compared to the strategic
advantages that the State of Israel derives directly from our five-year induced military
involvement in Iraq and our concomitant departure from past, longstanding policies of
diplomacy and stability in the Middle East.
Sniegoski counsels, "it is hardly controversial to propose that elites, rather than the
people as a whole, determine government policies, even in democracies."
Yet this war has a supporting cast of middle Americans. Many of them were traumatized by
the events of 9-11 and reactively saw an act of patriotism in supporting retaliation against
a falsely perceived enemy in Iraq. It's time to reconsider false arguments preceding the Iraq
War that have only been cosmetically modified until the present day. It's time to dismiss
incongruous ideas formed in the cauldron of confusion after 9-11.
Given today's realities, it DOES take patriotism and courage to insist on formally
normalizing an entangled, unreciprocated military alliance with an Israeli government that
burdens the taxpayers of the United States, promotes angst among its people, and imperils its
military forces worldwide.
Know and embrace Thomas Jefferson's ideal of 'eternal vigilance' as citizens of the United
States.
.
.
Facts in this book are reinforced in adjacent paragraphs and referenced in nearly 50 pages of
notes. Readers are encouraged to read:
World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global
Instability by Amy Chua -- "Israeli Surveillance of the Future Hijackers and FBI Suspects
in the September 11 Attacks and Their Failure to Give Us Adequate Warning: The Need for a
Public Inquiry" **a 166 PAGE LEAKED REPORT** documenting foreign espionage activities
surrounding 9-11, available on the Internet (although rarely in COMPLETE UNEDITED FORM **WITH
5 EXHIBITS AND 4 MAPS**). .
Stephen J. Sniegoski has a doctorate from the University of Maryland and studied American
diplomatic history. My review here will refer to him as "S," for short.
This book is about the American neoconservative movement. S goes from its founding through
its influential role in getting the U.S. into the Iraq War, then he discusses the War's
aftermath. S's argument is that the neoconservative agenda regarding the Middle East is
designed to serve the interests of the state of Israel, as those interests are articulated by
the right-wing Likud party there. This agenda supports weakening Arab nations surrounding
Israel so that they cannot pose a threat to her. According to S, the neoconservatives
supported such an agenda since their beginning as a movement, but 9/11 created an opportunity
for this agenda to become the foreign policy of the United States during much of the
Presidency of George W. Bush.
Here are some thoughts:
A. Looking broadly at the book itself, it is a standard narration of the events
surrounding and including the Iraq War. Like a lot of people, I lived through that, so the
sweeping narrative of the book was not particularly new to me. The story is essentially that
the U.S. went into Iraq expecting to find weapons of mass destruction after 9/11, bombed the
country and found that were no WMDs, and traveled the difficult road of trying to rebuild the
country, amidst ethnic division, turmoil, and opposition from Iraqis.
B. That said, there were some things that I learned from this book. First, while
neoconservatism is said to believe in spreading democracy in the Middle East, it is not
necessarily committed to democracy, per se. Initially, it supported a new government of Iraq
that would be led by the traditional, pre-Saddam tribal authorities, who were not democratic.
Second, S seems to imply that even the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan was
unnecessary, since the Taliban initially appeared cooperative in offering to help the U.S. to
bring al-Qaeda to justice. Third, there are neoconservatives who have supported undermining
even America's allies in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia. The different groups in Saudi
Arabia was also interesting, for, as S notes, Shiites hold a significant amount of control
over Saudi oil, even though the political establishment is Sunni. Fourth, S argues rigorously
against the idea that the U.S. launched the Iraq War to get more oil. Saddam was offering
U.S. oil companies opportunities to drill in Iraq, plus oil companies did not want the oil
infrastructure of the country to be disrupted or shattered by war.
C. There were also things in the book that I was interested to learn more about, even
though I had a rudimentary understanding of them before. For one, S chronicles George W.
Bush's changing views on foreign policy, as he went from rejecting nation-building, while
retaining a tough stance, to embracing nation building. In the early days of the Bush II
Administration, long before the Iraq War, Condi Rice even explained on news shows why regime
change in Iraq would be a mistake at that point. Second, S discusses the coalition that
emerged to support the war in Iraq. The neocons wanted to protect Israel, but Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld embraced the Iraq War as a way to showcase the effectiveness of a
lean military. Meanwhile, many Americans, frightened after 9/11, supported the Iraq War as a
way to keep the U.S. safe. And Christian conservatives embraced the good vs. evil, pro-Israel
stance of neoconservative policy. Third, S strategically evaluates moves that the U.S. made;
for S, for example, the surge did not actually work, but more stability emerged in Iraq as
different ethnic factions became separated from each other.
D. According to S, the Iraq War was a disaster. It stretched America's military, taking
away resources that could have been used to find Osama bin-Laden. Yet, Israel got something
that it wanted as a result: disarray among her Arab neighbors. An argument that S did not
really engage, as far as I can recall, is that the Iraq War placed Israel even more in peril,
since it increased the power of Iran by allowing Iraq to serve as a proxy for Iranian
interests.
E. For S, neoconservatism is concerned about the security of Israel. Even its staunch Cold
War policy is rooted in that concern, since the U.S.S.R. tended to support Arabs over the
Israelis. S acknowledges, though, that there is more to neoconservatism that that.
Neoconservatives supported a strong U.S. military intervention in the former Yugoslavia
during the Clinton Administration, and neoconservatism also maintains stances on domestic
issues, such as welfare.
F. S is sensitive to any charges of anti-Semitism that may be launched against his book.
He emphatically denies that he is saying there was a Jewish conspiracy to get the U.S. into
Iraq, for he observes that many Jews opposed the Iraq War. Moreover, S does not exactly
present the U.S. government as a Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG), for the neoconservatives
were long on the margins prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush. Even under Bush II, the
traditional national security and intelligence apparatus was critical of the Iraq War,
preferring more multilateralism and a focus on stability in the Middle East. The Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR), long a bogeyman of right-wing conspiracy theorists, also had
reservations about the Iraq War.
G. S largely depicts the Likud party in Israel, and neoconservatives, as supporting
Israel's security as a nation, her protection, if you will. At the same time, S argues that
Israel in 2006 was acting aggressively rather than defensively in its invasion of Lebanon,
for Lebanon had coveted water-supplies.
H. Near the end of the Iraq War, S demonstrates, neoconservatives were calling on the U.S.
to take an aggressive stance against Iran, going so far as to bomb the country. That, of
course, is an issue that remains relevant today. S probably regards such a move as a mistake.
At the same time, he can understand why Israel would be apprehensive about a nuclear-armed
Iran. He thinks that Ahmadinejad has been incorrectly understood to say that Israel should be
wiped off the map, but S still acknowledges that a powerful Iran could provide more support
to the Palestinians, which would trouble Israel. Although S understands this, he seems to
scorn the idea that Israel should get everything she wants and have hegemony.
I. S is open to the possibility that neoconservatives believe that their support for
Israel is perfectly consistent with America's well-being. As S observes, the U.S. government
since its founding has had people who believe that partisanship towards a certain nation --
-Britain or France -- -is not only good for its own sake but serves the interests of the
United States. S disputes, however, that neoconservative policy is the only way to help the
U.S. Could not one argue, after all, that the U.S. would want to be on the Arabs' good side,
with all the oil the Arabs have? This analysis may be a little dated, since the U.S. now has
some alternative sources of energy (fracking), but S makes this point in evaluating the
historical stance of neoconservatism.
I was interested to see the reviews of this book. Usually if any book suggests that Israel
is less than perfect a group of Zionist fanatics surface with several reviews telling us that
there nothing wrong Israel or American support of it.
Remarkably there is only one negative review of this book which has to be seen to be
believed. This reviewer "yoda" from Israel charges in all seriousness that Sniegoski does not
provide evidence that the neoconservatives are "predominantly Jewish " and are " strongly
aligned with Israel". Asking the author to provide evidence for such
assertions is like asking him to give evidence that the sun will
rise in the east tomorrow .
This is I believe the real reason that that there are relatively few attacks on this book.The
author does not engage in shrill denunciations of Israel or of the neoconservatives . What he
does do is quote at length what neocoservstives say and provide careful documentation for any
factual claims. For the most part the reader is allowed to
draw his own conclusions. Should the US continue to finance
Israeli repression of Palestinians and perhaps go to war against Iran or anyone else who
might object to Israeli policie?
Instead of denouncing Sniegoski "Yoda" should consider
the sane Israelis in his own country . For example former
Mossad chief Meir Dagan who said that a war with Iran was
the "stupidest idea he had ever heard of." Also moviemaker
Emmanuel Dror who interviewed virtually all the former directors of the Shin Bett ( Israel's
internal security service )
who all called for disengaging from the occupied territories .
perhaps we all would be better off listening to these Isaelis rather than follow the
neoconservatives into another disastrous war on the other side of the world.
This is going to be a very strange review coming from me. You see, I wrote a novel called
"Other Nations" and well, people that liked it a lot, liked it, but then those that really
disliked it disliked it because my "aliens among humans" were nice people, likeable people,
even charismatic people, everyday suburban types even, living that kind of life. Among us.
Next door, in the next city over. They wanted instead to see the aliens among us portrayed as
well, pick your favorite genocidal maniac or mind-controlling dictator or creature so
dementedly alien that no sense can be made of it. Well!
There are many types of true horror. The kind that passes itself off as my aliens among us
are portrayed, well, I guess some people GET IT - and they liked it.
But I'm not here to push my book. I'm here to push THIS BOOK - because my god, this is
REAL, not fantasy, it's REAL, not science fiction. And yes, they are among us with well -
BUY THIS BOOK. If you are too broke to buy it, get it from the library - and by all means
- READ IT.
Just hope to whatever god you choose that neocons are removed from governmental influence
and that their Amen corner is ignored. Hope to god, because if they suceed in doing the
INSANITY they want to do - America will be FINISHED - if it's not finished already due to
what these Fifth Columnists have done during the 8 years of Twilight Zone (GWB Rule).
And for those Jewish critics on here that might want to compare these neocon FACTS and the
other FACTS openly available to all (which is WHY the book is called the TRANSPARENT cabal) -
compare it to the Protocols - they better think twice about that. Becauase, you see, what's
in here is real, real facts, provably real facts - and if Jews themselves compare this to the
Procols? Some folks might get the idea that maybe that is real too. Perhaps George Soros (who
is Jewish) needs to speak LOUDER against the neocons. They are, indeed, crazies, as Colin
Powell called them. Crazies.
If you want to have an eye opener then read and see who were those Jewish players working
and influencing everything in the Bush Admin.promoting war with Iraq, then this is your book
of truth. The cabal of Jewish players come out of the woodwork in Stephen Sniegoski's great
work. When step by step the plan was a clear war map laid out for the U.S. in detail and
after you realize just who was working for whom in this criminal cabal of the American
government.
When you have Jewish control of the main stream media and Jewish control in Washington, D.C.,
don't wonder why the facts were omitted to make all the right connections for the public to
see in this lead up to a war from lies.
"... Ciaramella invited Chalupa to meetings and events at the Obama White House. She also visits the Obama White House with Ukrainian lobbyists seeking aid from Obama. Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in 2017, " ..."
"... According to Fox News, the complaint alleges that the DNC specifically "tasked Chalupa with obtaining incriminating or derogatory information about Donald Trump [and] Paul Manfort," ..."
"... Remarkably, despite his clear connections to Rice and Brennan, he was brought back into the inner circle of the Trump NSC by HR McMaster. McMaster appointed him to be his personal aide. ..."
"... He was fired in June of 2017 after being directly implicated in a series of serious national security leaks from the White House calculated to be damaging to President Trump. ..."
"... Vindman also leaked the classified information about the President's call with a foreign head of state to a number of other people. These unauthorized leaks are criminal. Both illegal, unethical and unconscionable. ..."
"... Ciaramella worked with both Grace and Misko in the NSC at the Obama White House. Misko and Grace joined Schiff's committee in early August of 2019, just in time to coordinate the "whistleblower" complaint. ..."
"... Both Vindman and Ciaramella do not qualify for "whistleblower" status. They were reporting on a diplomatic conversation, not an intelligence matter. They were not reporting on a member of the Intelligence committee. ..."
"... IC IG Michael Atkinson surreptitiously changed the rules for whistleblower complaints to allow second-hand testimony in September of 2019. He then backdated the changes to allow the Ciaramella complaint, initially filed in early August, to be included under the new "interpretive" guidelines. ..."
"... The playbook is the same as the Mueller Inquisition and the Russia Hoax, the same as the Kavanaugh smear campaign. With the same co-conspirators of the left-wing mainstream media. Not only carrying water for the coup plotters but being actual participants in the scheme. Paid mouthpieces for the Deep State. ..."
"... Sperry's devastating expose makes clear that Ciaramella is another cog in the Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Rice, Obama conspiracy to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States. As Chuck Schumer said in January of 2017, ..."
"... Ciaramella helped generate the "Putin fired Comey" narrative. Sperry reports, "In the days after Comey's firing, this presidential action was used to further political and media calls for the standup of the special counsel to investigate 'Russia collusion.'" ..."
WASHINGTON, DC : Adam Schiff "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella has
been exposed as a John Brennan ally. An ally who actively worked to defame, target, and destroy
President Donald Trump during both the Obama and Trump administrations. He was fired from the
Trump White House for leaking confidential if not classified information detrimental to the
President. ( The Pajama Boy
Whistleblower Revealed – Rush Limbaugh )
The 33-year-old Ciaramella, a former Susan Rice protege, currently works for the CIA as an
analyst.
Eric Ciaramella: The Deep State non-whistleblower
During his time in the Obama White House, NSC Ciaramella worked under both Vice President
Joe Biden and CIA director John Brennan. He reported directly to NSC advisor Susan Rice through
his immediate boss, Charles Kupchan. Kupchan had extensive ties with Clinton crony Sydney
Blumenthal. Large portions of Blumenthal's disinformation from Ukrainian sources in 2016 was
used in the nefarious Steele Dossier.
Ciaramella also worked extensively with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa. Chalupa led the
effort at the DNC to fabricate a link between the Trump Campaign to Vladimir Putin and Russia.
According to Politico, Chalupa "met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington
in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia."
The DNC paid Chalupa $412,000 between 2004 and 2016.
DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa: Ciaramella co-conspirator
"Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump's campaign, 'I felt there
was a Russia connection.'"
Apparently without any evidence. So she set out to concoct it.
Chalupa (left) also says that the Ukrainian embassy was working directly with reporters
digging for Trump-Russia ties. How convenient, and unethical.
Ciaramella invited Chalupa to meetings and events at the Obama White House. She also visits
the Obama White House with Ukrainian lobbyists seeking aid from Obama. Senator Charles
Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a letter to Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein in 2017, "
"Chalupa's actions appear to show that she was simultaneously working on behalf of a
foreign government, Ukraine, and on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign, in an effort to
influence not only the U.S voting population but U.S. government officials."
The FEC complaint against the DNC and Chalupa
In September 2019 a complaint was filed with the Federal Elections Commission against the
DNC naming Alexandra Chalupa. The complaint alleges that Chalupa acted "improperly to gather
information on Paul Manafort and Donald Trump in the 2016 election".
According to Fox News, the complaint alleges that the DNC specifically "tasked Chalupa
with obtaining incriminating or derogatory information about Donald Trump [and] Paul
Manfort,"
Fox News reporting, that Chalupa allegedly
"Pushed for Ukrainian officials to publicly mention Manafort's financial and political ties
to" Ukraine and "sought to have the Ukrainian government provide her information about
Manafort's work in the country."
John Solomon and Wikileaks both expose Chalupa as DNC operative
"Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information
from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort's dealings inside the country. Chalupa later
tried to arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort's Russian ties
on a U.S. visit during the 2016 campaign."
Ciaramella's connection with John Brennan and Susan Rice
Eric Ciaramella had been working with John Brennan, Susan Rice, the Obama White House, and
Alexandra Chalupa to target and destroy Donald Trump well before he was elected. He was
initially brought into the NSC and the White House inner circle by John Brennan himself.
Remarkably, despite his clear connections to Rice and Brennan, he was brought back into the
inner circle of the Trump NSC by HR McMaster. McMaster appointed him to be his personal
aide.
He was fired in June of 2017 after being directly implicated in a series of serious national
security leaks from the White House calculated to be damaging to President Trump.
Ciaramella and Alexander Vindman: the second "whistleblower"
Ciaramella's title at the White House was NSC Director for Ukraine. That position is now
held by the newest Schiff star witness and Trump hater Lt. Col Alexander Vindman. Vindman is
apparently the "2nd whistleblower" to leak his concerns about the call between Trump and
President Zelensky to Ciaramella.
Vindman also leaked the classified information about the President's call with a foreign
head of state to a number of other people. These unauthorized leaks are criminal. Both illegal,
unethical and unconscionable.
Violating clear national security guidelines for classified information.
Republicans, on cross-examination of Vindman was asked by Republicans cross-examining him
during the closed-door secret police hearings conducted by Adam Schiff, asking who Vindman had
contact with. Schiff cut off the questioning, coaching the witness while refusing to let him
answer the questions.
Schiff coordinated with Ciaramella and Vindman
It is now clear that Ciaramella and Vindman coordinated the entire whistleblower affair with
Schiff and his staff in violation of the "whistleblower" statute. That Ciaramella has been
coordinating his complaint with Schiff committee staffers Abigail Grace and Sean Misko.
Ciaramella worked with both Grace and Misko in the NSC at the Obama White House. Misko and
Grace joined Schiff's committee in early August of 2019, just in time to coordinate the
"whistleblower" complaint.
Both Vindman and Ciaramella do not qualify for "whistleblower" status. They were reporting
on a diplomatic conversation, not an intelligence matter. They were not reporting on a member
of the Intelligence committee.
The suspicious case of IC IG Michael Atkinson
IC IG Michael Atkinson surreptitiously changed the rules for whistleblower complaints to
allow second-hand testimony in September of 2019. He then backdated the changes to allow the
Ciaramella complaint, initially filed in early August, to be included under the new
"interpretive" guidelines.
The level of subterfuge and coordination between Schiff, Ciaramella, Vindman, Abigail Grace,
Sean Misko, and IG Atkinson is more than suspicious. It reeks of yet another episode of a Deep
State coordinated coup attempt.
The whole impeachment affair is a brazen sequel to the Russia Hoax involving many of the
same key players. Susan Rice, John Brennan, Adam Schiff. Designed to target, destroy, and in
this case, fabricate grounds for the impeachment of the President.
The playbook is the same as the Mueller Inquisition and the Russia Hoax, the same as the
Kavanaugh smear campaign. With the same co-conspirators of the left-wing mainstream media. Not
only carrying water for the coup plotters but being actual participants in the scheme. Paid
mouthpieces for the Deep State.
Paul Sperry and Real Clear Investigations
The most comprehensive expose on Ciaramella, that has forced even the mainstream media to
take notice, was the Real Clear Investigations reporting of Paul Sperry. Only Sperry, the
Federalist, and CDN have exposed the whistleblowers' identity. But his name and transparent
partisan actions are the worst kept secret in Washington.
As CIA analyst Fred Fleitz has said:
"Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows.
Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is."
Sperry's devastating expose makes clear that Ciaramella is another cog in the Brennan,
Clapper, Comey, Rice, Obama conspiracy to overthrow the duly elected President of the United
States. As Chuck Schumer said in January of 2017,
"If you take on the intelligence community, they have nines ways to Sunday of getting back
at you."
The never-ending coup attempt against Trump
The reality is that Trump was targeted by the Obama White House well before he was
President. The ongoing coup against him started as soon as he was elected. It morphed into the
Mueller Weissman inquisition and the Peter Strzok insurance policy.
When that fizzled into oblivion it was time for plan B, or in this case plan C or D. The
Deep State and their paid minions in the left-wing press have been unrelenting in their ongoing
anti-constitutional putsch against the President.
The impeachment farce, with its calculated rollout reminiscent of the Kavanaugh smear
campaign, is yet another extension of a never-ending East German Stassi coup (sic) attempt
against the constitution, the Republic, and the people of the United States.
Sperry lays out the trail of evidence against Ciaramella
Paul Sperry's excellent investigative reporting makes clear that Ciaramella "previously
worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan. (He) left his
National Security Council posting in the White House's West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns
about negative leaks to the media." As Sperry reports, "He was accused of working against Trump
and leaking against Trump," said a former NSC official.
Sperry reports that "a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research
dossier on him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill". The
dossier documents Ciaramella's bias against Trump. His relationships with Brennan, Rice, the
Obama White House, and DNC operative Chalupa. As well as his coordination with Vindman, Schiff
and his committee staff.
Chuck Schumer: "Eight ways to Sunday of getting back at you"
It questions both Ciaramella's and Vindman's veracity as a legitimate whistleblower. It
makes clear that Ciaramella and his co-conspirators are part of a Deep State coup attempt. A
calculated, coordinated, illegal, seditious, and illegitimate putsch.
As CIA analyst Fred Fleitz makes clear, " They're hiding him ." Fleitz was emphatic,
" They're hiding him because of his political bias."
Ciaramella helped generate the "Putin fired Comey" narrative. Sperry reports, "In the days
after Comey's firing, this presidential action was used to further political and media calls
for the standup of the special counsel to investigate 'Russia collusion.'"
How IC Inspector General Atkinson found the whistleblower complaint "credible" and "urgent"
at the same time he was backdating the change in regulations to allow the complaint to be filed
is more than highly suspicious. How the 'whistleblower" coordinated with Schiff, Grace, Misko,
and Atkinson to stager the start of impeachment farce is criminal.
Adam Schiff: Constantly lying while moving the goalposts
... ... ...
Schiff: Outstanding scoundrel in a cesspit filled to the brim with similar criminals.
Now Eric Ciaramella is apparently backing away from testifying. Schiff says he no longer
needs his testimony. But Ciaramella should be subpoenaed and called to testify before the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He should not be allowed to escape accountability for his role in
this calculated charade of a conspiracy.
He would then have to testify to his coordination with Schiff and the committee staff. He
would have to expose how Vindmann leaked national security information illegally. How the
entire 'whistleblower" farce was a calculated effort to again derail the Trump Presidency.
A lot has come out about Eric Ciaramella, the Adam Schiff 'Whistleblower", in recent days.
It is the tip of the iceberg. Any legitimate investigation of the circumstances surrounding the
entire Ukraine affair will reveal the extensive criminality of the Obama White House and the
coup plotters.
Exposing the dark underbelly of the Obama White House
It stretches back to the Steele Dossier and the clear efforts of the DNC and the Deep State
to use to a foreign power to interfere in the 2016 election. He exposes the corruption of Vice
President Biden to enrich his family at the expense of the American taxpayer. Details the $6
million dollar bribery scheme of Hunter and Joe Biden by Burisma Holdings.
Lays out the corrupt dealings of Ambassador Yovanovich.
It will lay open the devious underbelly of all the so-called hero witnesses of the Schiff
impeachment Star Chamber inquisition. Of the criminal actions of the coup plotters. Of
Ambassador Yovanovich, Ambassador Taylor, Alexandra Chalupa, and Alexander Vindman.
As well as the so-called whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella.
Calling the Fourth Estate back
It is the tip of the iceberg that only a truly free and independent press will have to
take the reins to fearlessly expose. Like brilliant investigative reporter Paul Sperry at
Real Clear Investigations. Like the Federalist, NOQ Report, and here at CommDigiNews, who
broke the Ciaramella story a full two days before Real Clear Investigations.
No one else in the corrupt media establishment seems willing to rise to the challenge.
If you've not heard the story, Zlochevsky is alleged to have been doing other people's
laundry. About 7.5 billion dollars worth – a sum that has attracted some attention. And
not just because Ukraine claims Hunter Biden's attachment to Burisma resulted in a take if 16.5
million. Money that has nothing to do with his complete lack of knowledge about energy or gas
but probably relates in some predictable way to the name 'Biden.' The investment firm doing the
laundry has close ties to Barack Obama. Joe Biden. Lt. Col Alexander Vindman. Perhaps a few
members of the US State Department. And maybe a George Soros funded operation "fighting
corruption."
We've seen that Vindman has close ties to the previous Ukrainian government, dating back
to Yanukovych and his successor Petro Poroshenko, while this alleged money-laundering scheme
was taking place. The connection to the Franklin Templeton Fund is interesting because John
Templeton, Jr. was a major Obama campaign donor, and Thomas Donilon, who was Obama's National
Security Advisor before Susan Rice and is now the chairman of BlackRock
Investment Institute , a major owner of Franklin Templeton stock.
Vindman is a holdover from the Bamster years, embedded at the NSC.
He served as National Security Advisor to President Barack Obama. In that capacity Mr.
Donilon oversaw the U.S. National Security Council staff, chaired the cabinet level National
Security Principals Committee, provided the president's daily national security briefing, and
was responsible for the coordination and integration of the administration's foreign policy,
intelligence, and military efforts. Mr. Donilon also oversaw the White House's cybersecurity
and international energy efforts. Mr. Donilon served as the President's personal emissary to
a number of world leaders.
Not a casual acquaintance but watch Obama distance himself from him now. "Who? O
I..uh-hardly knew him!"
Under the Obama Administration, former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovich, like Biden,
like the Soros funded group working with the State Department, were all supposed to be focused
on fighting corruption. There's that word again. I don't think it means what they think it
means.
But while all this corruption-fighting was underway Joe's kid Hunter gets a sweetheart
payoff from Burisma. Joe (who is in charge of Ukraine) gets close to a million for himself. All
while 7.5 Billion is alleged to have been laundered through a "fund" whose primary players are
a major Obama donor and the President's "personal emissary" (under the watchful anti-corruption
eye of a group funded by perhaps the biggest Democrat donor in history, George Soros).
During this series of events, Ukraine got leveraged by the Obama Administration to fire a
prosecutor in exchange for a billion in US aid, probably because that prosecutor was getting
too close to what we are learning today.
Somebody was engaged in a record number of quid pro quos, and no one is named Trump.
...
... ... Steve
MacDonaldis a New Hampshire resident, blogger, and activist. A member of the 603
Alliance, NHCMP, NHRVC, LFGC, and the host of GrokTALK! Please Note: My opinions are my own and
not those of my Family, employers, politicians, campaigns, or other contributors or commenters
at GraniteGrok
The mainstream media has woken up just enough to "fact-check" all of the information coming
out lately about the Democrats long history of corruption in Ukraine. The only problem is that
their "fact-checks" are completely contradictory of the actual facts.
Alexandra Chalupa
We can start off with Alexandra Chalupa. I got into a lot of detail about her and her
involvement with the DNC a few weeks ago. (That article, detailing exactly how she was involved
with the DNC, is still available at mikulawire.com.) She has even admitted that she did in fact
work with the DNC. According to Chalupa herself, "During the 2016 U.S. election, I was a part
time consultant for the DNC running an ethnic engagement program." She of course denies that
she was an opposition researcher and claimed that she never went to the Ukrainian embassy to
collect information, but does admit to being a part time consultant.
We also have the FEC records that show that she did make $71,918 in 2016. Between her own
words and the FEC records there's absolutely no denying that she did work for the DNC at least
up until May of 2016. With that kind of payment I do suspect that her employment was a little
more then as a "part-time consultant".
Now, absolutely everything about this would have been investigated if it was someone with
ties to Donald Trump. We would have spent millions of dollars and a several year investigation
trying to figure out exactly what she did for the RNC. Every liberal in the media would talk
about it non-stop. When it comes to Chalupa? No investigation. No questioning. Nothing. Nothing
other then immediately jumping to her defense as soon as the "far-right" started to expose
her.
The Washington Post recently published an article titled "The GOP Theory That Ukraine 'Set
Up' Trump". According to the Washington Post, "Chalupa may have worked with some embassy
officials, but there's no evidence that the DNC used information gathered by Chalupa or that
the Ukrainians coordinated opposition research with the DNC." The problem with their
"fact-check"? It isn't exactly accurate.
In January 2016, Chalupa reported to the DNC that she just "had a feeling" that there was a
Russian connection between Manafort and Trump. We have her to thank for starting this whole
collusion claim. That same month the Obama administration held a meeting at the White House. At
the meeting, President Obama instructed the Ukrainian prosecutor to look into a case involving
Paul Manafort. Coincidence? Maybe but you would think it would be deserving of some questioning
at least.
