How neocon Nancy Pelosi blue up her impeachment gambit: now it is the detestables in full pursuit of the deplorables
Remember that recent Iranian debacle with assassinating Soleimani? That was the *only* real chance for Democrats to look solid
in the Senate when trying to impeach him. The only way to make Republican senators look dishonest and partisan when defending him.
It was an unexpected and unprovoked electoral gift to them from Trump, but cowardice and mentally challenged Pelosi blue her chances
"Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime" ~Lavrentiy Beria
Everybody has a right to be stupid, but some people abuse the privilege. ~Joseph Stalin
If Creepy Uncle Joe will be the candidate from democrats, then Trump may uncork the champagne. Remember that recent Iranian
debacle of assassinating Solemani, which is already starting being forgotten? That was the only real chance for Democrats to impeach
him. The only way to make Republican senators look dishonest and partisan when defending him. That was an unprovoked blunder, an
electoral gift from Trump.
How did the DNC manage that gift? Exactly. By directly throwing it into the trash bin without a moment of hesitation and keeping
on desperately clinging to the politically stillborn clownery around Ukraine which will allow the Republican senators to laugh their
Democratic colleagues out of the stage and seal Trump's victory.
Now Democrats look like a poor feller in front of an insurmountable wall, who, having witnessed a door which magically appeared
in that wall, screamed "To battle!/Arriva!/Kovfefe!", slammed the said door shut, industriously broke the handle so that it could
never be opened again and shatter the reinforced concrete with his forehead.
The anti-Russian card played by DemoRats (aka Clinton Democrats) during domestic political campaigns in the States is a very short-sighted
approach. This just project the image of the US elite as bunch of provincial, vindictive neocons, who are
can't meet the level of responsibility that lies on the shoulders of the USA.
The insanity of neoliberals/neocons looks like the actions of the ideologically bankrupt clique,
the hysterical demonizing of Trump being their desperate way to avoid recognizing that fact that they lost the electorate
support, but to their betrayal of blue collar and lower middle class America.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has submitted a resolution to provide a pretense of House authorization to Democrats’ impeachment
inquiry. Pelosi’s resolution references an “existing House of Representatives inquiry,” when no such inquiry exists, because the House
has never voted to authorize it.
Pelosi gambit was badly thought out from the very beginning:
“The the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committees on Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, the Judiciary, Oversight
and Reform, and Ways and Means, are directed to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives
inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald
John Trump, President o the United States of America,” the resolution reads.
For an impeachment inquiry to exist, the House would have to hold a formal vote to authorize it. Pelosi has yet to authorize
such a vote
The Federalist reached out to Pelosi’s office to obtain an official roll call from the alleged formal impeachment inquiry vote. The
speaker’s office did not respond. House Democrats claim they will hold a formal impeachment inquiry vote on Oct. 31.
The resolution claims Republicans can submit any requests for witness testimony that may be relevant to the investigation. However,
Democrats can turn down these requests, and let’s be honest, they most likely will since so far they have barred Republicans from inquiry
records and have directed witnesses not to answer Republican members’ questions.
The first stage of their gambit was Schiff "inquiry" in House intelligence committee. Democrats tried to limit the right of
Republicants and avoid the possibility of torpedoing the inquiry using pretty authoritarian methods to squeeze Republicans:
For example, to allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, [Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.)] may submit to [Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)],
in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation. In the case that [Schiff] declines to concur in a proposed action of [Nunes] … [Nunes] shall have the right to refer to the committee
for decision. Therefore, if Schiff decides to turn down a witness request by Nunes, Nunes can only appeal to a committee run by Democrats.
According to the resolution, Schiff may make transcripts of depositions publicly available online, yet with redactions for classified
and other “sensitive information.”
[Schiff] is authorized to make publicly available in electronic form the transcripts of depositions conducted by the Permanent Select
Committee [on Intelligence] in furtherance of the investigation … with appropriate redactions for classified and other sensitive information.
Unfortunately, that means Schiff can classify whatever he deems to be “sensitive information” and redact any portion of a deposition
that would hinder his ultimate agenda of impeaching Trump.
This resolution is clearly a public relations stunt by Democrats, especially given Republicans’ repeated calls for more transparency
in this fake inquiry. The resolution is an attempt to demonstrate transparency and legality to an operation clearly lacking both, while
in reality perpetuating business for Democrats as usual.
Schiff proceeding was pretty educational for how modern show trail can be orgnized. He put of the central stage a dozen of pretty bizarre
withresses (who actually dod not
witness anything themselves and reported rumors) Among them:
The most funny thing is that both sides avoided the discussion of the real issues and concentrated on trivialities. In a series
of mental meanderings, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statement that two career diplomats had provided “corroborated
evidence of bribery” was little more than off-hand ramblings with no evidence of exactly what was corroborated. Upon
questioning, Pelosi defined ‘bribery’ as the President’s alleged withholding of military aid to Ukraine in exchange for an
investigation into the Biden’s financial bonanza.The
Grand Poo Bah Still Searching for Impeachment – OffGuardian
As Lord High Justice of the Misguided Society of Wild Goose Chases, the myopic Schiff Show moves on this week to the House
Judiciary Committee with more disgruntled witnesses on Wednesday who have, as of the 2016 election, lost any objectivity or claim
to legal scholarship.
In a recent
WSJ
op ed, GW University law professor Jonathon Turley referred to the impeachment inquiry as the “shortest
investigation producing the thinnest record of wrongdoing for the narrowest impeachment in history.”
On the
first day of the Intel Committee hearings, Rep. Jim Jordan questioned ‘star’ witness former Ambassador Bill Taylor
who was expected to drop a “bombshell.”
Instead, channeling his best Clarence Darrow,
Jordan caught Taylor in the admission that after Ukraine
aid was held up until September 11, Taylor had three meetings with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky (July 26,
August 27 and September 5); during which, Taylor agreed, that the subject of US financial assistance as a Quid Pro
Quo for a Ukraine investigation into the Bidens or Burisma was never discussed.
Up against the wall with no place to go, Taylor identified former US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland as the
source of his ‘clear’ understanding which turned out to be third or fourth hand hearsay and would be inadmissible in
court.
Two days later, Jordan took his turn with another ‘star’ witness when Sondland testified that, contrary to his
earlier statement that the White House required a QPQ with a public statement from Zelinsky for an investigation to
occur, Sondland confessed there was no such agreement or public announcement by Zelensky.
Sondland: What do you want from Ukraine, Mr. President.
Trump:
I want nothing, I want no QPQ. I want Zelensky to do the right thing. I want him to do what he ran
on.
When Jordan asked why his conversation with the President of the United States had not been included in
Sondland’s prepared 23 page statement, Sondland replied
“it wasn’t purposeful, trust me.” By then, Sondland looked ready for a cold brewski.
Arming Ukraine is a questionable idea, which can backfire;
Trump withholding was not a bad idea it just lasted too short time
In reality arming Ukraine is a questionable idea, which can backfire. And withholding military aid was not a bad idea (although
Trump quickly reneged on it, when he started feeling the heat). It might be better to "Finladinize" Ukraine. Supplying
it with additional weapons (as if it does not have enough leftovers from Soviet times) can only increase casualties on both sides (which is
probably what US strategists want in any case; with Ukrainian being pawn of the US geopolitical ambitions in the region ) Javelins
can be reverse engineered and supplied to forces that fight the US occupation forces in Afghanistan (and this not only
Taliban; Northern alliance can also be brought into the fight anytime; they might switch sides and start fighting Americans). Ukraine also can sell if to the highest
bidder including Islamists, who operate rather openly on the territory of Ukraine (pro Islamist Chechens militia are fighting
against separatists in Donetsk region)
The US spends close to 10% of its GDP on military, if the accounting is done properly. It does not have thin money and need to
take them from pensioneers, poor people and other social programs.
Maybe it is time for the US to reduce its huge military spending, which creates mayhem in the world and take funds away from US
imperial programs like regime change operations in xUSSR countries and attempt to encircle Russia with NATO countries by bringing
several xUSSR countries into NATO. Russia threat to Europe is old neocon trick. In reality it was Europe that attacked
Russia half dozen times in last two centuries (Napoleon war, Crimea war, WWI, Intervention (when GB used poison gas on Russians),
Nazi Germany invasion. And it was the USA which committed and economic rape of Russia after the dissolution of the USSR.
NATO should have collapsed after the Soviet Union did. Only the parasitic Warfare State Nomenklatura in Washington created the
Russia = Soviet Union 2.0 meme because it needed an existential "enemy". Because that's where the money is for the MIC and where the
power and prestige are for the uniformed Hacks in the Pentagon and Brussels. The USA also uses NATO as leverage to stick its fat
greasy thumb into strictly European issues generally, e.g. Nord Stream 2.
Trump wants Europe to spend more on defense because more spending means more sales for the American defense contractors whether
Europe needs those weapons or not. That’s why the U.S. is indifferent to Saudi war crimes. And will bend over backwards for Erdogan.
As long as they continue to buy U.S. war toys. Ironically, Trump calls out the European countries in NATO, saying that they free
ride. When in fact Trump wants to increase the size of the hyper-bloated American military. Any American assets removed from Europe
would be merely relocated somewhere else with no savings to the American taxpayers. Trump’s crowing about "savings" is a complete
illusion.
With the Soviet Union gone NATO is largely irrelevant. Russia doesn’t need to be “deterred” because it has absolutely no
strategic reason to invade any country in Europe. And a military incursion would completely wreck its commercial business with
Europe.
If the U.S. butts out of trying to run Europe via coercion (enabled by dominance inside of NATO), the Europeans and Russians
would finally figure things out for themselves and formalize the complete reconciliation that should have occurred over 25 years
ago. France and the UK are nuclear weapon states. The EU has 11 times the money and 3.5 times the population of Russia. Our European
allies can take care of Russia themselves if they feel Russia was a threat. The Europeans don't spend more on defense because they
don't believe Russia is a threat to them. They already out spend Russia on defense and have a combined military force that is both
larger and more advanced than Russia's military.
Russia has no interest in Eastern Europe except as consumers for their commodities and products. The USSR saddled itself with
subsidizing E.Europe and Russia aren't about to repeat their mistake. You need to accept the world the way it really is and not they
way Neocon liars wish it was.
But the USA world dominance goals also means military dominance. That's why NATO will not be dissolved.
Is Russia on the verge of invading the United States? Where? How? And most importantly: What for?
This claim is so ridiculous that it nullifies all the testimony of a person, who is making it. Such a person really looks like
a deranged neocons, he/she is. End of story.
For example, Karlan's pseudo-patriotic propaganda claptrap were
her remarks about promoting democracy
is plain vanilla idiotism.
In reality Obama administration smashed fragile constitutional order in Ukraine and installed far right junta, because that what corresponds
more to the USA geopolitical interests, democracy be damned. As the result standard of living in Ukraine dropped more then two times,
Ukraine became the IMF debt slave and lost territories and several millions of population, who emigrated to Russia (over two
millions), Poland and other states. Several hundred were injured and around 50
burned alive in Odessa massacre. Tens of thousand (mostly citizen of Donetsk and Lugansk including mothers with small children, as well as
soldiers of Ukrainian army and separatists)
were killed in civil war unleashed with the pressure from Washington (and personally Brennan who visited Kiev under false
name just before start of armed conflict in Donbass) with the explicit goal to weaken Russia.
This is not just about our national interests to protect elections or make sure Ukraine stays strong and fights the Russians so we
don't have to fight them here , but it's in our national interest to promote democracy worldwide.
Unfortunately this her statement is not a joke: the
video confirms that this crazy neocon believes
that nonsense.
Foreign influence issue
The fundamental question is if a vassal state with the government completely dependent on the USA for survival can be consider as
a foreign power. Te assertion that Ukraine was an independent actor (aka "foreign power") is highly suspect. Poroshenko government was
completely dependent on US, and in no way would do anything without open covert applicable from Washington. Of course, their personal
preferences lied with Clinton, but in no way they can be viewed as initial of Ukraine interference in the US election. That Obama, the
State Department and CIA.
It would crazy for Trump to try to eliminated Biden as his competitor
because he is the most desirable for him opponent in 2020 elections
WASHINGTON D.C. – On Wednesday, Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar called for an investigation into Vice President Biden’s “potential
corruption.” After reviewing the transcript of a phone conversation between President Trump and Ukraine President Zelenskyy,
Gosar believes a full investigation by Congress and the Department of Justice is warranted.
On September 25, 2019 the President released a transcript of a phone call between the President and the President of Ukraine.
According to Gosar, the transcript establishes that the government of Ukraine fired a prosecutor that was investigating Hunter
Biden after Vice-President Biden threatened, in his official capacity as Vice President, to withhold official U.S. foreign aid to
Ukraine, if and unless the government of Ukraine did not comply with his demands.
It appears, based on former Vice President Biden’s admission captured on video, that he used his
official office as Vice President to coerce a foreign nation to take action that would personally financially benefit his son.
“I have reviewed the transcript of the phone call between President Trump and Ukraine President Zelenskyy and concluded that the
evidence of then Vice President Biden’s potential corruption warrants a full investigation by Congress and the Department of
Justice,” said Gosar referring to the call that occurred in July 2019. It appears, based on former Vice President Biden’s
admission captured on video, that he used his official office as Vice President to coerce a foreign nation to take action that
would personally financially benefit the Vice President’s son. This is the definition of a corrupt practice.”
“Under federal law, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq. (“FCPA”), a federal
government official cannot assist or intervene to influence a foreign official in their official capacity to take an act that is
in violation of their domestic duties “in order to assist in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business
to, any person.” Thus, using his official office, and using the threat of withholding official U.S. foreign aid to Ukraine, it
appears Biden influenced a foreign official to stop executing their official duties which consisted of investigating Hunter
Biden, in order to benefit his son Hunter Biden,” continued Gosar in a press release. “This would, if proven by the DOJ,
constitute a violation of the FCPA. Accordingly, as there is a prima facie case, I am asking the Fraud Section of the DOJ,
through the auspices of the Attorney General, to open an investigation of this matter.”
The government of Ukraine, under duress by Vice President Biden, was coerced into firing the prosecutor, thus completing the
corrupt act, according to Gosar.
Gosar argues that if proven true, Biden would have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, 15 U.S.C.
§§ 78dd-1, et seq.
The act was enacted for the purpose of making it unlawful for certain classes of persons and entities to make payments to
foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business. Specifically, the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA
prohibit the willful use of the mails or any means of instrumentality of interstate commerce corruptly in furtherance of any
offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment of money or anything of value to any person, while knowing that
all or a portion of such money or thing of value will be offered, given or promised, directly or indirectly, to a foreign
official to influence the foreign official in his or her official capacity, induce the foreign official to do or omit to do an
act in violation of his or her lawful duty, or to secure any improper advantage in order to assist in obtaining or retaining
business for or with, or directing business to, any person.
Col. Lang wrote an excellent post on
'Who "debunked" the Biden conspiracy theories?' .
I would like to suggest a companion post on 'Who defines "the national interests of the
United States" '. Is arming Ukraine in the national interests of the USA?
Moreover there is no reason for Trump to derail Biden;
he is definitely an optimal opponent for Trump. If he wanted to eliminate him he is a complete idiot. Which is another weak
hypoesthesia,
he actually performed well in 2016 proving that can judge the situation pretty well and see weakness in his opponent better than such
sophisticated observers like Putin, who say that before election he thought the Trump overplayed his hand. ;-)
The assertion that Trump is influenced by Russia is not supported by facts
Trump administration behaviour toward
Russia was extremely hostile. Partially because of Mueller investigation, partially because of crazy neocons within his
administration (Fiona Hill, Alexander Vindman, all state department officials who testified are an good illustration of the level of
infestation fo Trump administration with neocons) .
I would say that it was as hostile as behaviour of Obama administration. Actually Obama administration
never approved the supply of Javelins to Ukraine. Which would be considered by Russia as a very hostile move and have repercussions.
Moreover nobody now know where those Javelins (which are effective not only against tanks, but against low flying helicopters too)
can finally land. But Trump did supplied then to Kiev, further antagonizing Russia (which was the intent).
He also tried to block North Stream II pipeline. another very hostile move which could have repercussion for Trump
administration, especially in his reclkess Iran policy. It it is a much higher probability that Russia will not stay neutral and
will support Iran in the conflict via Caspian sea.