Chalupa continued checking in with the DNC up until at least May 2016. Each time it was the
same topic: Paul Manafort. Somehow, the Washington Post is claiming that there is no evidence
that the DNC used any information gathered by Chalupa, despite leaked emails confirming that
Paul Manafort's name regularly came up between Chalupa and the DNC.
Prosecutor That Was Fired Because of Joe Biden
Next, we have the prosecutor that Vice President Joe Biden got fired. According to the
prosecutor, he was fired because he was investigating Burisma and refused to drop the probe
into Biden. He even gave a sworn testimony in front of an Ukrainian court.
The left is disputing this. They claim that there was no active investigation into Burisma
at that time. According to virtually everyone in the media, that investigation was "dormant" at
the time. CNN's Jake Tapper, in an interview with Congressman Jim Jordan, called the
investigation dormant. CNN, the Associated Press, Business Insider, have all called the
investigation "dormant". Forbes at least used a different word and called it "inactive", but
basically claimed the same thing. It's almost like absolutely everyone in the main stream media
is reading off of the exact same script.
This entire claimed originated with an article from Bloomberg on May 6th 2019. According to
Bloomberg, "what has received less attention is that at the time Biden made his ultimatum, the
probe into the company-Burisma holdings, owned by Mykola Zlochevsky-had been long dormant,
according to the former official, Vitaliy Kasko." That claim was all it took for everyone in
the mainstream media to run with it. There was no investigation. No fact checking. Everyone
just ran with it. It turns out, that maybe someone in the media should have fact-checked it
before running with the claim.
Kasko, the Ukrainian that told this to Bloomberg, worked for Shokin, the Ukrainian
prosecutor that Joe Biden got fired. Shokin claims that Kasko was working with Biden to
undermine him, so that Kasko could get the job as prosecutor. Is it true? I don't know. But
shouldn't that at least be enough to be questioned, before everyone in the media runs with the
exact same story?
According to Shokin, "I finally crossed the threshold on February 2nd 2016, when we went to
the courts with petitions for re-arresting the property of Burisma. I suppose that then the
President received another call from Biden, blackmail by non-provision of a loan then
Poroshenko (the then President of Ukraine) surrendered." Shokin also said that "we were going
to interrogate Biden Jr., Archer, and so on."
The date of February 2nd 2016 is really important. February 2nd was a full month before
Biden got Shokin fired. If true, Shokin's claim proves that there was an active investigation
into Burisma and that Joe Biden's son, was going to be called in for questioning next. That
sounds like something that should deserve at least some questioning. It doesn't look suspicious
that Biden gets the Prosecutor fired just before the prosecutor was about to bring his son in
for questioning?
According to Ukrainian news sources there was an active investigation into Burisma and that
the courts were seizing property. According to the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, the court
"satisfied the petition to seize the property of Mykola Zlochevsky" on .February 2nd 2016, the
exact same date that Shokin claimed.
New Prosecutor Issues Retraction After Siding With Prosecutor Biden Got Fired
Then the Washington Post attempted to smear John Soloman, who is one of the very few guys
that actually does any reporting nowadays. According to the Washington Post, "John Soloman
foisted a bogus story on Fox News viewers. His punishment? A contact." In March, John Soloman
reported that a "top Ukrainian justice official says US ambassador gave him a do not prosecute
list." The claim is that the prosecutor was being told by the US ambassador who he could and
could not investigate.
After Biden got Shokin fired, Biden bragged that we finally have a good guy in there,
referring to Shokin's replacement, Yuriy Lutsenko. Lutsenko (the good guy) claimed that Shokin
(the bad guy) was corrupt, even though a single specific claim was never brought up against
Shokin. The problem now is that the good guy was saying the same thing that the bad guy was
saying before he was fired. The good guy was now also being told not to investigate the head of
Burisma among other things, including Biden's son.
If we had real journalists, the fact that the new prosecutor was saying the exact same thing
that the old prosecutor was saying, should have been investigated. Instead of actually
investigating, the media started making things up like they always do. They started making the
claim that Lutsenko retracted his claim. The only problem is that there is no evidence of him
retracting his statement.
The source of this claim appears to have started in an article from UNIAN, which is a
Ukrainian site. The headline read "Ukraine Prosecutor General Lutsenko admits U.S. ambassador
didn't give him a do not prosecute list". They were referencing an interview that Lutsenko gave
to another Ukrainian news site where he gave this "retraction". Lutsenko claimed that he "took
a piece of paper, recorded the surnames and said: 'Dictate a list of inviolable persons; She
says: 'No you misunderstood me.' I say: such lists were written (in the presidential
administration) on Bankova, and you offer new lists from Tankova (the U.S. Embassy)'. The
meeting is over. I'm afraid the emotions were not very good." So his "retraction" was
clarifying that he wasn't "handed" a list, but that the list was spoken to him, and then he
wrote it down.
That's seems like something that should be important enough to report. Everyone who reads
articles from the Washington Post and other sites are left to think that Lutsenko gave a
retraction and that he isn't a credible witness when no retraction was actually given. I would
say this is unbelievable but sadly I expect these kinds of games coming from the main stream
media.
Finally we have Lev Leshchenko who told the Financial Times back in August 2016, three
months before the election, that he was attacking Trump because "a Trump presidency would
change the pro-Ukrainian agenda in American foreign policy He is a pro-Russian candidate who
can break the geopolitical balance in the world." This guy was working with the head of the
Anti-corruption bureau of Ukraine, that our government insisted they set up with NGO's. They
released the dirt on Paul Manafort and then started bragging about it to the press.
The Ukrainian court convicted Leshchenko for 1. Interfering in the 2016 election. 2.
Illegally interfering in Ukraine's foreign policy. What Leshchenko was convicted for in
Ukraine, the left is accusing Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani of the exact same thing. It seems
to be a common pattern among people who have something to hide. Usually if someone accuses you
of something, chances are they are themselves are guilty of the exact same thing.
Whenever "news" organizations such as the Washington Post mention this story, they usually
make a claim such as "In July, the ruling was overturned by an appeals court". So that means
that Leshchenko is not guilty? Not exactly.
According to an Ukrainian News headline: "Appeals Court: Sytnyk and MP Leshchenko Did Not
Act Illegally By Disclosing That Manafort's Name Is In Party of Regions' 'Black Ledger'." The
problem with that headline is that they were quoting what was said by the guy that was just
convicted. They never cared to report why the case was dismissed. The Washington Post then
allowed Leschchenko to write an article, debunking Rudy Giuliani's claims. That's what counts
as journalism now?
The comical thing is that Leschenko is on tape admitting that he was trying to influence the
election .and yet somehow he isn't guilty of interfering with the election?
It turns out that he is still guilty of both charges, but the media won't tell you that. The
case was thrown out, not because the charges were dismissed, but because of a technicality. The
defense cited 3 reasons why this case was thrown out. 1. The person that made the charges had
no right to file the lawsuit because his interests had not been affected. 2. The administrative
courts cannot consider lawsuits against Ukrainian members of parliament. 3. The statute of
limitations had expired. Innocent? No. Absolutely nothing was disputed.
A majority of those in the mainstream media aren't just clueless but are intentionally lying
and trying to manipulate us. They intentionally ignore key details so that they can twist every
story into something that fits their agenda. It's up to us to stop falling for their games. Its
up to us to stop taking everything they say as gospel and actually start to do the research for
ourselves. That is the only way that we can save our Republic. Democracy and Republics really
do die in darkness and ours is on the life support.
"... Preface by Washington's Blog: A leading cybersecurity expert has publicly said that Mr. Eliason's research as presented in this article does not violate the law. Washington's Blog does not express an opinion about whether or not the claims set forth in this article are accurate or not. Make up your own mind. ..."
"... StopFake- Irena Chalupa- Chalupa is the sister to the same Alexandra Chalupa that brought the term Russian hacking to worldwide attention. Irena Chalupa is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. She is also a senior correspondent at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has worked for more than twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the Atlantic Council, where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the news anchor for Ukraine's propaganda channel Stopfake.org She is a Ukrainian Diaspora leader. The Chalupa's are the 1st family of Ukrainian propaganda. She works with and for Ukrainian Intelligence through the Atlantic Council, Stopfake, and her sisters Andrea (Euromaidanpr) and Alexandra. ..."
Originally By George Eliason, an American journalist living in Ukraine.
Preface by Washington's Blog: A leading cybersecurity expert has publicly said that Mr.
Eliason's research as presented in this article does not violate the law. Washington's Blog
does not express an opinion about whether or not the claims set forth in this article are
accurate or not. Make up your own mind.
Note: If any images are hard to see, you can look
here . (I'm not sure why, but these images are a tad fuzzier at ZH.)
A little over a year ago, the deep-state graced the world with Propornot . Thanks to them, 2017
became the year of fake news. Every news website and opinion column now had the potential to be
linked to the Steele dossier and Trump collusion with Russia. Every journalist was either with
us or against us. Every one that was against us became Russia's trolls.
Fortunately for the free world, the anonymous group known as Propornot that tried to "out"
every website as a potential Russian colluder, in the end only implicated themselves.
Turnabout is fair play and that's always the fun part, isn't it? With that in mind, I know
the dogs are going to howl this evening over this one.
The damage Propornot did to scores of news and opinions websites in late 2016-2017provides
the basis of a massive civil suit. I mean huge, as in the potential is there for a tobacco
company sized class-action sized lawsuit. I can say that because I know a lot about a number of
entities that are involved and the enormous amount of money behind them. How serious is
this?
In 2016, a $10,000 reward
was put out for the identities of Propornot players. No one has claimed it yet, and now, I
guess no one will. There are times in your life that taking a stand has a cost. To make sure
the story gets out and is taken seriously, this is one of those times.
If that's what it takes for you to understand the danger Propornot and the groups around
them pose to everyone you love, if you understand it, everything will have been well worth
it.
In this article, you'll meet some of the people staffing Propornot. You'll meet the people
and publications that provide their expenses and cover the logistics. You'll meet a few of the
deep state players. We'll deal with them very soon. They need to see this as the warning shot
over the bow and start playing nice with regular people. After that, you'll meet the NGO's that
are funding and orchestrating all of it. How am I doing so far?
The image that you see is the clincher or game winner that supplies the necessary proof up
front and the direct path to Propornot. This was a passive scan of propornot.com showing the
administrative dashboard belongs to the InterpreterMag.com as shown on the left of the image.
On the right, it shows that uploads to Propornot.com come from InterpreterMag.com and is a
product of that publication.
Now we have the first layer of Propornot, fake news, and our 1st four contestants. We havea
slew of new media organizations that are influenced by, or feeding Propornot. Remember, fake
news got off the ground and got its wings because of the attention this website received from
the Washington Post in Dec. 2016.
At the Interpreter Mag level, here are the people:
Michael Weiss is the Editor-in-Chief at the InterpreterMag.com. According to his Linkd profile , he
is also a National Security Analyst for CNN since Jul 2017 as well as an Investigative
Reporter for International Affairs for CNN since Apr 2017. He has been a contributor there
since 2015. He has been a Senior Editor at The Daily Beast since Jun 2015.
With the lengthy CNN cred's, how much involvement does CNN have in fake news? Yes, I know,
but we're talking about Propornot.
Catherine
A. Fitzpatrick is a Russian translator and analyst for the Interpreter. She has worked as
an editor for EurasiaNet.org and RFE/RL.
Pierre Vaux is an
analyst and translator for the Interpreter. He's also an intern. He is a contributor to
the Daily Beast, Foreign Policy, RFE/RL and Left Foot Forward and works at Dataminr Inc.
James Miller's bio at the InterpreterMag .com includes Managing Editor of The Interpreter
where he reports on Russia, Ukraine, and Syria. James runs the "Under The Black Flag" column
at RFE/RL which provides news, opinion, and analysis about the impact of the Islamic State
extremist group in Syria, Iraq, and beyond. He is a contributor at Reuters, The Daily Beast,
Foreign Policy, and other publications. He is an expert on verifying citizen journalism and
has been covering developments in the Middle East, specifically Syria and Iran, since 2009.
Follow him on Twitter: @MillerMENA- Miller even works for the US Embassy in Kiev "diplo-page"
the Kiev Post.
The Interpreter is a product of the Atlantic Council. The Digital Forensics Research Lab has been carrying
the weight in Ukrainian-Russian affairs for the Atlantic Council. Fellows working with the
Atlantic Council in this area include:
StopFake- Irena Chalupa- Chalupa is the sister to the same Alexandra
Chalupa that brought the term Russian hacking to worldwide attention. Irena Chalupa
is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. She is
also a senior correspondent at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has worked
for more than twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the Atlantic
Council, where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the news anchor
for Ukraine's propaganda channel Stopfake.org She is a Ukrainian
Diaspora leader. The Chalupa's are the 1st family of Ukrainian propaganda. She works with
and for Ukrainian Intelligence through the Atlantic Council, Stopfake, and her sisters Andrea
(Euromaidanpr) and Alexandra.
The strand that ties this crew together is they all work for Ukrainian Intelligence. If you
hit the links, the ties are documented very clearly. We'll get to that point again shortly, but
let's go further:
Propornot-> Atlantic Council -> Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)
Who are the BBG? According to Wikipedia- "The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) is an
independent agency of the United States government. According to its website, its mission is to
"inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy. The
BBG supervised Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio y Television
Marti, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcast Networks.
The board of the BBG was eliminated and replaced with a single appointed chief executive
officer as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which was
passed in December 2016."
In 2015, just a few months after Donald Trump launched his campaign for President, the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) hired Alexandria Chalupa to do opposition research on
Donald Trump. So who is she? If you read my article from 2 weeks ago, she was the one that said
she just "had a feeling" that Trump was somehow connected to Russia.
Chalupa's work didn't just start in 2015. While in college, she interned at the Clinton
White House in 1998. Her career as a Democratic operative started in 2002. From 2003-2004. She
worked as the Online Constituency Outreach Director for John Kerry's Presidential Campaign.
This is kind of weird because John Kerry's son is involved with Joe Biden's son in Burisma
which is the energy company in Ukraine. It was John Kerry's son that was there before Joe
Biden's son.