And Trump administration expelled 60 diplomats, seized several buildings in the USA, bullied Russia several times in Syria: killed Russia mercenaries who fought
with Syria forces and this fake "diplomat" Pompeo (and the time head of CIA, who generally should keep his mouth shut) openly boasted about it.
Great Britain influence on 2016 election is undisputable despite attempt to spine it under the carpet. Steele dossier,
spying of Trump tower, and attempt to entrap members of Trump team are well documented.
Israel influence via Israel
lobby is undisputable too (Adelson by and large financed Trump campaign and Trump as in qui pro quo made several beneficial for Israel
steps legitimizing the status of Jerusalem as Israel capital, occupation of Holan Heights, despite UN resolutions by the USA,
violating by this acts the international law and presenting the USA as a rogue state.
The cases where the USA Presidents violated the law are so numerous and gross, that such a minor offence as was done by Trump should
probably be ignored. For example Bill Clinton, Bush II and Obama can be considered to be war criminals. Obama for his actions in
Libya, Syria and Ukraine. The same is true
about key members of his administration and John Brennan.
Obama administration also spied on Trump campaign under bogus pretext and launched an unconstitutional coup d'état to
depose Trump.
"We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and
domestic. And sadly, the domestic enemies to our voting system and our honoring of the
Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with their allies in the Congress of the
United States".
Amazing that Pelosi is suddenly aware of her duty.
Thank you karlof1 - LMFAO - coffee all over the keyboard.
Perhaps Pelosi should take her own advice and discuss this belief of hers with Debbie
Wasserman Schultz. After all Schultz promoted the Awan family spy and blackmail ring to other
members of the Democrat caucus in Congress.
Another swamp pond yet to drain, take note Barr, there is still a lot of work ahead ha ha
ha.
FBI does have strong levers on Trump. This is the essence of the "Deep State" concept --
intelligence agencies became unhinged and work as a powerful political actors.
Notable quotes:
"... Thank you Mina, yes that or the deep state throwing down the gauntlet. I don't think we can assume that Trump actually has control of the FBI. If he did he would likely have deep sixed the Democrazis through the Awan family spy and blackmail scam. But he didn't. They and Debbie Wasserman Shultz were protected/had dirt on DT. ..."
Maxwell's arrest makes me wonder if it is not about Trump throwing down the gauntlet?
Thank you Mina, yes that or the deep state throwing down the gauntlet. I don't think we can
assume that Trump actually has control of the FBI. If he did he would likely have deep sixed
the Democrazis through the Awan family spy and blackmail scam. But he didn't. They and Debbie
Wasserman Shultz were protected/had dirt on DT.
If the kiddy fiddlers get outed following Ghislaine dropping some of her likely thousands
of hours of home movies then that includes Trump and Biden.
In the fetid atmosphere of
accusations against pussy grabbers and finger f#ckers and hair sniffers neither could
survive. The pack will run rabid.
Is there a woman in the house? Yes, they cried AND she has experience!! Plus the campaign will be televised and it would be a virtual campaign because Covid. No
need to rig audience, the polls or the balllot.
It is not just senility. Looks like Ukrainegate is not enough for her and she wants to throw kitchen sink at Trump. Charging for "alleged"
action is directly from Stalin's NKVD practice
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday called for US sanctions against Russia's intelligence
service over bounties that it reportedly offered Taliban militants to kill American soldiers in
Afghanistan.
"... Authored by Sara Carter via SaraACarter.com, ..."
"... "Having reviewed the matter, and having consulted the heads of the relevant Intelligence Community elements, I have declassified the enclosed footnotes." ..."
"... , and that they were the product of RIS (Russian Intelligence Services) ..."
Systemic FBI Effort To Legitimize Steele and Use His Information To Target POTUS
Newly declassified footnotes from Department of Justice Inspector General
Michael Horowitz's December FBI report reveals that senior Obama officials, including
members of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane team knew the dossier compiled by a former British spy
during the 2016 election was Russian disinformation to target President Donald Trump.
Further, the partially declassified footnotes reveal that those senior intelligence
officials were aware of the disinformation when they included the dossier in the Obama
administration's Intelligence Communities Assessment (ICA).
As important, the footnotes reveal that there had been a request to validate information
collected by British spy Christopher
Steele as far back as 2015, and that there was concern among members of the FBI and
intelligence community about his reliability. Those concerns were brushed aside by members of
the Crossfire Hurricane team in their pursuit against the Trump campaign officials, according
to sources who spoke to this reporter and the footnotes.
The explosive footnotes were partially declassified and made public Wednesday, after a
lengthy review by the Director of National Intelligence Richard
Grenell's office. Grenell sent the letter Wednesday releasing the documents to Sen. Chuck
Grassley, R-Iowa and Sen. Ron Johnson, R- Wisconsin, both who requested the
declassification.
"Having reviewed the matter, and having consulted the heads of the relevant
Intelligence Community elements, I have declassified the enclosed footnotes." Grenell
consulted with DOJ Attorney General William Barr on the declassification of the
documents.
Grassley and Johnson released a statement late Wednesday stating "as we can see from these
now-declassified footnotes in the IG's report, Russian intelligence was aware of the dossier
before the FBI even began its investigation and the FBI had reports in hand that their central
piece of evidence was most likely tainted with Russian disinformation."
"Thanks to Attorney General Barr's and Acting Director Grenell's declassification of the
footnotes, we know the FBI's justification to target an American Citizen was riddled with
significant flaws," the Senator stated. "Inspector General Michael Horowitz and his team did
what neither the FBI nor Special Counsel Mueller cared to do: examine and investigate
corruption at the FBI, the sources of the Steele dossier, how it was disseminated, and
reporting that it contained Russian disinformation."
The Footnotes
A U.S. Official familiar with the investigation into the FBI told this reporter that the
footnotes "clearly show that the FBI team was or should have had been aware that the Russian
Intelligence Services was trying to influence Steele's reporting in the summer of 2016, and
that there were some preferences for Hillary; and that this RIS [Russian Intelligence Services]
sourced information being fed to Steele was designed to hurt Trump."
The official noted these new revelations also "undermines the ICA on Russian Interference
and the intent to help Trump. It undermines the FISA warrants and there should not have been a
Mueller investigation."
The footnotes also reveal a startling fact that go against Brennan's assessment that Russia
was vying for Trump, when in fact, the Russians appeared to be hopeful of a Clinton
presidency.
"The FBI received information in June, 2017 which revealed that, among other things, there
were personal and business ties between the sub-source and Steele's Primary Sub-source,
contacts between the sub-source and an individual in the Russian Presidential Administration
in June/July 2016 [redacted] and the sub source voicing strong support for candidate Clinton
in the 2016 U.S. election. The Supervisory Intel Analyst told us that the FBI did not have a
Section 702 vicarage on any other Steele sub-source."
Steele's Lies
The complete four pages of the partially redacted footnotes paint a clear picture of the
alleged malfeasance committed by former FBI Director James Comey, former DNI James Clapper and
former CIA Director John Brennan, who were all aware of the concerns regarding the information
supplied by former British spy Christopher Steele in the dossier. Steele, who was hired by the
private embattled research firm Fusion GPS, was paid for his work through the Hillary Clinton
campaign and Democratic National Committee. The FBI also paid for Steele's work before ending
its confidential source relationship with him but then used Obama DOJ Official Bruce Ohr as a
go between to continue obtaining information from the former spy.
In footnote 205, for instance, payment documents show that Steele lied about not being a
Confidential Human Source.
"During his time as an FBI CHS, Steele received a total of $95,000 from the FBI," the
footnote states. "We reviewed the FBI paperwork for those payments, each of which required
Steele's Signed acknowledgement. On each document, of which there were eight, was the caption
'CHS payment' and 'CHS Payment Name.' A signature page was missing for one of the
payments."
Footnote 350
In footnote 350, Horowitz describes the questionable Russian disinformation and the FBI's
reliance on the information to target the Trump campaign as an attempt to build a narrative
that campaign officials colluded with Russia. Further, the timeline reveals that Comey, Brennan
and Clapper were aware of the disinformation by Russian intelligence when they briefed then
President-elect Trump in January, 2017 on the Steele dossier.