In 2004-2005, she was Executive Director for Democrats Abroad, a DNC organization that
mobilizes Democrats living outside of the United States. From 2006-2011, she worked for the
DNC. From 2013 to 2016, she was working for the DNC's National Ethnic Council and as a side gig
to that, she was also trafficking Ukrainian dirt on Donald Trump.
According to FEC records, the DNC paid her $412,000 between 2004 and 2016. She was also paid
separate unknown amounts by Democrats Abroad.
The official story from the DNC is that she left in July 2016. Her claim is that she left in
July 2016, but she continued doing her own research on Manafort and that she occasionally
shared her findings with the DNC and the Clinton Campaign. The Clinton campaign claims that
they never received any information from Chalupa.
According to Chalupa, "I was a part time consultant for the DNC running an ethnic engagement
program. I was not an opposition researcher for the DNC and the DNC never asked me to go to the
Ukrainian embassy to collect information." Official records show that she was paid $71,918 just
in 2016 for what she claims was just a part time job. Even if she wasn't technically a
"opposition researcher" she was doing her own investigation into Donald Trump and sharing
information with both the Clinton campaign and the DNC, while on the DNC's payroll.
According to Politico, Alexandra Chalupa has "a network of people in Kiev and Washington --
including Ukrainian government officials -- who would pass her information that she would then
float as potential research to DNC staffers." Keep in mind that it's not "right-wing"
organizations such as Fox news who are making those claims. That claim came from Politico,
which is a site that does lean to the left. Chalupa called Politico's story was "nonsense".
According to another source, Chalupa "informally" told committee staffers last year that
"Ukrainian officials had become concerned about Trump's campaign and his ties to Russia and
suggested having the DNC work with the Ukrainian embassy to bring some damning information to
light." That claim was reported by CNN, another news network that isn't known to be
"far-right."
Alexandria Chalupa could try to act like she's innocent in all of this but it isn't going to
work. Not only is she involved in the Democrats corruption in Ukraine and spreading false
information about Donald Trump, but so are her two sisters. All three have a long pattern of
corruption and trying to cause chaos in Ukraine.
Chalupa's one sister, Andrea, funded something called "DigitalMaidan". Digital Maidan was
created to support the removal of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Maidan refers to the
name of Independence Square in Kiev. Digital Maidan organized tweet storms to flood twitter
with anti-Yanukovych messages. Maidan also did tweet storms aimed at Donald Trump such as
#TreasonousTrump, just a few weeks before the 2016 election.
Her other sister, Irene, is also very active in Ukrainian affairs. She has been a journalist
in Kiev, and was a long time editor at the "Atlantic Council". Irene was the contributor to a
bi-weekly report called "Ukraine Alerts". A senior fellow at the same think tank, Dmitri
Aperovitch, was coincidentally also the CEO of Crowdstrike. If that sounds familiar,
Crowdstrike was the security firm that the DNC hired to investigate the 2016 hacks, on the DNC.
Crowdstrike was also brought up by Donald Trump with his call with the Ukrainian President.
The Atlantic Council receives funding from a Russian Oligarch, named Victor Pinchuck.
Pinchuck was a former member of the Ukrainian parliament and sits on the International Advisory
Board of the Atlantic Council. Pinchuck is also one of the biggest donors to the Clinton
Foundation. Hmmm. In 2013, the Atlantic Council awarded Hillary Clinton with a "Distinguished
National Leadership" award.
Irena now works for an organization called "StopFake.org". This is a site that was going to
"verify and refute disinformation and propaganda about events in Ukraine." Now they expanded to
"fact check, de-bunk, edit, translate, research and disseminate information in 11
languages."
"StopFake.org" receives money from the International Renaissance Foundation which was an
organization being investigated by the Prosecutor General. This was the guy that Joe Biden
pressured the Ukrainian President to fire. Oh, and no Democratic corruption scandal is complete
without George Soros. Soros funds the International Renassiance Foundation, along with what
seems like absolutely everything else that the left is involved.
So Alexandra Chalupa and her two sisters were all involved in Ukraine and all three were on
a mission to stop Donald Trump.
Chalupa, who claims she did nothing wrong, hired Michael Avenatti to represent her. Avenatti
tweeted that he was "now representing Alexandra Chalupa in connection with investigating
pursing possible legal claims against Manafort, Trump and other affiliated individuals. She was
targeted with baseless, bogus, allegations, all designed to distract away from Trump's Russian
collusion." When Chalupa was challenged for hiring Michael Avenatti to represent her, she
responded with "He's a friend and someone I trust. He's also a fighter and on the right side of
history. He's already made a big impact, and now we're about to take it up a notch." Michael
Avenatti is the guy who was arrested for stealing $300,000 from Stormy Daniels after using
every opportunity to make sure he was seen in front of the camera attacking Donald Trump.
A few weeks after Donald Trump's shocking win, Chalupa wrote an article for the online blog
publishing platform, Medium, in which she described what she believed to be was Russia's
motivation for hacking the DNC during the 2016 election. "Russia's economy has also suffered
due to its reliance on oil and the drop in oil prices. Trump's appointment of an exxon-mobil
executive as Secretary of State shows an alignment of Russian and Trump administration
interests that is Kleptocratic."
Within a few days of posting this article, she met with 2 men. One of the men were now
working with Democrats Abroad, which was the same organization that Chalupa worked for just a
few years ago. He was put in touch with Chalupa because he had information that could help her
in her investigation into Donald Trump and his connections with Russia.
The other man was a guy who spent 17 years in federal prison for drug conspiracy,
impersonating a federal officer and setting off a series of homemade bombs in Indiana in
1978.
These two men met with Chalupa to discuss Russian hacking in the 2016 election. Chalpua paid
$9,000 for documents that supposedly linked Exxon mobil, Rex Tillerson and Donald Trump to
Russia's hacking on the DNC. Buzzfeed investigated the documents and ran a story titled "How
Donald Trump's Enemies Fell For A Billion-Dollar Hoax", in which they debunked the documents
and proved they were forged. One of the myths that were debunked was that Rex Tillerson paid
the Trump organization $1.4 billion in June 2016, so that he could secure the Secretary of
State position. I mean was that something that really needed to be investigated? A claim that
Tillerson paid $1.4 billion to Trump so that Trump would hire him for a position making
$200,000 per year?
We can thank Alexandra Chalupa for starting this whole collusion delusion nonsense. After
over 2 years and hundreds of millions of dollars spent of your money, and they still can't
prove that Donald Trump colluded with Russia. Maybe it's time now to investigate Chalupa and
those who were responsible for pushing the collusion delusion. There is far more evidence of
the corruption in the DNC, then there is today after spending hundreds of millions of dollars
looking into Russia. It's time that we hold the DNC accountable and actually investigate them.
Everything they accused Donald Trump of doing with Russia, they were doing with Ukraine and
it's time we investigate them.
Posted in The
Mikula Report Tagged # DNC #
Ukraine <img
src="https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4c41be0c99f13e0b390701061c93f515?s=96&d=mm&r=g">
Levi Mikulahttp://mikulawire.com
Next Post
Questions
That Need to be Asked By Both Sides, Regarding Russia and Ukraine Mon Nov 4 , 2019
There are some questions that each one of us should ask ourselves, regardless of where we fall
on the political spectrum. There are times when we need to put aside our differences and put
the national interest of the country above what is in the best interest for our political
party. There are some questions that both sides should be able to come together on and answer
the same way, regardless of who you voted for in the last election and regardless of whether
you agree with Donald Trump on anything or not. Should we investigate whether Russia did try to
influence the election? Yes! We should! We have solid proof that Russia did try to influence
the 2016 election. That shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. We knew that Russia was interested
in trying to influence U.S. elections, going back to 2012. Remember when Mitt Romney warned
about Russia and was mocked for it? "The 1980's called and they want their foreign policy back"
we were told by Barack Obama. Now suddenly the left is concerned with Russia and the right
automatically dismisses any talk of Russia trying to influence U.S. elections. Sadly, both
sides seem more concerned with party politics then our national security. Not only did Russia
try to influence the 2016 election, but they will try it again in 2020 and beyond. This is an
issue where both sides should be able to come together, to discuss ways to prevent a foreign
power, any foreign power, from interfering with our elections again. Sadly, that doesn't look
like it will happen anytime soon, even though that is what we should be focusing on. 2. Should
we find out if Donald Trump colluded with Russia to hurt the Democrat candidate? Yes, we
should! If Trump did in fact knowingly collude with Russia, he should be impeached and then
removed from office. But we can't just remove a President based on accusations from the other
side. We need to find the solid evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, before we remove him
from office. We have yet to find that concrete evidence, even after an investigation that
lasted over two years, and tens of millions of dollars spent. If that concrete evidence were to
be discovered, every American should absolutely support removing Donald Trump. 3. Does the fact
that the DNC will benefit by a Russia investigation mean we shouldn't pursue the investigation?
No! We should absolutely still pursue the investigation, regardless of what it means for the
2020 election. National interest should come before party interests. There is no denying that
any talk of Russia will hurt Donald Trump. There is no denying that the media will try to spin
absolutely everything into their favor, regardless of what the facts show. But, this is a
serious issue involving national security that we need to get to the bottom of. Like I said
earlier, if we can prove that Donald Trump did in fact collude with Russia, he should be
removed from office. If Russia did in fact try to influence the U.S. election, which in fact
they did, they need to be dealt with. Both sides need to be willing to accept what ever the
investigations show. If Trump knowingly colluded with Russia, he should absolutely be removed.
If there is no evidence of him knowingly colluding with Russia, then the left needs to accept
that and move on. But we can't lose site the danger that Russia poses to our country. That is
an issue that neither side wants to pay any attention to. This is much bigger then anything
Donald Trump may or may not have done. 4. Would Trump benefit from investigations in Ukraine
and Burisma? Would he benefit any more then the DNC would benefit with Russia? Yes, Trump would
benefit from investigations into Ukraine and Burisma. Does that mean that it's not the right
thing for the country? No. The truth is important no matter which side it hurts in the next
election. The left should be just as interested in learning the facts about what had happened
in Ukraine as they are trying to make it seem like they are with the Russia investigations.
Would it benefit him more then it would benefit the DNC though, then it does with the Democrats
investigating Russia? No. Unlike the Democrats, Trump doesn't have a majority of the media on
his side. A media who tries to spin absolutely every little rumor into a major crisis, that
they are sure will take down the President this time. The left is quick to dismiss any talk of
Ukraine just like the right is quick to dismiss any talk of Russia. If either, or both, are
true, it is a very severe threat to our Republic and needs to be dealt with. 5. Which is more
in line with America's national interest? a) Withhold U.S. aid money ($400 billion) until
recipient investigates: What happened to $7 billion in U.S aid? Was there any collusion to
influence the U.S. election, government corruption involving the State Department, U.S.
intelligence, NGO's, U.S. candidates, etc. OR b) A President or Vice President withholding U.S.
aid ($1 billion) unless recipient STOPS investigations. The answer to this question is really
easy. We should absolutely investigate where the $7 billion went. We need to figure out if
there was any influence in the US election. We should investigate Vice President Joe Biden
calling for the ambassador to be fired. We know for a fact that there was collusion between the
DNC and the Ukraine embassy in D.C., so why is it that nobody cares about that collusion? Why
is it a big deal that Trump supposedly withheld aid from Ukraine until they investigated Joe
Biden, but no one seems to have a problem with Joe Biden withholding aid to force Ukraine to
fire the Ukranian prosecutor so that an investigation would be stopped? That wasn't an
impeachable offense, but Donald Trump's phone call with the Ukranian President was? What has
Trump done that is any worse then anything the Obama administration did? These 5 questions
should be questions that both sides should be able to come together on but sadly both sides are
more concerned with party politics, more then they are concerned about the security of our
republic. Claiming that Russia is a treat doesn't automatically mean that you believe Trump is
an illegitimate President and that he colluded with Russia. Claiming that Ukraine needs to be
investigated doesn't mean that you are excusing anything that Donald Trump has done. It simply
means that you are more concerned with the national security of our country then you are with
party politics. <img width="640" height="360"
src="https://mikulawire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Trump-and-Biden-1024x576.jpg" alt=""
/> You May Like
"... Nuland's comment came in response to news that that there would be a second phase of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes' investigation into Russian interference – this time focusing on the State Department. Nunes sent a questionnaire to about two dozen current and former intelligence, law enforcement and State Department officials. My guess is Nuland was one of them. Former Secretary of State John Kerry may have been another. ..."
"... Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. When Trump's unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well. ..."
On February 4, 2018, Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of
State in the Obama Administration went on Face the Nation and made the
following comment :
During the Ukraine crisis in 2014-15, Chris Steele had a number of commercial clients who
were asking him for reports on what was going on in Russia, what was going on in Ukraine, what
was going on between them. Chris had a friend [Jonathan Winer] at the State Department and he
offered us that reporting free so that we could also benefit from it. It was one of, you know,
hundreds of sources that we were using to try to understand what was going on.
Then, in the middle of July, when he was doing this other work and became concerned, he
passed two to four pages of short points of what he was finding and our immediate reaction to
that was, this is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI if there is any concern here
that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian Federation.
That's something for the FBI to investigate.
Nuland said the State Department received the Dossier directly from Steele in mid-July 2016,
whereupon the State Department turned it over to the FBI (segmented video
here ).
Which is right around the time Susan Rice began showing increased interest in National
Security Agency (NSA) intelligence material – including "unmasked" Americans' identities.
From a
Circa article :
Intelligence sources said the logs discovered by National Security Council staff suggested
Rice's interest in the NSA materials, some of which included unmasked Americans' identities,
appeared to begin last July around the time Trump secured the GOP nomination and accelerated
after Trump's election in November launched a transition that continued through January.
Nuland's comment came in response to news that that there would be a
second phase of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes' investigation into
Russian interference – this time focusing on the State Department. Nunes sent a questionnaire to about two dozen current and former intelligence, law
enforcement and State Department officials. My guess is Nuland was one of them. Former Secretary of State John Kerry may have been
another.
The New York Times
had earlier reported that the FBI received the Steele Dossier directly from Christopher Steele
on July 5, 2016 – the same day as Comey's infamous exoneration of Hillary Clinton during
a news conference:
The reports came from a former British intelligence agent named Christopher Steele, who was
working as a private investigator hired by a firm working for a Trump opponent. He provided the
documents to an F.B.I. contact in Europe on the same day as Mr. Comey's news conference about
Mrs. Clinton. It took weeks for this information to land with Mr. Strzok and his team.