"[redacted] In addition to the information in Steele's Delta file documenting Steele's
frequent contacts with representatives for multiple Russian oligarchs, we identified
reporting the Crossfire Hurricane team received from [redacted] indicating the potential for
Russian disinformation influencing Steele' election reporting," stated the partially
declassified footnote 350. "A January 12, 2017 report relayed information from [redacted]
outlining an inaccuracy in a limited subset of Steele's reporting about the activities of
Michael Cohen. The [redacted] stated that it did not have high confidence in this subset of
Steele's reporting and assessed that the referenced subset was part of a Russian
disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations.
A second report from the same [redacted] five days later stated that a person named in the
limited subset of Steele's reporting had denied representations in the reporting and the
[redacted] assessed that the person's denials were truthful. A USIC report dated February 27,
2017, contained information about an individual with reported connections to Trump and Russia
who claimed that the public reporting about the details of Trump's sexual activities in Moscow
during a trip in 2013 were false , and that they were the product of RIS (Russian
Intelligence Services) 'infiltrate[ing] a source into the network' of a [redacted] who
compiled a dossier of that individual on Trump's activities. The [redacted] noted that it had
no information indicating that the individual had special access to RIS activities or
information," according to the partially declassified footnote.
Looming Questions
Another concern regarding Steele's unusual activity is found in footnote 210, which states
"as we discuss in Chapter Six, members of the Crossfire Hurricane Team were unaware of Steele's
connections to Russian Oligarch 1."
The question remains that "Steele's unusual activity with 10 oligarch's led the FBI to seek
a validation review in 2015 but one was not started until 2017," said the U.S. Official to this
reporter. "Why not? Was Crossfire Hurricane aware of these concerns? Was the court made aware
of these concerns? Didn't the numerous notes about sub sources and sources having links or
close ties to Russian intelligence so why didn't this set off alarm bells?"
More alarming, it's clear, Supervisory Intelligence Agent Jonathan Moffa says in June 17,
that he was not aware of reports that Russian Intelligence Services was aware of Steele's
election reporting and influence efforts.
"However, he should have been given the reporting by UCIS" which the U.S. Official says,
goes back to summer 2016.
Footnote 342 makes it clear that "in late January, 2017, a member of the Crossfire Hurricane
team received information [redacted] that RIS [Russian Intelligence Services] may have targeted
Orbis."
President Trump on Friday fired the intelligence community inspector general, Michael
Atkinson, who brought a hearsay whistleblower complaint to Congressional Democrats, kicking off
President Trump's impeachment.
Atkinson's closed-door testimony was so troubling to House Republicans that they launched an
investigation into his role into what President Trump and his allies coined the 'impeachment
hoax.'
Ranking member of the House Intelligence Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes (R-CA) told
SarahCarter.com that transcripts of Atkinson's secret testimony would expose that
he either lied or needs to make corrections to his statements to lawmakers.
Trump notified the Senate and House Intelligence Committees of his decision to fire
Atkinson, according to
Politico , citing two congressional officials and a copy of a letter
dated April 3.
"This is to advise that I am exercising my power as president to remove from office the
inspector general of the intelligence community, effective 30 days from today," wrote Trump,
who added that he "no longer" has the fullest confidence in Atkinson.
"As is the case with regard to other positions where I, as president, have the power of
appointment, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, it is vital that I have the
fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general," Trump wrote. "That is no
longer the case with regard to this inspector general."
Trump knocked Atkinson on January, noting that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam
Schiff's (D-CA) decision to withhold Atkinson's testimony was a "major problem."
....the Ukraine Hoax that became the Impeachment Scam. Must get the ICIG answers by Friday
because this is the guy who lit the fuse. So if he wants to clear his name, prove that his
office is indeed incompetent." @DevinNunes @MariaBartiromo @FoxNews
The ICIG never wanted proof!
Democrats had a fit at the news, with Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark
Warner (D-VA) calling Atkinson's firing "unconscionable" while accusing Trump (with a straight
face?) of an ongoing effort to politicize intelligence.
"In the midst of a national emergency, it is unconscionable that the president is once again
attempting to undermine the integrity of the intelligence community by firing yet another
intelligence official simply for doing his job," wrote Warner in a statement.
Warner's House counterpart, Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) called
Atkinson's firing "retribution" in the "dead of night" - adding that it's "yet another blatant
attempt by the president to gut the independence of the intelligence community and retaliate
against those who dare to expose presidential wrongdoing."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck 'six ways from Sunday' Schumer (D-NY) said Atkinson's firing
was evidence that Trump "fires people for telling the truth," according to Politico .
Whistleblower lawyer and
Disneyland aficionado Mark Zaid - who once bragged about getting
security clearances for pedophiles , called the firing "delayed retaliatory action" for
Atkinson's "proper handling of a whistleblower complaint."
"This action is disgraceful and undermines the integrity of the whistleblower system," said
Zaid. "It is time GOP members of the Senate stand up for the rule of law and speak out against
this president."
The whistleblower complaint effectively kicked off the House's impeachment inquiry, which
began in late September amid allegations that Trump had solicited foreign interference in the
2020 election when he asked Ukraine's president to investigate his political opponents,
including Joe Biden.
Atkinson opposed the decision by then-acting director of national intelligence Joseph
Maguire to withhold the whistleblower complaint from the House and Senate intelligence
committees -- in particular, Maguire's decision to seek guidance on the issue from the
Justice Department, rather than turn it over to Congress as required by law. -
Politico
To learn more about Atkinson, read
here and
here .
There were two major themes in the House impeachment testimony of Prof. Pamela Karlan of
Stanford Law School that bear further discussion.
One of these themes is the extension of what I call "State Feminist" and "State Identity
Politics" methods beyond academia into U.S. society and legal structures broadly.
The other theme, which goes to what is supposedly the most "urgent" reason to remove Trump,
feeds into the Russia narrative -- and this was underlined again in Schiff's Jan. 22
speech.
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States and NATO have been pressing
ever-closer to Russia with high-powered weapons systems, something that presidents since George
H. W. Bush have said they would not do. President Trump has distinguished himself from both
Democrats and Republicans on this question. In his typically-craven style, Schiff said,
Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become the de facto proving
ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century will become defined
by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the legitimacy of state
institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The Kremlin showed boldly
in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not stay in Ukraine.
Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will do so
again."
Schiff also quoted Prof. Karlan's statement that the Ukrainians are "fighting the
Russians so that we don't have to."
Schiff argued that any inquiry into what Joe and Hunter were doing in Ukraine and with
Burisma now has to be set aside, and cannot be a part of the impeachment hearings, not only
because it is "completely-debunked conspiracy theory," but also because Russia will "weaponize"
the results of any such inquiry and deploy it against presidential candidate Joe Biden.
(Obviously we can note once again the crazy irony of the fact that, apparently, being a
presidential candidate -- against Trump, that is, though certainly against Bernie Sanders as
well -- is an excellent cover for abusing the Vice-President's office, but being President does
not confer enough status to ask about this abuse and corruption.)
As Daniel Lazare writes at AntiWar.com:
We must all put such sentiments behind us now
Russia is seeking to "weaponize" such information, according to Schiff, and deploy it
"against Mr. Biden just like it did against Hillary Clinton in 2016 when Russia hacked and
released emails from her presidential campaign." If Russia wants to weaponize it, then it's
best for the rest of us not to breathe a word of it lest people think we've been weaponized as
well.
Bottom line: we must impeach Trump, according to Schiff's epic presentation, not only
because he's overstepped his proper constitutional bounds, but because he's part of a grand
Russian conspiracy to spread disinformation, undercut US security, undermine faith in US
intelligence agencies, and "remake the map of Europe by dent of military force."
In order to counter this all-encompassing threat, it is our patriotic duty to do the
opposite by believing the CIA and redoubling US defense. If anyone tells us that Biden was
guilty of a flagrant conflict of interest, we must stop up our ears because that's what Moscow
wants us to think. If anyone says that the entire Russian-interference narrative is just a
silly conspiracy theory based on a paucity of facts and an abundance of paranoid speculation,
we must do likewise because it's just the Kremlin trying to worm its way into our minds."
To further emphasize, Prof. Pamela Karlan did an excellent job of laying out what the
impeachment "inquiry" has been all about:
America is not just 'the last best hope,' it's also the shining city on a hill. We can't
be the shining city on a hill and promote democracy around the world if we're not promoting
it here at home. This is not just about our national interests to protect elections or make
sure Ukraine stays strong and fights the Russians so we don't have to fight them here, but
it's in our national interest to promote democracy worldwide."
The aforementioned point of no return has arrived when one has to try to explain to
Democrats and leftists what is wrong with this reactionary crap -- and finding that one cannot
do it. For most Democrats, in fact, there is nothing wrong with the content of this statement;
what is incredibly shameful is that leftists do know what is wrong here, but they go along
(trail along, that is) with the Democrats because no price is too high to pay for getting rid
of Trump -- especially when they are not the people paying the price. Once again, the moving
line of bullshit.
An added bit of reactionary garbage here is that Democrats and some who at least call
themselves "leftists" are hailing Prof. Karlan as a feminist and Identity-Politics hero,
because she is a woman and, apparently, bisexual or lesbian or something. I state this last
part a bit glibly because one might wonder how this matters. But of course it does matter if
you are using Identity Politics to advance both the agenda of trying to get rid of Trump, and
at the same time using the impeachment agenda to put the "procedural" methods of Identity
Politics on display, in the hope that contempt for and abrogation of due process can become the
way things are done in general, just as they have been done in academia since the "Dear
Colleagues" (Title IX) letter of 2011.
Prof. Karlan scored a brilliant point with the IdPol Left with her stunning analysis of the
difference between a name and a title: "President Trump can name his son Barron, but he cannot
make him a baron." To any ordinary working person Karlan simply demonstrated that it doesn't
seem to take much to make one a respected genius-scholar at Yale (from which Karlan has her law
degree) and Stanford. I'm sure, though, that Prof. Karlan is so smart that she knows that
ordinary, deplorable people are in no position to judge what counts as wisdom in elite
institutions.
Of the three constitutional scholars who were brought in to make their case for impeaching
President Trump (yes, clearly, their case), the other two besides Karlan were white males -- so
why people should listen to them, it's hard to know. The other scholar, Jonathan Turley from
George Washington University (sniff), testified that, while he is no fan of Trump, did not vote
for him, and champions a "socially liberal agenda" (his term), the case for impeachment was
very weak.
Prof. Turley characterized the Democratic case against Trump as "pointillism." As a critical
instrument, this seems a good deal more powerful than fomenting confusion between names and
titles. (My parents named me "Bill," but they weren't expecting your waiter to bring me to you
-- or were they?!) Turley argued that the dots in the Democrats' "painting" are too few and too
far apart to really create a coherent picture. This had to be a horrible blow to Adam Schiff,
who undoubtedly considers himself to be a veritable Courbet of politics, whereas he'd be doing
good to duct tape a banana to a wall somewhere. (See Turley's editorial in the Los Angeles
Times, Dec. 9, 2019.)
Note, significantly, that Turley repeatedly called for George W. Bush- administration
officials to be prosecuted for war crimes, which is another way that he is out of step with the
Democratic impeachers, and almost all of the Republican Party too. Prof. Turley didn't stop
with the Bush II administration (that is, the Cheney/Bush administration); in a 2013,
editorial, titled
"Fire Eric Holder," Turley wrote:
For Obama, there has been no better sin eater than
Holder. When the president promised CIA employees early in his first term that they would not
be investigated for torture, it was the attorney general who shielded officials from
prosecution. When the Obama administration decided it would expand secret and warrantless
surveillance, it was Holder who justified it. When the president wanted the authority to kill
any American he deemed a threat without charge or trial, it was Holder who went public to
announce the "kill list" policy.
Last week, the Justice Department confirmed that it was Holder who personally approved the
equally abusive search of Fox News correspondent James Rosen's e-mail and phone records in
another story involving leaked classified information. In the 2010 application for a secret
warrant, the Obama administration named Rosen as "an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator"
to the leaking of classified materials. The Justice Department even investigated Rosen's
parents' telephone number, and Holder was there to justify every attack on the news media."
– USA Today, May 29, 2013.
Prof. Turley is far out of step with the neoconservative/neoliberal compact well-represented
by the chummy relationship among the Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas (and nowadays Dick Cheney is
more likely to be seen on CNN than Fox), in their anti-Trump coalition.
And let's remember, please let's remember, that during the 2016 campaign Trump did a truly
great thing in taking Jeb Bush, G. W. Bush, and their horrible family down for lying the United
States into war with Iraq. That is the kind of fire -- that is, the CIA and the "intelligence
community" -- that Trump has been playing with since he entered the presidential race, and this
is the heart of why he has been under very serious attack since Nov. 9, 2016, and why this
impeachment nonsense occurred.
Incidentally, what Prof. Turley politely called "pointillism" is, by other names, death by a
thousand cuts, or simply throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. While Turley is out of
step with the Democratic Party agenda on impeachment, there is a way in which his criticisms of
the "impeachment process" were fairly mild.
In the pointillism/duct-tape banana editorial, Turley says that he "encouraged the
Democrats to wait and build a more complete case." This has led to his being pilloried by
anti-Trumpers, because he is not fully in lockstep. Turley said that the Democrats have to go
beyond their "impressionistic case" and build instead a "realistic case":
As it stands now, with so much in the Democrats' case relying on inference, how one views
the impeachment is entirely based on one's view of the president. That is the trouble with
impressionistic impeachments: They leave too much in the eye of the beholder."
One would think that, with all of the surveillance capabilities that Adam Schiff apparently
has access to, he would have been all set to go photorealist on Trump. That Schiff isn't even
remotely a David Hockney of politics tells us two things about the Democratic agenda on
impeachment:
that, apparently, they don't really have the goods on Trump (as Turley said,
"This would be the first presidential impeachment to go forward with no credible (or at
least uncontested) crime at its heart" ); none of this is about removing Trump from office,
it is about doing as much damage to Trump as can be done on the way to November 2020.
Certainly, neither of these things is any kind of revelation.
What could really be said, though, is that the system has now made a qualitative shift,
toward openly declaring feelings, impressions, and unsubstantiated third-hand accounts from
interested and shadowy parties, as even more of a substantive basis for important legal
findings than what we used to call "evidence."
Donald (and Melania, one assumes) named their kid "Barron," clearly a sign that Trump
considers himself a king or emperor figure. Who knows, maybe he does think of himself that way
-- though most royal figures are not even remotely as good at connecting with ordinary people
through humor as Trump is; then again, neither are most regular comedians these days, infected
with TDS as they are.
But this Title IX-style theater of power cannot be what is really going on, not any more
than Bill Clinton was impeached for having been orally-serviced in the Oval Office and then
"lying about it." For the moment I will leave this scene with the observation that it really
does seem like so much regarding the Trump phenomena comes down to whether it is really the
case that there is something like the Deep State, with the CIA at its core, with an effective
hold on how power operates throughout the system.
*
Lastly, on Identity Politics/Title IX-style power-plays: Okay, I felt bad about the
"bisexual or lesbian or whatever" remark; it may be fair in the way I am using it, but it
wasn't nice to my lesbian friends, especially. Apparently Karlan's self-description is "snarky
bisexual," as reported with
great excitement at pinknews.co.uk on Dec. 5 .
They lauded her as having "stole[n] the show at Donald Trump's impeachment hearing with
her scathing and quick-witted put-downs." There is no end of women of actual brilliant
accomplishments, and I'm sure many of them are lesbian or otherwise non-binary. Some of them
are even brilliant legal scholars.
We do nothing but take away from these women (and, yes, men too, a few of whom occasionally
do something worthwhile as well) when the Identity Politics path to power and fame is allowed
to displace the hard work and creativity that actually makes a contribution to humanity.
"... The Democrats did not want Adam Schiff to have to answer questions about the whistleblower, and they don't want the whistleblower's identity to be officially revealed. Such things do not contribute to the greatest cause of our time, the destruction of Donald Trump. ..."
"... The whole point of having the House impeachment investigation proceed from the House Intelligence Committee, headed by Adam Schiff, was to send the signal that Trump is unacceptable to the nefarious powers that make up the Deep State, especially the intelligence agencies, especially the CIA. ..."