This claim was recently repeated in a lengthy article in the
New Yorker . In this version, the Steele Dossier was given to the FBI on July 5, 2016. By ~July 20, 2016,
Comey had seen it and Strzok had the Dossier in his possession.
There is a third version of events, provided by Jonathan Winer in a
Washington Post Op-Ed :
In 2009, I met and became friends with Steele, after he retired from British government
service focusing on Russia. Steele was providing business intelligence on the same kinds of
issues I worked on at the time. Over the years, Steele and I had discussed many matters relating to Russia. He asked me
whether the State Department would like copies of new information as he developed it.
I contacted Victoria Nuland, a career diplomat who was then assistant secretary of state for
European and Eurasian affairs, and shared with her several of Steele's reports. She told me
they were useful and asked me to continue to send them. Over the next two years, I shared more
than 100 of Steele's reports with the Russia experts at the State Department, who continued to
find them useful.
In the summer of 2016, Steele told me that he had learned of disturbing information
regarding possible ties between Donald Trump, his campaign and senior Russian officials. He did
not provide details but made clear the information involved "active measures," a Soviet
intelligence term for propaganda and related activities to influence events in other
countries.
In September 2016, Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known as
the "dossier." Steele's sources suggested that the Kremlin not only had been behind the hacking
of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign but also had compromised
Trump and developed ties with his associates and campaign.
I was allowed to review, but not to keep, a copy of these reports to enable me to alert the
State Department. I prepared a two-page summary and shared it with Nuland, who indicated that,
like me, she felt that the secretary of state [John Kerry] needed to be made aware of this
material.
In this third version, Nuland and the State Department received the Dossier in September
2016.
Nuland made her comments on February 4, 2018. Winer wrote his Op-Ed on February 8, 2018.
Winer has known Steele since 2009. Nuland has known Steele since 2014 – during the
Ukraine crisis.
Victoria Nuland is famous for an interesting conversation with the U.S. Ambassador to
Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt on or before February 4, 2014 (transcript here ):
During the call, which was intercepted and leaked, the two appear to be discussing replacing
Ukrainian President Yanukovych with opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Some excerpts:
PYATT: I think we're in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition
leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here.
NULAND: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's
necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.
PYATT: Yeah. I guess in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out
and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process
moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together.
NULAND: I think Yats [opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk] is the guy who's got the economic
experience, the governing experience. He's the what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the
outside.
PYATT: The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on
that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
NULAND: Sullivan's come back to me VFR, saying you need [Vice President] Biden and I said
probably tomorrow. So Biden's willing.
Here's what actually happened:
On or before February 4 2014 – Call between Pyatt and Nuland.
February 22, 2014 – Yanukovych was
removed as President of Ukraine.
February 27 2014 – Yatsenyuk was installed as Prime Minister of Ukraine.
Klitschko was left out. Yatsenyuk would
resign
in April 2016 amidst corruption accusations.
April 18 2014 – Hunter Biden was
appointed to the Board of Directors for Burisma – one of the largest natural gas
companies in Ukraine.
April 22 2014 – VP Biden
travels to Ukraine and
offers support and $50 million in aid for Yatsenyuk's shaky new government.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly
questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump
aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after
the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his
advisers, a Politico investigation found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met
with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between
Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of
the situation.
That Ukrainian-American was DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa.
Manafort's work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named
Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the
Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for
Democratic National Committee.
The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission
records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic
campaigns and the DNC's arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.
Some actions taken by Chalupa (sources from Politico
article unless otherwise linked):
January 3 2014 – Leaders representing more than a dozen Ukrainian-American
organizations, including the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation, met at the
White House with President Obama's senior national security staff to discuss the crisis in
Ukraine.
The non-partisan meeting held on January 3 was initiated by the co-chairs of
Ukrainian-Americans for Obama, Julian Kulas, Andrew Fedynsky and Ulana Mazurkevich, as well
Alexandra Chalupa , co-convener of the National Democratic Ethnic Coordinating Committee.
This was approximately one month prior to Nuland's call with Pyatt regarding the
installation of Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister of Ukraine.
2014 (undetermined) -Chalupa begins to investigate Paul Manafort.
Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing pro bono work for another client interested
in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching Manafort's role in Yanukovych's rise, as well as
his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych's political party.
Late 2015 – Chalupa expands her opposition research into Manafort to include Trump's
ties to Russia.
Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington,
including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives.
When Trump's unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more
on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well.
She occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and Clinton's campaign
January 2016 – Chalupa informs a senior DNC official that she feels there is a Russia
connection with the Trump Campaign.
Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump's campaign, "I felt there was
a Russia connection," Chalupa recalled. "And that, if there was, that we can expect Paul
Manafort to be involved in this election," said Chalupa, who at the time also was warning
leaders in the Ukrainian-American community that Manafort was "Putin's political brain for
manipulating U.S. foreign policy and elections."
March 25 2016 – Chalupa shared her concerns with the Ukrainian Ambassador to the
U.S.
She said she shared her concern with Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly, and
one of his top aides, Oksana Shulyar, during a March 2016 meeting at the Ukrainian Embassy.
According to someone briefed on the meeting, Chaly said that Manafort was very much on his
radar, but that he wasn't particularly concerned about the operative's ties to Trump.
March 29 2016 – Chalupa briefs DNC Communication staff.
The day after Manafort's hiring was revealed, she briefed the DNC's communications staff on
Manafort, Trump and their ties to Russia, according to an operative familiar with the
situation.
A former DNC staffer and the operative familiar with the situation agreed that with the
DNC's encouragement, Chalupa asked embassy staff to try to arrange an interview in which
Poroshenko might discuss Manafort's ties to Yanukovych.
While the embassy declined that request, officials there became "helpful" in Chalupa's
efforts, she said, explaining that she traded information and leads with them.
Chalupa said the embassy also worked directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and
Russia to point them in the right directions.
April 4 – April 12 2016 – Ukrainian Parliamentarian Olga Bielkov has
four meetings – with Samuel Charap (International Institute for Strategic Studies),
Liz Zentos (National Security Council), Michael Kimmage (State Dept) and David Kramer (McCain
Institute).
Doug Schoen files FARA documents that
show he was paid $40,000 a month by Ukrainian Billionaire Victor Pinchuk (page 5) to arrange
these meetings.
Schoen attempts to arrange another 72 meetings with Congressmen and media (page 10). It is
unknown how many meetings took place.
April 6 2016 – Chalupa holds a meeting with an assistant of Representative Marcy
Kaptur.
Chalupa confirmed that, a week after Manafort's hiring was announced, she discussed the
possibility of a congressional investigation with a foreign policy legislative assistant in the
office of Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), who co-chairs the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus.
April 26 2016 – Investigative reporter Michael Isikoff publishes
story on Yahoo News about Paul Manafort's business dealings with Russian oligarch Oleg
Deripaska.
April 28 2016 – Chalupa appears on a panel to discuss her research on Manafort with a
group of 68 Ukrainian investigative journalists gathered at the Library of Congress for a
program sponsored by a U.S. congressional agency called the Open World Leadership Center.
From a Wikileaks
email sent by Chalupa to Luis Miranda, Communications Director of the DNC:
I spoke to a delegation of 68 investigative journalists from Ukraine last Wednesday at the
Library of Congress – the Open World Society's forum – they put me on the program
to speak specifically about Paul Manafort and I invited Michael Isikoff whom I've been working
with for the past few weeks and connected him to the Ukrainians.
Two points.
Open World is a supposedly non-partisan Congressional agency.
Michael Isikoff is the same journalist Christopher Steele leaked
to in September 2016:
The Carter Page FISA application extensively cited a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focused on Page's July 2016 trip to
Moscow. This information was used to corroborate the Steele Dossier.
Steele leaked to Isikoff who wrote the article for Yahoo News. The Isikoff article was then
used to help obtain a Title I FISA grant to gather information on Page. This search was then
leaked by Steele to David Corn at Mother Jones.
Isikoff accompanied Chalupa to a reception at the Ukrainian Embassy immediately after the
Library of Congress event.
May 3 2016 – Chalupa emails Luis Miranda, Communications
Director of the DNC (same email referenced above).
A lot more coming down the pipe More offline tomorrow since there is a big Trump component
you and Lauren need to be aware of that will hit in next few weeks and something I'm working on
you should be aware of.
Late July 2016 – Chalupa leaves the DNC to work full-time on her research into
Manafort.
Chalupa left the DNC after the Democratic convention in late July to focus full-time on her
research into Manafort, Trump and Russia . She said she provided off-the-record
information and guidance to "a lot of journalists" working on stories related to Manafort and
Trump's Russia connections.
August 4 2016 – Ukrainian ambassador to U.S.
writes op-ed against Trump.
August 15 2016 – CNN
reports that Manafort is named in a Ukrainian probe over potentially illegal payments
received from Ukraine's pro-Russian ruling party.
August 19 2016 – CNN
reports the FBI is conducting an inquiry into Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort's payments
from pro-Russia interests in Ukraine in 2007 and 2009.
August 19 2016 – Ukrainian parliament member Sergii Leshchenko
holds news conference to draw attention to Paul Manafort and Trump's "pro-Russia" ties.
September 19 2016 – At UN General Assembly meeting in New York, Ukrainian President
Poroshenko
meets with Hillary Clinton.
November 28 2016 – McCain associate
David Kramer flies to London to meet Christopher Steele for a briefing on the Dossier. Upon
Kramer's return, Fusion GPS provided McCain with a copy of the Dossier.
July 24 2017 – Senator Charles Grassley
sends a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein regarding the actions taken by
Chalupa.
According to news reports, during the 2016 presidential election, "Ukrainian government
officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump" and did so by "disseminat[ing]
documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the
matter.
At the center of this plan was Alexandra Chalupa, described by reports as a
Ukrainian-American operative "who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee" and
reportedly met with Ukrainian officials during the presidential election for the express
purpose of exposing alleged ties between then-candidate Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, and
Russia.
Chalupa's actions appear to show that she was simultaneously working on behalf of a foreign
government, Ukraine, and on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign, in an effort to influence
not only the U.S voting population but U.S. government officials.
Aside from the apparent evidence of collusion between the DNC, Clinton campaign, and
Ukrainian government, Chalupa's actions implicate the Foreign Agents Registration Act
(FARA).
Chalupa reportedly worked directly with Ukrainian government officials to benefit Ukraine,
lobbying Congress on behalf of Ukraine, and worked to undermine the Trump campaign on behalf of
Ukraine and the Clinton campaign.
The January 4, 2018 Grassley Memo – made
public on February 6, 2018, made clear that both the State Department and the Clinton Campaign
directly contributed information used by Steele in the formation of his Dossier.
I'm curious if Chalupa met directly with Christopher Steele. It's clear her research was
funneled by the DNC to Steele's Dossier.
Former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland must have known about all of this.
People above her had to know as well.
On March 6, 2018, Sara Carter
reported that the House Intelligence Committee is now investigating former Secretary of
State John Kerry:
The House Select Committee on Intelligence is now investigating former Secretary of State
John F. Kerry's possible role into the unverified dossier paid for by the Democratic National
Committee and Hillary Clinton Campaign.
The climb up the Obama Administration hierarchy appears to have finally begun.
For the past three years, we have heard nonstop that Donald Trump colluded with Russia and
needs to be impeached. After nearly three years, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who was
against impeachment the whole time we were waiting for the Mueller Report, has suddenly,
instantly, changed her position and has now opened an impeachment inquiry. Why? Why the sudden
change? After millions of dollars and a two year investigation, she was still against
impeachment over Russia, but when it comes to Ukraine, without any of the facts coming out,
before the transcript of the phone call was even released, and before she even talked to the
whistle blower, she suddenly changed her mind on impeachment?
This sudden change over what amounts to an office rumor, actually makes a lot of sense now.
The Democrats desperately need to control the narrative. Everything they accused Trump of with
Russia, they were doing with Ukraine, and it could bring down the entire Democrat Party. What
Joe and Hunter Biden did really only scratches the surface of a much larger and more corrupt
party.
It's possible something else will come out that implicates Trump, but all of the facts right
now are pointing to the Democrats and a very long pattern of corruption when it comes to
Ukraine.
In Feburary 2014, protesters seized Kiev (the capitol of Ukraine) and President Viktor
Yanukovych was forced to flee. President Obama then appointed Vice President Joe Biden as the
new point man for Ukraine.
March 2014, Joe Biden's son, Secretary of State John Kerry's son, neither of who had any
experience, decide to start an investment firm. The two boys meet with Kerry's financial
advisor, Devon Archer, for advice.
April 2014, Joe Biden flies to Ukraine, but someone else also flies to Ukraine. Devon
Archer
May 2014, Devon Archer, is appointed board member of Burisma, which is a gas company,
whose main operations are in Ukraine. Guess who was also appointed as a board member. Hunter
Biden.
That should be enough to show you that something doesn't seem right. But that's just the
Biden story. That just scratches the surface of corruption between the Democrats and Ukraine
and no one in the media wants to talk about it. All everyone wants to talk about is what is
really like the front and back cover of a novel. The media seems obsessed with the back cover
(Trump's phone call with the President of Ukraine) and care a little about the front cover (Joe
and Hunter Biden) but that's about it. What I'm going to explain now is some of what's between
those two covers.
Now because of this poor, very corrupt country, Ukraine, President Obama decided to give a
massive aid package in May 2014. That aid package included:
A $1 billion sovereign loan guarantee
$118 million in equipment and training for their security forces.
$20 million for law enforcement reform.
A fleet of advisors in banking, politics, energy, media, and human rights.
After that aid package was given, because they are so corrupt, the United States demanded
that Ukraine start a National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. A man named Artem Sytnky is
tapped to be the first director of this bureau. Since he is now the director, he has a direct
line to President Obama. Back to them in a minute.
The director of Burisma, Ihor Kolomoyski, is so corrupt that he isn't even allowed into the
United States. Lucky for him, he owns a bank in Ukraine though. And because the United States
was giving $1.8 billion to Ukraine, we needed a bank to deposit the money. So where do we
deposit the money? Into PrivatBank, which is owned by Ihor, who just happens to run
Burisma.
Now I'm sure that it's just a coincidence that that $1.8 billion in PrivatBank goes missing.
I mean it's not like a corrupt oligarch would ever consider stealing $1.8 billion or anything.
It also must be a coincidence, that this guy who is so corrupt that he couldn't even come into
the United States, is just happened to be given a Visa at the same time that we deposited $1.8
billion into his bank.
By late 2015, we had become Ukraine's piggy bank. Not only are we giving them money but we
are also helping them with advisors. Advisors such as:
Greg Craig, Former Obama White House Counsel.
Tad Devine, Chieft Strategist for Bernie Sanders.
Tony Podesta, brother to John Podesta. If John Podesta sounds familiar, he was the White
House Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton and then Counselor to President Obama.
Mark Penn, Chief Strategist for Hillary Clinton.
John Anzalone, Obama campaign pollster.
Joel Benenson, Obama campaign lead pollster.
In June 2015, Donald Trump announces that he is running for President.
In late 2015, the DNC hires Alexandria Chalupa, who is a daughter of an Ukranian immigrant,
to do opposition research on Donald Trump. Opensecrets.org has confirmed that she did in fact
work for, and was paid $71,918 by the DNC. That was just for her work with the 2016 election,
although she's been working with the DNC since 2004.
In January 2016, Chalupa starts to investigate Donald Trump. She approaches an official in
the DNC because she "feels like there was a Russia connection." Oh really? She felt like Trump
was connected with Russia, before any evidence or allegations? Paul Manafort wasn't working for
the campaign at this time. There was no Steele Dossier at this time. George Papadopoulos wasn't
on the campaign yet. There was no fISA requests. But somehow she just "felt" that Trump was
connected to Russia?
She starts her investigation, focusing on Paul Manafort. Manafort, who I will admit is an
extremely corrupt guy, was trying to get the exited President back into power. Now her
investigation was only focused on trying to dig up dirt on Manafort. She didn't seem concerned
with Tad Devine and Tony Podesta also working on the same thing, with Paul Manafort.
That same month, that Chalupa just had "a feeling" that there was a connection with Trump
and Russia, the Obama White House summoned the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. The
Obama administration said that we need to begin cooperation with Ukraine. The meeting
immediately turned to two main issues: 1) The scandal involving Joe and Hunter Biden. 2) A case
tied to Paul Manafort. Obviously, they decided to investigate the case tied to Paul Manafort
and was pressured to ignore the scandal involving the Biden's and to not investigate where that
$1.8 billion went. You would think we should be more concerned about $1.8 billion in taxpayers
money just disappearing.
After the meeting, a prosecutor with the anti-corruption board, who was investigating the
Biden's involvement, was fired. This investigator who never had any problems with the Obama
administration before was now fired because, according to him, "I was leading a wide ranging
corruption probe into Burisma Holdings ("Burisma") a natural gas firm active in Ukraine, and
Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors. I assume Burisma, which
was connected with gas extraction, had the support of Vice-President Joe Biden because his son
was on the board of Directors."
Following this meeting, The Hill ran a story titled: "How the Obama White House engaged
Ukraine to give Russia Collusion narrative in an early boost." According to the article, the
deputy head of the anti-corruption organization claimed that "there was a clear message about
helping the Americans with the party of the regions case." Regarding the Manafort case, "there
was a lot of talking about needing help and then the ledger just appeared in public." What is
this ledger that was mentioned? Back to that in a minute.
In March 2016, out of nowhere, Paul Manafort joins the Trump team. This is definitely
exciting news for the Democrats considering they had been setting Manafort up for months.
Shortly after that, Chalupa starts working directly with the Ukranian embassy in the United
States and starts raising alarm bells on Manafort. According to Chalupa's own words, the
embassy "worked directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort, and Russia to point them
in the right directions."
So the Ukranian embassy in the United States worked directly with a DNC operative, to damage
the Republican candidate for President, to influence the election. Doesn't that sound exactly
like what they accused Trump of doing with Russia?
Remember that Anti-corruption bureau in Ukraine? In June 2016, the FBI decided that they
were doing such a good job that the two groups should partner together. Now they could share
any information that they couldn't have shared before. It's a lot like the wall that was
between the CIA and FBI before 9-11. The two groups couldn't share information with each other,
but when that wall was torn down, they were free to share anything they wanted.
So what was the ledger that was discussed in the meeting at the White House? This ledger was
released by Ukraine's anti-corruption bureau on Paul Manafort. The black ledger refers to
financial records that were kept by the former Ukranian President. Within days of this coming
out and Paul Manafort going to jail, Tony Podesta, who was doing the same thing as Manafort,
with the exact same people, just decides to suddenly close his political lobbying firm. This is
one of the biggest lobbying firms in the United States, and he just suddenly decides to close
up shop and retire without any warning. You would think that that would be something that
should be investigated, considering it was right after Paul Manafort was arrested.
In June 2017, White House Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, accused the DNC of
colluding with Ukraine and even quoted a New York Times article. If we had anyone in the media
who did their jobs, that claim would have been investigated immediately. That is a very serious
allegation that was completely ignored by the media. Had I been in the White House press pool,
that would be my very first question. I would be demanding an explanation.
I do have to give the New York Times some credit. Despite being a leftist paper, they do
occasionally get some things right and when they really want to, they know how to act like
journalists.
The media in the United States seems to have forgotten to talk about the two men in Ukraine
being arrested because they tried to influence the US election. Seems like kind of a big story
that I would have liked to read about. They were found guilty and very interesting evidence was
released. The Ukranian prosecutor gave an interview with the Ukranian media where he claims
that "I don't know how, but the Americans got an audio recording of Mr. Sytnik's (the head of
the corruption bureau in Ukraine) conversation: He is resting with his family and friends and
discussing how he would like to help Hillary."
This audio that was released has been reported by Ukranian papers for months, yet somehow
the media in the U.S. didn't find it to be a big deal? The audio proved that Ukrainians are in
fact guilty of trying to interfere with the 2016 election.
In April 2019, the Mueller Report is released and proves absolutely nothing of what the
Democrats have been accusing Trump off for over two years.
11 days after the Mueller Report is released, a new Ukranian President is sworn in. This is
a guy who did not do any interviews and didn't explain any of his policies and ended up winning
the election. The comedian in the race ended up winning and becoming the Ukranian
President.
This new President thinks that everything that is currently happening in Ukraine is insane
and that the whole country is corrupt, including his own ambassador. He decides to recall the
Ukranian ambassador, not long after Donald Trump also fired his ambassador. That means the
pipeline is now clear after corrupt ambassadors for both the Ukraine and the United States are
out of the way. That's what led to the phone call between the two Presidents.
Everything I have written here can easily be proven because of documents and audio
recordings that have been released. But let's forget all of that. No, the phone call between
the two Presidents is what the media thinks is the only important part of this story. They'll
throw the Biden's under the bus too since they don't really care about Biden. The solid
evidence that Ukranian officials tried to influence the 2016 election apparently isn't news
worthy enough.
Sadly, this still only scratches the surface. This is just some of what has been proven so
far. You would think that it would be important for someone to actually look into, but the
media is too busy focusing on a phone call to actually report any of the facts.
For the past three years, we have been hearing nonstop that Donald Trump colluded with
Russia, and yet have heard absolutely nothing about what the Democrats were doing in Ukraine.
The Ukranian embassy in the United States worked directly with the DNC to get dirt on a
candidate for President and influence the 2016 election, and no one is talking about it.
There is absolutely no reason to push impeachment a year before an election unless you need
to change the narrative, and that is exactly what they are trying to do, and what they
desperately need to do. The DNC is slowly being exposed and they are terrified that their dirty
secrets could take down the entire party. It's up to us to hold them accountable for their
corruption.
Posted in The
Mikula Report Tagged # Ukraine
Chalupa reportedly
acknowledged in her 2017 interview with Politico that she worked as a consultant for the
DNC during the 2016 campaign with the goal of publicly exposing Trump campaign aide
Paul Manafort 's
links to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine. Chalupa admitted coordinating with the Ukrainian
Embassy, and with Ukrainian and U.S. news reporters.
I won't sit here and claim that what I've heard over the last 2 days with family in town,
is at all representative of all Americans but it was interesting. I have all kinds of
political affiliation in the family: Maga's, Dims and Independents. All are TIRED of both
sides antics. No one wanted to discuss it except to say that we are ALL fucked in one way or
another. What was lively political debate before was met with a lack of discussion and
instead a pervasive frustration and sadness about the system itself how corrupt it all is but
not knowing what to do about it.
I just wonder if that's how many Americans feel about all this. At least those sick of all
of it.
Most of us are aware of that. It doesn't mean that he isn't right about some things
though, and he's incredibly amusing at times. If there is ever a non zionist candidate, I'd
happily vote for them. At least he's not a west hating bolshevik golem.
As is everyone else in washington. Ron, Rand, and Tulsi, not given a chance. Obama was
probably the least zionist president we've had in decades, and he still went along with most
of their goals, along with being a fabian socialist.
Please wake up soon. Your savior is running $1 trillion annual deficits, has raised the
troop numbers in Afghanistan from 8500-14,000, will not leave Syria, bombed Syria twice with
zero evidence of gas attacks because there were none. Anybody who thinks there's a dime's
worth of difference between the parties comatose, please wake up soon.
As for Chalupa, she has served in several roles for the DNC while also working as an
pro-Ukraine activist. A former staffer in the Bill Clinton White House, Chalupa worked as
executive director for Democrats Abroad in the 2000s and as head of the DNC's national ethnic
outreach group during the 2016 campaign.
In her spare time, Chalupa organized social media campaigns against Trump. One of those
efforts encouraged activists to share the Twitter hashtag, #TreasonousTrump.
Chalupa, who founded the U.S. United With Ukraine Coalition in 2014, also led the DNC's
opposition research into any Trump ties to Russia, according to
an essay she recently published at Medium.
Politico reported in
January that Chalupa worked with the Ukrainian government to compile and disseminate research
on links between Trump, his campaign advisers, and the Russian government.
To help spread that information, Chalupa relied on "a network of sources in Kiev and
Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence
operatives," Politico reported.
One of the investigative journalists Chalupa worked with was Yahoo! News' Michael
Isikoff.
In a May 3, 2016
email released by WikiLeaks, Chalupa informed Luis Miranda, the DNC's communications
director at the time, that she had "been working with" Isikoff on stories involving Trump
campaign chairman Paul Manafort's work in Ukraine. She also said she had invited Isikoff to a
conference with dozens of Ukrainian journalists to discuss Manafort, a former consultant to
Viktor Yanukovych, a former Ukrainian president allied with Vladimir Putin.
Days before Chalupa's email, Isikoff published an
in-depth report on an ill-fated business partnership between Manafort and a Russian
oligarch allied with Putin named Oleg Deripaska.
In her email, Chalupa hinted to Miranda of "a big Trump component that will hit in next few
weeks." She also claimed that she was being targeted in state-sponsored computer hacking
attempts because of her research on Manafort.
According to Politico, Chalupa was paid $412,000 for consulting work from 2004 through June
2016. The last payment was made on June 20 for $25,000, records filed with the Federal Election
Commission show.
Ariel first got in touch with Chalupa and Kimberlin after Trump won the election, sometime
in mid-November. The Israeli noted that he had written articles asserting that Trump colluded
with the Russian government to influence the election.
At the time of his first contact with Chalupa and Kimberlin, Ariel had not seen the
documents that would later be debunked by BuzzFeed.
The documents soon ended up in the inboxes of several news outlets, but reporters quickly
determined that they were rife with errors. Names were misspelled; dates didn't make sense; the
gist of the underlying claim didn't pass the smell test.
Ariel, who says he once worked with the the anti-apartheid African National Congress,
disputed some of the BuzzFeed report. He said that the article portrayed him as the party most
responsible for pushing the documents. But he told TheDC that he always had at least some doubt
about the veracity of the papers. He also says that he did not send them to news outlets.
"... This time frame gives a lot of latitude to both hacks and leaks happening on that server and still agrees with the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs). According to Bill Binney, the former Technical Director for the NSA, the only way that data could move off the server that fast was through a download to a USB stick. The transfer rate of the file does not agree with a Guciffer 2.0 hack and the information surrounding Guciffer 2.0 is looking ridiculous and impossible at best. ..."
Here's what's different in the information I've compiled.
The group I previously identified as Fancy Bear was given access to request password
privileges at the DNC. And it looks like the DNC provided them with it.
I'll show why the Podesta email hack looks like a revenge hack.
The reason Republican opposition research files were stolen can be put into context now
because we know who the hackers are and what motivates them.
At the same time this story developed, it overshadowed the Hillary Clinton email scandal.
It is a matter of public record that Team Clinton provided the DNC hackers with passwords to
State Department servers on at least 2 occasions, one wittingly and one not. I have already
clearly shown the Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian Intelligence Operators.
This gives some credence to the Seth Rich leak (DNC leak story) as an act of patriotism.
If the leak came through Seth Rich, it may have been because he saw foreign Intel operatives
given this access from the presumed winners of the 2016 US presidential election. No
political operative is going to argue with the presumed president-elect over foreign policy.
The leaker may have been trying to do something about it. I'm curious what information
Wikileaks might have.
The real crime of the DNC hack wasn't the hack.
If only half of the following proved true in context and it's a matter of public record,
that makes the argument to stop funding for Ukraine immediately barring an investigation of
high crimes by Ukrainian Diaspora, Democrat, and Republican leaders in Congress, private
Intel for hire, and Ukrainian Intel's attacks on the US government and political
processes.
Perhaps it's time Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump should consider treason investigations
across the board. Make America great again by bringing justice and civility back.
DNC
Hack – High Crimes or Misdemeanors?
So what went on at the DNC way back in 2016? Do you know? Was it a hack or a leak? Does it
matter?
Recently, an investigative journalist who writes under the name Adam Carter was raked over
the coals. Carter writes at Disobedient
Media and has been providing a lot of
evidence supporting the DNC leak story former Ambassador Craig Murray and Wikileaks claim
happened.
When the smear article came out and apparently it's blossoming into a campaign, a few
people that read both of us wrote to the effect "looks like your work is the only thing left
standing." I immediately rebuffed the idea and said Carter's work stands on its own . It has nothing to do with
anything I've written, researched, or plan to.