"... What a world, then, when OP Democrats are cheering on John Bolton, hoping again for a savior to their sacred resistance cause, and meanwhile they aren't too excited about Rand Paul's intervention. For sure, it is a sign that a "resistance" isn't real when it needs a savior; it's not as if the French Resistance sat back waiting for Gen. de Gaulle. In any case, in the procession of horrible reactionary figures that Democrats have embraced, Bolton is probably the worst, and that's saying quite a lot. ..."
"... People are even talking about "getting used to accepting the help of the CIA with the impeachment," and the like. (I realize I'm being repetitious here, but this stuff blows my mind, it is so disturbing.) At least they are recognizing the reality -- at least partially; that's something. But then what they do with this recognition is something that requires epic levels of TDS -- and, somehow, a great deal of the Left is going down this path. ..."
"... The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars. Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business. Trump is not an asset. ..."
"... Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were, lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the world to see. This cannot be undone. ..."
First , the whistleblower was ruled out as a possible witness -- this was
essentially done behind the scenes, and in reality can be called a Deep State operation, though
one exposed to some extent by Rand Paul. This has nothing to do with protecting the
whistleblower or upholding the whistleblower statute, but instead with the fact that the
whistleblower was a CIA plant in the White House.
That the whistleblower works for the CIA is a matter of public record, not some conspiracy
theory. Furthermore, for some time before the impeachment proceedings began, the whistleblower
had been coordinating his efforts to undermine Trump with the head of the House Intelligence
Committee, who happens to be Adam Schiff. It is possible that the connections with Schiff go
even further or deeper. Obviously the Democrats do not want these things exposed.
... ... ...
In this regard, there was a very special moment on January 29, when Chief Justice John
Roberts refused to allow the reading of a question from Sen. Rand Paul that identified the
alleged whistleblower. Paul then held a press conference in which he read his question.
The question was directed at Adam Schiff, who claims not to have communicated with the
whistleblower, despite much evidence to the contrary. (Further details can be read at
here
.) A propos of what I was just saying, Paul is described in the Politico article as
"a longtime antagonist of Republican leaders." Excellent, good on you, Rand Paul.
Whether this was a case of unintended consequences or not, one could say that this episode
fed into the case against calling witnesses -- certainly the Democrats should not have been
allowed to call witnesses if the Republicans could not call the whistleblower. But clearly this
point is completely lost on those working in terms of the moving line of bullshit.
One would think that Democrats would be happy with a Republican Senator who antagonizes
leaders of his own party, but of course Rand Paul's effort only led to further "outrage" on the
part of Democratic leaders in the House and Senate.
The Democrats did not want Adam Schiff to have to answer questions about the whistleblower,
and they don't want the whistleblower's identity to be officially revealed. Such things do not
contribute to the greatest cause of our time, the destruction of Donald Trump.
However, you see, there is a complementary purpose at work here, too. The whole point of
having the House impeachment investigation proceed from the House Intelligence Committee,
headed by Adam Schiff, was to send the signal that Trump is unacceptable to the nefarious
powers that make up the Deep State, especially the intelligence agencies, especially the
CIA.
The only way these machinations can be combatted is to pull the curtain back further -- but
the Republicans do not want this any more than the Democrats do, with a few possible exceptions
such as Rand Paul. (As the Politico article states, Paul was chastised publicly by McConnell
for submitting his question in the first place, and for criticizing Roberts in the press
conference.)
What a world, then, when OP Democrats are cheering on John Bolton, hoping again for a
savior to their sacred resistance cause, and meanwhile they aren't too excited about Rand
Paul's intervention. For sure, it is a sign that a "resistance" isn't real when it needs a
savior; it's not as if the French Resistance sat back waiting for Gen. de Gaulle. In any case,
in the procession of horrible reactionary figures that Democrats have embraced, Bolton is
probably the worst, and that's saying quite a lot.
... ... ...
Now we are at a moment when "the Left" is recognizing the role that the CIA and the rest of
the "intelligence community" is played in the impeachment nonsense. This "Left" was already on
board for the "impeachment process" itself, perhaps at moments with caveats about "not leaving
everything up to the Democrats," "not just relying on the Democrats," but still accepting their
assigned role as cheerleaders and self-important internet commentators. (And, sure, maybe
that's all I am, too -- but the inability to distinguish form from content is one of the main
problems of the existing Left.)
Now, though, people on the Left are trying to get comfortable with, and trying to explain to
themselves how they can get comfortable with, the obvious role of the "intelligence community"
(with, in my view, the CIA in the leading role, but of course I'm not privy to the inner
workings of this scene) in the impeachment process and other efforts to take down Trump's
presidency.
People are even talking about "getting used to accepting the help of the CIA with the
impeachment," and the like. (I realize I'm being repetitious here, but this stuff blows my
mind, it is so disturbing.) At least they are recognizing the reality -- at least partially;
that's something. But then what they do with this recognition is something that requires epic
levels of TDS -- and, somehow, a great deal of the Left is going down this path.
They might think about the "help" that the CIA gave to the military in Bolivia to remove Evo
Morales from office. They might think about the picture of Donald Trump that they find
necessary to paint to justify what they are willing to swallow to remove him from office. They
might think about the fact that ordinary Democrats are fine with this role for the CIA, and
that Adam Schiff and others routinely offer the criticism/condemnation of Donald Trump that he
doesn't accept the findings of the CIA or the rest of the intelligence agencies at face
value.
The moment for the Left, what calls itself and thinks of itself as that, to break with this
lunacy has passed some time ago, but let us take this moment, of "accepting the help of the
CIA, because Trump," as truly marking a point of no return.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot
for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his
narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars. Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business. Trump is not an asset.
paul ,
Trump, Sanders and Corbyn were all in their own way agents of creative destruction.
Trump tapped into the popular discontent of millions of Americans who realised that the
system no longer even pretended to work in their interests, and were not prepared to be
diverted down the Identity Politics Rabbit Hole.
The Deep State was outraged that he had disrupted their programme by stealing Clinton's seat
in the game of Musical Chairs. Being the most corrupt, dishonest and mendacious political
candidate in all US history (despite some pretty stiff opposition) was supposed to be
outweighed by her having a vagina. The Deplorables failed to sign up for the programme.
Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were,
lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to
the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from
behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid
criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the
world to see. This cannot be undone.
For all his pandering to Adelson and the Zionist Mafia, for all his Gives to Netanyahu, Trump
has failed to deliver on the Big Ticket Items. Syria was supposed to have been invaded by
now, with Hillary cackling demonically over Assad's death as she did over Gaddafi, and
rapidly moving on to the main event with Iran. They will not forgive him for this.
They realise they are under severe time pressure. It took them a century to gain their
stranglehold over America, and this is a wasting asset. America is in terminal decline, and
may soon be unable to fulfil its ordained role as dumb goy muscle serving Zionist interests.
And the parasite will find it difficult to find a replacement host.
George Mc ,
Haven't you just agreed with him here?
He thinks the left died in the 1960s, over a half century ago. It's pretty simple to
identify a leftist: anti-imperialist/ anti-capitalist. The Democrats are imperialists.
People who vote for the Democrats and Republicans are imperialists. This article is a
confused mess, that's my whole point;)
If the Democrats and Republicans (and those who vote for them) are imperialists (which they are) then the left are indeed
dead – at least as far as political representation goes.
Koba ,
He's sent more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan he staged several coups in Latin America and
wanted to take out the dprk and thier nukes and wants to bomb Iran! Winding down?!
sharon marlowe ,
First, an attempted assassination-by-drone on President Maduro of Venezuela happened. Then
Trump dropped the largest conventional bomb on Afghanistan, with a mile-wide radius. Then
Trump named Juan Guido as the new President of Venezuela in an overt coup. Then he bombed
Syria over a fake chemical weapons claim. He bombed it before even an investigation was
launched. Then the Trump regime orchestrated a military coup in Bolivia. Then he claimed that
he was pulling out of Syria, but instead sent U.S. troops to take over Syrian oil fields.
trump then assassinated Gen. Solemeni. Then he claimed that he will leave Iraq at the request
of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi government asked the U.S. to leave, and Trump rejected the
request. The Trump regime has tried orchestrating a coup in Iran, and a coup in Hong Kong. He
expelled Russian diplomats en masse for the Skripal incident in England, before an
investigation. He has sanctioned Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and Venezuela. He has
bombed Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Those are the things I'm
aware of, but what else Trump has done in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America you
can research if you wish. And now, the claim of leaving Afghanistan is as ridiculous as when
he claimed to be leaving Syria and Iraq.