I'd say the same about Scott Humor ,
Lee Stranahan ,
Garland Nixon ,
Petri
Krohn , or Steve McIntyre
. And there are many others. There has been a lot of good work on the DNC hacks and 2016
election interference. Oftentimes, what looks like contradictory information is complimentary
because what each journalist is working on shows the story from a different angle.
There are a lot of moving parts to the story and even a small change in focus brings an
entirely new story because it comes from a different direction.
Here's what I mean. If the DNC hack was really a leak, does that kill the "hack" story?
No, it doesn't and I blame a lot of activist journalists for making the assumption that it
has to work this way. If Seth Rich gave Ambassador Craig Murray a USB stick with all the
"hacked info," it doesn't change an iota of what I've written and the evidence you are about
to read stands on its own. But, this has divided people into camps before the whole situation
could be scrutinized and that's still not done yet.
If for example you have a leak on Jan 5th , can you have "a hack" on Jan 6th , 7th, or
8th? Since there is so much crap surrounding the supposed hack such as law enforcement teams
never examining the DNC server or maintaining control of it as evidence, could the hacks have
been a cover-up?
Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile said Russian hackers persisted in
trying to break into the organization's computers "daily, hourly" until after the election
-- contradicting President Obama's assertion that the hacking stopped in September after he
warned Russian President Vladimir Putin to "cut it out."-ABC
This time frame gives a lot of latitude to both hacks and leaks happening on that server
and still agrees with the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs). According to
Bill Binney, the former Technical Director for the NSA, the only way that data could move
off the server that
fast was through a download to a USB stick. The transfer rate of the file does not agree
with a Guciffer 2.0 hack and the information surrounding Guciffer 2.0 is looking ridiculous
and impossible at best.
The DNC fiasco isn't that important of a crime. The reason I say this is the FBI would
have taken control over material evidence right away. No law enforcement agency or Intel
agency ever did. This means none of them considered it a crime Comey should have any part of
investigating. That by itself presents the one question mark which destroys any hope Mueller
has proving law enforcement maintained a chain of custody for any evidence he introduces.
It also says the US government under Barrack Obama and the victimized DNC saw this as a
purely political event. They didn't want this prosecuted or they didn't think it was
prosecutable.
Once proven it shows a degree of criminality that makes treason almost too light a charge
in federal court. Rest assured this isn't a partisan accusation. Team Clinton and the DNC
gets the spotlight but there are Republicans involved.
Identifying Team Fancy Bear
There are a couple of caveats that need to be made when
identifying the Fancy Bear hackers . The first is the
identifier used by Mueller as Russian FSB and GRU may have been true- 10 years ago. This
group was on the run trying to stay a step ahead of Russian law enforcement until October
2016. So we have part of the Fancy bear hacking group identified as Ruskie traitors and
possibly former Russian state security. The majority of the group are Ukrainians making up
Ukraine's Cyber Warfare groups.
The hackers, OSINT, Cyber, spies, terrorists, etc call themselves volunteers to keep safe
from State level retaliation, even though a child can follow the money. As volunteers
motivated by politics and patriotism they are protected to a degree from retribution.
They don't claim State sponsorship or governance and the level of attack falls below the
threshold of military action. Mueller has a lot of latitude for making the attribution
Russian, even though the attacks came from Ukrainian Intel. Based on how the rules are
written, because the few members of the coalition from Shaltai Boltai are Russian in
nationality, Fancy Bear can be attributed as a Russian entity for the purposes of
retribution. The caveat is if the attribution is proven wrong, the US will be liable for
damages caused to the State which in this case is Russia.
How large is the Fancy Bear unit? According to their propaganda section InformNapalm, they
have the ability to research and work in over 30 different languages.
This can be considered an Information Operation against the people of the United States
and of course Russia. We'll get to why shortly.
From all this information we know the Russian component of Team Fancy Bear is Shaltai
Boltai. We know the Ukrainian Intel component is called CyberHunta and Ukraine Cyber Alliance
which includes the hacker group RUH8. We know both groups work/ worked for Ukrainian
Intelligence. We know they are grouped with InformNapalm which is Ukraine's OSINT unit. We
know their manager is a Ukrainian named Kristina Dobrovolska. And lastly, all of the above
work directly with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich.
In short, the Russian-Ukrainian partnership that became Fancy Bear started in late 2013 to
very early 2014 and ended in October 2016 in what appears to be a squabble over the alleged
data from the Surkov leak.
But during 2014,2015, and 2016 Shaltai Boltai, the Ukrainian Cyber Alliance, and
CyberHunta went to work for the DNC as opposition researchers.
The First Time Shaltai
Boltai was Handed the Keys to US Gov Servers
The setup to this happened long before the partnership with Ukrainian Intel hackers and
Russia's Shaltai Boltai was forged. The hack that gained access to US top-secret servers
happened just after the partnership was cemented after Euro-Maidan.
"After Abedin sent an unspecified number of sensitive emails to her Yahoo account, half a
billion Yahoo accounts were hacked by Russian cybersecurity expert and Russian intelligence
agent, Igor Sushchin, in 2014. The hack, one of the largest in history, allowed Sushchin's
associates to access email accounts into 2015 and 2016."
Igor Sushchin was part of the Shaltai Boltai hacking group that is charged with the Yahoo
hack.
The time frame has to be noted. The hack happened in 2014. Access to the email accounts
continued through 2016. The Ukrainian Intel partnership was already blossoming and Shaltai
Boltai was working from Kiev, Ukraine.
So when we look at the INFRASTRUCTURE HACKS, WHITE HOUSE HACKS, CONGRESS, start with
looking at the time frame. Ukraine had the keys already in hand in 2014.
The DNC's Team
Fancy Bear
The "Fancy Bear hackers" may have been given the passwords to get into the servers at the
DNC because they were part of the Team Clinton opposition research team. It was part of their
job. Let that concept settle in for a moment.
According to
Politico "In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network
of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists , government officials
and private intelligence operatives . While her consulting work at the DNC this past election
cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities -- including Ukrainian-Americans -- she said
that, when Trump's unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began
focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well
."
The only investigative journalists, government officials, and private intelligence
operatives that work together in 2014-2015-2016 Ukraine are Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta,
Ukraine Cyber Alliance, and the Ministry of Information.
Since 2014 in Ukraine, these are the only OSINT, hacking, Intel, espionage, terrorist,
counter-terrorism, cyber, propaganda, and info war channels officially recognized and
directed by Ukraine's Information Ministry. Along with their American colleagues, they
populate the hit-for-hire website Myrotvorets with people who stand against Ukraine's
criminal activities.
Alexandra
Chalupa hired this particular hacking terrorist group called Fancy Bear by Dimitry
Alperovich and Crowdstrike at the latest in 2015. While the Ukrainian hackers worked for the
DNC, Fancy Bear had to send in progress reports, turn in research, and communicate on the
state of the projects they were working on. Let's face it, once you're in, setting up your
Fancy Bear toolkit doesn't get any easier. This is why I said the DNC hack isn't the big
crime. It's a big con and all the parties were in on it.
Indict Team Clinton for the
DNC Hacks and RNC Hack
Hillary Clinton
exposed secrets to hacking threats by using private email instead of secured servers.
Given the information provided she was probably being monitored by our intrepid Ruskie-Ukie
union made in hell hackers. Anthony Weiner exposed himself and his wife
Huma Abedin using Weiner's computer for top-secret State Department emails. And of course
Huma Abedin exposed herself along with her top-secret passwords at Yahoo and it looks like
the hackers the DNC hired to do opposition research hacked her.
Here's a question. Did Huma Abedin have Hillary Clinton's passwords for her private email
server? It would seem logical given her position with Clinton at the State Department and
afterward. This means that Hillary Clinton and the US government top secret servers were most
likely compromised by Fancy Bear before the DNC and Team Clinton hired them by using
legitimate passwords.
The RNC Hack
According to the Washington Post , "Russian government hackers penetrated the computer
network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of
opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee
officials and security experts who responded to the breach."
In January
2017 , criminal proceedings started for Edward Nedelyaev under articles 335 'spying' and
343
'inciting hatred or enmity." He was a member of the Aidar battalion. Aidar members have
been cited for torture and murder. Although the translation isn't available on the linked
video the MGB (LNR equivalent to the FBI) ask Aidar's Nedelyaev about his relationship with
Ukraine's SBU. The SBU asked him to hack US presidential candidate Donald Trump's election
headquarters and he refused. Asked if this was through convictions, he says no, explaining
that he is not a hacker.
The video was published on January 10, 2017 .
Taken at face value it really does show the ineptness of the SBU after 2014. This is why
Ukraine relied (s) on the Diaspora financed Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine Cyber
Alliance, RUH8, Bellingcat, Webradius, InformNapalm and associated parties.
The Ukrainians were hired to get the goods on Trump. Part of that is knowing where to
start isn't it?
Fancy Bear's Second Chance at Top Secret Passwords From Team
Clinton
How stupid would the Fancy Bear teams of Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukrainian Cyber
Alliance, and RUH8 be if they had access to the DNC servers which makes it easier to get into
the US State servers and not do that if it was their goal?
One very successful method of hacking is called social engineering. You gain access to the
office space and any related properties and physically locate the passwords or clues to get
you into the hardware you want to hack. This includes something as simple as looking over the
shoulder of the person typing in passwords.
Let's be clear. The Fancy Bear hackers were hired by Alexandra Chalupa to work for DNC
opposition research. On different occasions, Fancy Bear handler Kristina Dobrovolska traveled
to the US to meet the Diaspora leaders, her boss Alexandra Chalupa, Irena Chalupa, Andrea
Chalupa, US Dept of State personnel, and most likely Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich.
Alperovich was working with the hackers in 2015-16. In 2016, the only groups known to have
Fancy Bear's signature tools called X-tunnel and X-Agent were Alperovich, Crowdstrike, and
Fancy Bear (Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine Cyber Alliance, and RUH8/RUX8. Yes, that does
explain a few things.
Here is where it goes from bad to outright Fancy Bear ugly.
Hillary Clinton retained State Dept. top secret clearance passwords for 6 of her former
staff for research purposes from 2013 through prepping for the 2016 election. Were any
foreigners part of the opposition research team for Team Hillary in 2014-2015-2016? The
Clinton's don't have a history of vetting security issues well.
Let's recap. Clinton keeps 6 top secret passwords for research staff. Alexandra Chalupa is
running a research department that is rich in (foreign) Ukrainian Intelligence operatives,
hackers, terrorists, and a couple Ruskie traitors.
Kristina Dobrovolska was acting as a handler and translator for the US State Department in
2016. She is the Fancy Bear *opposition researcher handler manager. Kristina goes to
Washington to meet with Chalupa.
Alexandra types in her password to show Dobrovolska something she found and her eager to
please Ukrainian apprentice finds the keystrokes are seared into her memory. She tells the
Fancy Bear crew about it and they immediately get to work looking for Trump material on the
US secret servers with legitimate access. I mean, what else could they do with this? Turn
over sensitive information to the ever corrupt Ukrainian government?
According to
the Politico article , Alexandra Chalupa was meeting with the Ukrainian embassy in June
of 2016 to discuss getting more help sticking it to candidate Trump. At the same time she was
meeting, the embassy had a reception that highlighted female Ukrainian leaders.
Accompanying them Kristina Dobrovolska who was a U.S. Embassy-assigned government liaison
and translator who escorted the delegates from Kyiv during their visits to Albany and
Washington.
Kristina Dobrovolska is the handler manager working with Ukraine's DNC Fancy Bear Hackers
. She took the Rada members to dinner to meet Joel Harding who designed Ukraine's infamous
Information Policy which opened up their kill-for-hire-website Myrotvorets. Then she took
them to meet the Ukrainian Diaspora leader doing the hiring. Nestor Paslawsky is the
surviving nephew to the infamous torturer The WWII OUNb leader, Mykola Lebed.
The
Podesta Hack – Don't Mess with OUNb Parkhomenko
I have no interest in reviewing his history except for a few points. Adam
Parkhomenko, a Diaspora Ukrainian nationalist almost gained a position in the presumed
Clinton White House. As a Ukrainian nationalist, his first loyalty, like any other Ukrainian
nationalist, is to a fascist model of Ukraine which Stepan Bandera devised but with a win it
would be in America.
During the 2016 primaries, it was Parkhomenko who accused Bernie Sanders of working for
Vladimir Putin. Parkhomenko has never really had a job outside the Clinton campaign.
<img
src="https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11.png"
alt="Adam Parkhomenko" width="355" height="454"
srcset="https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11.png
355w,
https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11-235x300.png
235w" sizes="(max-width: 355px) 100vw, 355px" /> Before Clinton declared her candidacy,
Parkhomenko started a PAC for Hillary Clinton with the goal of getting millions of people
email lists so the support was ready for a Clinton run. After she declared her candidacy,
Robby Mook, Hillary's campaign manager decided to sideline Parkhomenko and didn't take on his
full staff as promised. He reduced Parkomenko to a quiet menial position when he was brought
onboard.
Ultimately, Podesta became responsible for this because he gave Parkhomenko assurances
that his staff would be brought on and there would be no gaps in their paycheck. Many of them
including Parkhomenko's family moved to Brooklyn. And of course, that didn't happen. Podesta
was hacked in March and the Ukrainian nationalist Adam Parkhomenko was hired April 1st .
Today, Parkhomenko is working as a #DigitalSherlock with the Atlantic Council along with
the Fancy Bear hackers and many of the people associated with them. Why could this be a
revenge hack?
The Ukrainian Intel hackers are Pravy Sektor Ukrainian nationalists. Alexandra Chalupa is
also an OUNb Bandera Ukrainian nationalist. This Ukrainian nationalist was on his way to
becoming one of the most powerful people in America. That's why.
The DNC Leak- A
Patriotic Act
At the same time her aides were creating "loyalty scores ", Clinton, "instructed a
trusted aide to access the campaign's server and download the messages sent and received by
top staffers. She believed her campaign had failed her -- not the other way around -- and
she wanted 'to see who was talking to who, who was leaking to who.2'" After personally
reading the email correspondence of her staffers, she called them into interviews for the
2016 campaign, where she confronted them with some of the revelations."-
Forget about the DNC. The hackers may have spent months surfing the US secret servers
downloading and delivering top secret diplomatic files to their own government. The people
entrusted with this weren't just sloppy with security, this is beyond treason.