Dungroanin ,
Yeah yeah and 'he' gave Maduro 7 days to let their kid takeover in Venezuela! And built a
wall. And got rid of obamacare and started a nuke war with Rocketman and and and ...
sharon marlowe ,
There were at least nine people killed when Trump bombed Douma.
Only a psychopath would kill people because one of its spy drones was shot down. You don't
get points for considering killing people for it and then changing your mind.
People should get over Hillary and pay attention to what Trump has been doing. Why even
mention what Hillary would have done in Syria, then proceed to be an apologist for what Trump
has done around the world in just three years? Trump has been quite a prolific imperialist in
such a short time. A second term could well put him above Bush and Obama as the 21st
century's most horrible leaders on earth.
Dungroanin ,
...If you think that the potus is the omnipotent ruler of everything he certainly seems to be
having some problems with his minions in the CIA, NSA, FBI..State Dept etc.
Savorywill ,
Yes, what you say is right. However, he did warn both the Syrian and Russian military of the
attack in the first instance, so no casualties, and in the second attack, he announced that
the missiles had been launched before they hit the target, again resulting in no casualties.
When the US drone was shot down by an Iranian missile, he considered retaliation. But, when
advised of likely casualties, he called it off saying that human lives are more valuable than
the cost of the drone. Yes, he did authorize the assassination of the Iranian general, and
that was very bad. His claims that the general had organized the placement of roadside bombs
that had killed US soldiers rings rather hollow, considering those shouldn't have been in
Iraq in the first place.
I am definitely not stating that he is perfect and doesn't do objectionable things. And he
has authorized US forces to control the oil wells, which is against international law, but at
least US soldiers are not actively engaged in fighting the Syrian government, something
Hillary set in motion. However, the military does comprise a huge percentage of the US
economy and there have to be reasons, and enemies, to justify its existence, so his situation
as president must be very difficult, not a job I would want, that is for sure.
The potus is best described (by Assad actually) as a CEO of a board of directors appointed
by the shareholders who collectively determine their OWN interests.
Your gaslighting ain't succeeding round here – Regime! So desperate, so so sad
🤣
"... Due to the non-stop action in Washington of late, few believe that the present state of affairs between the Democrats and Donald Trump are exclusively due to a telephone call between the US leader and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. That is only scratching the surface of a story that is practically boundless. ..."
"... In March 2016, the DOJ found that "the FBI had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was completed," as Jeff Carlson reported in The Epoch Times. ..."
"... That sort of foreign access to sensitive data is highly improper and was the result of "deliberate decision-making," according to the findings of an April 2017 FISA court ruling ( footnote 69 ). ..."
"... On April 18, 2016, then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director Adm. Mike Rogers directed the NSA's Office of Compliance to terminate all FBI outside-contractor access. Later, on Oct. 21, 2016, the FBI and the DOJ's National Security Division (NSD), and despite they were aware of Rogers's actions, moved ahead anyways with a request for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The request was approved by the FISA court, which, apparently, was still in the dark about the violations. ..."
"... Now James Comey is back in the spotlight as one of the main characters in the Barr-Durham investigation, which is examining largely out of the spotlight the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory that dogged the White House for four long years. ..."
In the time-honored tradition of Machiavellian statecraft, all of the charges being leveled against Donald Trump to remove him
from office – namely, 'abuse of power' and 'obstruction of congress' –are essentially the same things the Democratic Party has been
guilty of for nearly half a decade : abusing their powers in a non-stop attack on the executive branch. Is the reason because they
desperately need a 'get out of jail free' card?
Due to the non-stop action in Washington of late, few believe that the present state of affairs between the Democrats and Donald
Trump are exclusively due to a telephone call between the US leader and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. That is only
scratching the surface of a story that is practically boundless.
Back in April 2016, before Trump had become the Republican presidential nominee, talk of impeachment was already in the air.
"Donald Trump isn't even the Republican nominee yet,"
wrote Darren Samuelsohn in Politico. Yet impeachment, he noted, is "already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few
members of Congress."
The timing of Samuelsohn's article is not a little astonishing given what the Department of Justice (DOJ) had discovered just
one month earlier.
In March 2016, the DOJ found that "the FBI had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was completed," as Jeff Carlson
reported in The Epoch Times.
That sort of foreign access to sensitive data is highly improper and was the result of "deliberate decision-making," according
to the findings of an April 2017 FISA court ruling (
footnote
69 ).
On April 18, 2016, then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director Adm. Mike Rogers directed the NSA's Office of Compliance to terminate
all FBI outside-contractor access. Later, on Oct. 21, 2016, the FBI and the DOJ's National Security Division (NSD), and despite they
were aware of Rogers's actions, moved ahead anyways with a request for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign adviser
Carter Page. The request was approved by the FISA court, which, apparently, was still in the dark about the violations.
On Oct. 26, following approval of the warrant against Page, Rogers went to the FISA court to inform them of the FBI's non-compliance
with the rules. Was it just a coincidence that at exactly this time, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Defense
Secretary Ashton B. Carter were suddenly
calling for Roger's removal? The request was eventually rejected. The next month, in mid-November 2016 Rogers, without first
notifying his superiors, flew to New York where he had a private meeting with Trump at Trump Towers.
According to the New York Times,
the meeting – the details of which were never publicly divulged, but may be guessed at – "caused consternation at senior levels
of the administration."
Democratic obstruction of justice?
Then CIA Director John Brennan, dismayed about a few meetings Trump officials had with the Russians, helped to kick-start the
FBI investigation over 'Russian collusion.' Notably, these Trump-Russia meetings occurred in December 2016, as the incoming administration
was in the difficult transition period to enter the White House. The Democrats made sure they made that transition as ugly as possible.
Although it is perfectly normal for an incoming government to meet with foreign heads of state at this critical juncture, a meeting
at Trump Tower between Michael Flynn, Trump's incoming national security adviser and former Russian Ambassador to the US, Sergey
Kislyak, was portrayed as some kind of cloak and dagger scene borrowed from a John le Carré thriller.
Brennan questioning the motives behind high-level meetings between the Trump team and some Russians is strange given that the
lame duck Obama administration was in the process of redialing US-Russia relations back to the Cold War days, all based on the debunked
claim that Moscow handed Trump the White House on a silver platter.
In late December 2016, after Trump had already won the election, Obama slapped Russia with punitive sanctions,
expelled
35 Russian diplomats and closed down two Russian facilities. Since part of Trump's campaign platform was to mend relations with
Moscow, would it not seem logical that the incoming administration would be in damage-control, doing whatever necessary to prevent
relations between the world's premier nuclear powers from degrading even more?
So if it wasn't 'Russian collusion' that motivated the Democrats into action, what was it?
From Benghazi to Seth Rich
Here we must pause and remind ourselves about the unenviable situation regarding Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, who
was being grilled daily over her use of a private computer to
communicate
sensitive documents via email. In all likelihood, the incident would have dropped from the radar had it not been for the deadly
2012 Benghazi attacks on a US compound.
In the course of a House Select Committee investigation into the circumstances surrounding the attacks, which resulted in the
death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US personnel, Clinton handed over some 30,000 emails, while reportedly deleting
32,000 deemed to be of a "personal nature". Those emails remain unaccounted for to this day.
I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.
By March 2015, even the traditionally tepid media was baring its baby fangs, relentlessly
pursuing Clinton over the email question. Since Clinton never made a secret of her presidential ambitions, even political allies
were piling on. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), for example,
said it's time for Clinton "to step up" and explain herself, adding that "silence is going to hurt her."
On July 24, 2015, The New York Times
published a front-page story with the headline "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Clinton's Use of Email." Later, Jennifer Rubin of
the Washington Post candidly
summed up Clinton's rapidly deteriorating status with elections fast approaching: "Democrats still show no sign they are willing
to abandon Clinton. Instead, they seem to be heading into the 2016 election with a deeply flawed candidate schlepping around plenty
of baggage -- the details of which are not yet known."