It doesn't matter if it was Seth Rich, though I hope it was ( for identification's sake),
who downloaded data from the DNC servers. The reasons supporting a leak are described by the
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This shows clearly why the leak to
Wikileaks is much more plausible than a hack for the files taken in what is commonly called
the DNC hack. This leak was one "hack" of many that was going on.
Imagine being this person inside the situations described above with the reality hitting
you that things were very wrong. Even if they only saw parts of it, how much is too much? US
government secrets were being accessed and we know this because the passwords were given out
to the research teams the hackers were on.
It is very possible that giving the files to Wikileaks was the only safe way to be a
whistleblower with a Democrat president supporting Team Hillary even as Team Hillary was
cannibalizing itself. For detail on how the leak happened, refer to Adam Carter at
DisobedientMedia.com and the VIPS themselves.
Today, this isn't a Democrat problem. It could just as easily been an establishment
Republican.
Ukraine needs to pay for what their Intel Operators/ hackers have done. Stop funding
Ukraine other than verifiable humanitarian aid. Call your Congressional Rep.
Next up – We are going to look at who has oversight over this operation and who's
footing the bills.
Showed clearly why Mueller's evidence is rife with fraudulent data.
We solved the DNC Hack-Leaks and showed the how and why of what went on.
If you want to support investigative research with a lot of depth, please support my
Patreon page. You can also
support my work through PayPal as we expand in new directions over the coming year. For the
last 4 years, it's been almost entirely self-supportive effort which is something when you
consider I live in Donbass.
Top Photo | Former Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile holds a copy of her
book Hacks, detailing the hacking of the DNC, during a meeting of The Commonwealth Club, Nov.
9, 2017, in San Francisco. Marcio Jose Sanchez | AP
George Eliason is an American journalist that lives and works in Donbass. He has been
interviewed by and provided analysis for RT, the BBC, and Press-TV. His articles have been
published in the Security Assistance Monitor, Washingtons Blog, OpedNews, the Saker, RT,
Global Research, and RINF, and the Greanville Post among others. He has been cited and
republished by various academic blogs including Defending History, Michael Hudson, SWEDHR,
Counterpunch, the Justice Integrity Project, among others.
Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.
"... "The Blaze has released an audio recording that they recently obtained that appears to show Artem Sytnyk, Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, admitting that he tried to boost the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton by sabotaging then-candidate Donald Trump's campaign. ..."
"... The Ukrainian embassy political officer who worked at the embassy at the time, Andrii Telizhenko, stated that the Ukrainians "were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa" and that "the embassy worked very closely with" Chalupa. ..."
"The Blaze has released an audio recording that they recently obtained that appears
to show Artem Sytnyk, Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, admitting
that
he tried to boost the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton by sabotaging then-candidate
Donald Trump's campaign.
The connection between the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Ukrainian government
was veteran Democratic operative Alexandra Chalupa, "who had worked in the White House Office
of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration" and then "went on to work as a staffer,
then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee," Politico
reported.
Chalupa was working directly with the Ukrainian embassy in the United States to raise
concerns about Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and, according to Politico , she
indicated that the Embassy was working "directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and
Russia to point them in the right directions."
The
Ukrainian embassy political officer who worked at the embassy at the time, Andrii Telizhenko,
stated that the Ukrainians "were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul
Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa" and that "the embassy worked very closely with" Chalupa.
The Blaze highlighted an email from WikiLeaks from Chalupa to Louis Miranda at the
DNC:
"Hey, a lot coming down the pipe. I spoke to a delegation of 68 investigative
journalists from Ukraine last night at the Library of Congress, the Open World Society forum.
They put me on the program to speak specifically about Paul Manafort. I invited Michael
Isikoff, who I've been working with for the past few weeks, and connected him to the
Ukrainians. More offline tomorrow, since there was a big Trump component you and Lauren need
to be aware of that will hit in the next few weeks. Something I'm working on that you should
be aware of."
The Blaze then reported
that Sytnyk, who eventually "was tried and convicted in Ukraine for
interfering in the U.S. presidential election in 2016 ," released a "black ledger" on
Manafort during the 2016 presidential election that eventually led to Manafort's downfall.
Alexandra Chalupa was a key player in the Democrat's waste management business (i.e.
organizing street resistance against President Trump, keeping the collusion fake news narrative
alive, and spreading the evolving anti-Trump rumors).Chalupa also is very well
connected (and paid) and regularly hobnobs with Democrat elites.She also is aligned
with the early stages of fake Trump-Russia dossier and she hired creepy porn lawyer Michael
Avenatti to represent her in court.Avenatti is now indicted for numerous scams and
Chalupa is likely right behind him.
Three months ago creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti announced he was representing an
individual accused of being involved in the creation of the fake Russia-Trump dossier against
President Trump. His client, Alexandra Chalupa, also attended and no doubt put together a rally
for Avenatti outside the White House.
Now, the creepy porn lawyer is facing jail time and Chalupa is likely next!
As
we reported in December 2018, Andrii Telizhenko was approached by DNC operative Alexandra
Chalupa in early 2016. Chalupa wanted dirt on candidate Trump and his campaign manager Paul
Manafort. The Ukrainian embassy in Washington DC worked CLOSELY with the DNC
operative Chalupa.
Chalupa told Andrii she wanted Russian "dirt" on the Trump campaign.
The Gateway Pundit spoke with Telizhenko on the DNC Russia-gate Scandal –
Alexandra Chalupa was apparently hired by the DNC going as far back as 2013. According to
Politico:
A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American
diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing
pro bono work for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching
Manafort's role in Yanukovych's rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who
funded Yanukovych's political party."
Politico also noted that Chalupa claimed that in October of 2015 she began investigating
Trump's ties to Russia. Why she began this investigation is completely unknown. Trump NEVER had
any ties with Russians. The only thing of significance that had happened at this point was that
Trump announced he was running for office. There was no apparent triggering event. Candidate
Trump had very limited contact with Russia or Russia businessmen.
Also, according to Politico, in January of 2016, Chalupa suddenly and out of the blue warned
the DNC about Paul Manafort. Manafort's name hadn't even been mentioned at this point in time.
Chalupa made a prediction that if Team Trump hired Paul Manafort that it would be clear and
convincing evidence that Trump had ties to Russia.
Manafort worked with Hillary's Campaign Manager John Podesta and his brother Tony in the
Ukraine. They worked to bring in US politicians to meet with Ukranian politicians.
It's unknown how much money these individuals received for their visit to the Ukraine or if
Chalupa was involved.
Politico
continued stating that the DNC had performed Trump – Russia research long before
Chalupa came along (i.e. January 2016) –
A DNC official stressed that Chalupa was a consultant paid to do outreach for the party's
political department, not a researcher. She undertook her investigations into Trump, Manafort
and Russia on her own, and the party did not incorporate her findings in its dossiers on the
subjects, the official said, stressing that the DNC had been building robust research books
on Trump and his ties to Russia long before Chalupa began sounding alarms."
Chalupa is also connected to Ukrainian by the name of Vasili Filipchuk, who ran the
organization labeled ICPS. Filipchuk too is expected of helping to write the phony Trump-Russia
dossier. The entity he works for ( ICPS ) stands for the International Center for Policy Studies
and it was founded by Open Society.
Open Society is a well
known George Soros funded organization that fronts as an entity that works "to build vibrant
and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable and open to the participation of all
people." In reality it is a far-left organization that works against freedoms embedded in the
US Constitution and across Europe.
Along with being connected to the fake Trump – Russia dossier and suspicious
individuals in the Ukraine, Chalupa also is involved in the creation of astro-turfed (i.e.
created by Democrat leadership) anti – Trump events in Washington D.C.
Chalupa also assisted in a fund raiser for fired and corrupt FBI leader Andrew McCabe
–
Chalupa
is another typical example of the corrupt leadership in the Democrat Party.She made up
fake stories against President Trump and then pushed them at Democrat funded rallies while
hiring a creepy porn lawyer to cover her misdeeds. What a nasty piece of work!
Alexandra Chalupa is as slimy as the day is long.
Let's hope the hammer is about to drop on this Soros-linked operative.
"... The Atlantic Council, along with the Brookings Institute and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, were the subject of an unflattering portrayal in a New York Times article, Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks : ..."
"... Irena Chalupa's ideological interests in Ukraine are aligned directly with those of Alexandra Chalupa. ..."
I wrote on the
role of Alexandra Chalupa – a Ukrainian-American DNC operative – who appears at
the center of the DNC's construction of information used in the Steele Dossier.
The role of former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland in disseminating the Dossier
– along with her involvement in shaping Ukraine – was also discussed.
The name Victor Pinchuk was mentioned.
Victor
Pinchuk is a Ukrainian billionaire. He is the founder of Interpipe, a steel pipe manufacturer. He also owns Credit Dnipro Bank,
some ferroalloy plants and a media empire. He is married to Elena Pinchuk, the daughter of former Ukrainian President Leonid
Kuchma. Pinchuk's been accused of profiting immensely from the purchase of state-owned assets at
severely below-market prices through political favoritism.
Pinchuk used his media empire to deflect blame from his father-in-law, Kuchma, for the
September 16, 2000 murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze. Kuchma was never charged but is
widely believed to have ordered the murder. A series of recordings would seem to back up
this assertion.
On April 4 through April 12 2016, Ukrainian Parliamentarian Olga Bielkov had
four meetings – with Samuel Charap (International Institute for Strategic Studies),
Liz Zentos (National Security Council), Michael Kimmage (State Dept) and David Kramer (McCain
Institute).
Doug Schoen filed FARA documents
showing that he was paid $40,000 a month by Victor Pinchuk (page 5) – in part to arrange
these meetings.
Schoen attempted to arrange another 72 meetings with Congressmen and media (page 10). It is
unknown how many meetings took place.
Schoen has worked for both Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Schoen helped Pinchuk establish ties with the Clinton Foundation. The Wall Street Journal
reported
how Schoen connected Pinchuk with senior Clinton State Department staffers in order to pressure
former Ukrainian President Yanukovych to release Yulia Tymoshenko – a political rival of
Yanukovych – from jail.
The relationship between Pinchuk and the Clintons continued.
In 2013, Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk welcomed current U.S. Democratic Party
presidential nominee Hillary Clinton onto the stage at his Yalta European Strategy, an annual
conference he funds to promote Ukraine's European integration and strategy, calling her: "a
real megastar."
Clinton and her husband Bill, the 42nd U.S. president, have been paid speakers at the annual
YES and other Pinchuk events. They describe themselves as friends of Pinchuk, who is known
internationally as a businessman and philanthropist.
To date, Pinchuk's charitable foundation has given $125 million to various causes, according
to his spokespeople.
Although exact numbers are not clear,
reports filed by the Clinton Foundation indicate that as much as $25 million of Pinchuk's
"charitable donations" went to the Clinton organization.
Victor Pinchuk , a steel magnate whose father-in-law, Leonid Kuchma, was president of
Ukraine from 1994 to 2005, has directed between $10 million and $25 million to the foundation.
He has lent his private plane to the Clintons and traveled to Los Angeles in 2011 to attend Mr.
Clinton's star-studded 65th birthday celebration.
Later, the Clintons would try to distance themselves from Pinchuk.
Emails made public Tuesday show a Ukrainian businessman and major Clinton Foundation donor
was invited to Hillary Clinton's home during the final year of her diplomatic tenure, despite
her spokesman's insistence in 2014 that the donor never crossed paths with Clinton while she
served as secretary of state.
Amid scrutiny of Clinton's ties to Pinchuk in 2014, the Democratic nominee's spokesman, Nick
Merrill, said Pinchuk had never met with Clinton during that time. He
told the New York Times that, "from Jan. 21, 2009, to Feb. 1, 2013," the Ukrainian
businessman "was never on her schedule."
Pinchuk, who has given up to $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, appeared on the guest
list that was sent between Dennis Cheng, an executive at the foundation, and Huma Abedin, then
Clinton's deputy chief of staff at the State Department, ahead of a June 2012 dinner. Abedin
noted in a subsequent email that the gathering would be hosted in Clinton's home.
Pinchuk's dinner invitation was exposed in a
series of emails obtained by Citizens United.
Melanne Verveer, a senior Ukrainian-American official at the State Department, often acted
as a go-between for Clinton and Pinchuk. Verveer conveyed
Pinchuk's best wishes to the secretary of state in Feb. 2010 after meeting with him in
Ukraine.
After speaking with Pinchuk in Sept. 2011, Verveer
informed Clinton that the businessman had been asked by Viktor Yanukovych, then the
president of Ukraine, to relay to her some of his diplomatic interests in deepening ties to the
rest of Europe.
The intersection of Pinchuk's advocacy for Yanukovych with Clinton's State Department is
noteworthy because Paul Manafort, former campaign manager for Donald Trump, was felled by his
connections to Yanukovych. Manafort resigned from the Trump campaign last week.
Hacked Podesta emails released via Wikileaks showed ongoing contact between Pinchuk and the
Clintons. From a March 30, 2015 email :
Victor Pinchuk is relentlessly following up (including this morning) about a meeting with
WJC in London or anywhere in Europe. Ideally he wants to bring together a few western leaders
to show support for Ukraine, with WJC probably their most important participant.
I sense this is so important because Pinchuk is under Putin's heel right now, feeling a
great degree of pressure and pain for his many years of nurturing stronger ties with the
West.
In addition to being a Clinton Foundation donor, Pinchuk is also on the International Advisory
Board of the Atlantic Counsel – an NATO-aligned American think tank specializing in
the field of international affairs.
Pinchuk's fellow Advisory Board members are industry leaders and former heads of state.
Levi Mikula 
You May Like
<img
src="https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11.png"
alt="Adam Parkhomenko" width="355" height="454"
srcset="https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11.png
355w,
https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11-235x300.png
235w" sizes="(max-width: 355px) 100vw, 355px" /> Before Clinton declared her candidacy,
Parkhomenko started a PAC for Hillary Clinton with the goal of getting millions of people
email lists so the support was ready for a Clinton run. After she declared her candidacy,
Robby Mook, Hillary's campaign manager decided to sideline Parkhomenko and didn't take on his
full staff as promised. He reduced Parkomenko to a quiet menial position when he was brought
onboard.
Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.