Moving into 2016, things began to look increasingly complicated for the Democratic front-runner. On March 16, 2016, WikiLeaks
launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails and attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server
while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547-page treasure trove spans the dates from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014.
In May, about one month after Clinton had officially announced her candidacy for the US presidency, the State Department's inspector
general released an 83-page report that was highly critical of Clinton's email practices, concluding that Clinton failed to seek
legal approval for her use of a private server.
"At a minimum," the report determined, "Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business
before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented
in accordance with the Federal Records Act."
The following month brought more bad news for Clinton and her presidential hopes after it was
reported that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had a 30-minute tête-à-tête with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch,
whose department was leading the Clinton investigations, on the tarmac at Phoenix International Airport. Lynch said Clinton decided
to pay her an impromptu visit where the two discussed "his grandchildren and his travels and things like that." Republicans, however,
certainly weren't buying the story as the encounter came as the FBI was preparing to file its recommendation to the Justice Department.
The summer of 2016, however, was just heating up.
I take @LorettaLynch &
@billclinton at their word that their convo
in Phoenix didn't touch on probe. But foolish to create such optics.
On the early morning of July 10, Seth Rich, the director of voter expansion for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was gunned
down on the street in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, DC. Rich's murder, said to be the result of a botched robbery,
bucked the homicide trend in the area for that particular period; murders rates
for the first six months of 2016 were down about 50 percent from the same period in the previous year.
In any case, the story gets much stranger. Just five days earlier, on July 5th, the computers at the DNC were compromised, purportedly
by an online persona with the moniker "Guccifer 2.0" at the behest of Russian intelligence. This is where the story of "Russian hacking"
first gained popularity. Not everyone, however, was buying the explanation.
In July 2017, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, who call themselves Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) sent a memo to President Trump that challenged a January intelligence assessment that expressed "high
confidence" that the Russians had organized an "influence campaign" to harm Hillary Clinton's "electability," as if she wasn't capable
of that without Kremlin support.
"Forensic studies of 'Russian hacking' into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data
was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer," the memo states (The memo's conclusions were based on
analyses of metadata provided by the online persona Guccifer 2.0, who took credit for the alleged hack). "Key among the findings
of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far
exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack."
In other words, according to VIPS, the compromise of the DNC computers was the result of an internal leak, not an external hack.
At this point, however, it needs mentioned that the VIPS memo has sparked dissenting views among its members. Several analysts
within the group have spoken out against its findings, and that internal debate can be read
here . Thus, it would
seem there is no 'smoking gun,' as of yet, to prove that the DNC was not hacked by an external entity. At the same time, the murder
of Seth Rich continues to remain an unsolved "botched robbery," according to investigators. Meanwhile, the one person who may hold
the key to the mystery, Julian Assange, is said to be withering away Belmarsh Prison, a high-security London jail, where he is awaiting
a February court hearing that will decide whether he will be extradited to the United States where he 18 charges.
Here is a question to ponder: If you were Julian Assange, and you knew you were going to be extradited to the United States, who
would you rather be the sitting president in charge of your fate, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Think twice before answering.
"Because you'd be in jail"
On October 9, 2016, in the second televised presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Trump
accused his Democratic opponent of deleting 33,000 emails,
while adding that he would get a "special prosecutor and we're going to look into it " To this, Clinton said "it's just awfully good
that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country," to which Trump deadpanned, without
missing a beat, "because you'd be in jail."
Now if that remark didn't get the attention of high-ranking Democratic officials, perhaps Trump's comments at a Virginia rally
days later, when he promised to "drain the swamp," made folks sit up and take notice.
At this point the leaks, hacks and everything in between were already coming fast and furious. On October 7, John Podesta, Clinton's
presidential campaign manager, had his personal Gmail account hacked, thereby releasing a torrent of inside secrets, including how
Donna Brazile, then a CNN commentator, had fed Clinton debate questions. But of course the crimes did not matter to the mendacious
media, only the identity of the alleged messenger, which of course was 'Russia.'
By now, the only thing more incredible than the dirt being produced on Clinton was the fact that she was still in the presidential
race, and even slated to win by a wide margin. But perhaps her biggest setback came when authorities, investigating
Anthony Weiner's abused laptop into illicit text messages he sent to a 15-year-old girl, stumbled upon thousands of email messages
from Hillary Clinton.
Now Comey had to backpedal on his conclusion in July that although Clinton was "extremely careless" in her use of her electronic
devices, no criminal charges would be forthcoming. He announced an 11th hour investigation, just days before the election. Although
Clinton was also cleared in this case, observers never forgave Comey for his actions,
arguing they cost Clinton the White House.
Now James Comey is back in the spotlight as one of the main characters in the Barr-Durham investigation, which is examining largely
out of the spotlight the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory that dogged the White House for four long years.
In early December, Justice Department's independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz,
released the 400-page IG report
that revealed a long list of omissions, mistakes and inconsistencies in the FBI's applications for FISA warrants to conduct surveillance
on Carter Page. Although the report was damning, both Barr and Durham noted it did not go far enough because Horowitz did not have
the access that Durham has to intelligence agency sources, as well as overseas contacts that Barr provided to him.
With AG report due for release in early spring, needless to say some Democrats are very nervous as to its finding. So nervous,
in fact, that they might just be willing to go to the extreme of removing a sitting president to avoid its conclusions.
Whatever the verdict, 2020 promises to be one very interesting year.
"... The Russiagate investigation, which had formerly focused against the current US President, has reversed direction and now targets the prior President. ..."
"... In order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and its implications, it is useful to understand certain procedural and substantive requirements that apply to the government's conduct of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA ), codified as amended at 50 USC. 1801-1813, governs such electronic surveillance. It requires the government to apply for and receive an order from the FISC approving a proposed electronic surveillance. When deciding whether to grant such an application, a FISC judge must determine among other things, whether it provides probable cause to believe that the proposed surveillance target is a "foreign power" or an agent a foreign power. ..."
"... The government has a heightened duty of candor to the FISC in ex parte proceedings, that is, ones in which the government does not face an adverse party, such as proceedings on electronic surveillance applications. The FISC expects the government to comply with its heightened duty of candor in ex parte proceedings at all times. Candor is fundamental to this Court's effective operation. ..."
"... On December 9, 2019, the government filed, with the FISC, public and classified versions of the OIG Report. It documents troubling instances in which FBI personnel provided information to NSD ..."
"... which was unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession. It also describes several instances in which FBI personnel withheld from NSD information in their possession which was detrimental to their case for believing that Mr. ..."
"... Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power. ..."
"... MACCALLUM: Were you surprised that he ..."
"... seemed to give himself such a distance from the entire operation? ..."
"... "JAMES COMEY: As the director sitting on top of an organization of 38,000 people you can't run an investigation that's seven layers below you. You have to leave it to the career professionals to do." ..."
"... MACCALLUM: Do you believe that? ..."
"... BARR: No, I think that the -- one of the problems with what happened was precisely that they pulled the investigation up to the executive floors, and it was run and bird dogged by a very small group of very high level officials. And the idea that this was seven layers below him is simply not true. ..."
"... Allegedly, George Papadopoulos said that "Halper insinuated to him that Russia was helping the Trump campaign" , and Papadopoulos was shocked at Halper's saying this. Probably because so much money at the Pentagon is untraceable, some of the crucial documentation on this investigation might never be found. For example, the Defense Department's Inspector General's 2 July 2019 report to the US Senate said "ONA personnel could not provide us any evidence that Professor Halper visited any of these locations, established an advisory group, or met with any of the specific people listed in the statement of work." ..."
"... very profitable business ..."
"... Schultz and other members of the DNC staff had exercised bias against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic primaries -- which favoritism had been the reason why Obama had appointed Shultz to that post to begin with. She was just doing her job for the person who had chosen her to lead the DNC. Likewise for Comey. In other words: Comey was Obama's pick to protect Clinton, and to oppose Trump (who had attacked both Clinton and Obama). ..."
"... Nowadays, Obama is telling the Party's billionaires that Elizabeth Warren would be good for them , but not that Sanders would -- he never liked Sanders. ..."
"... and, so, Trump now will be gunning against Obama ..."
"... Whatever the outcome will be, it will be historic, and unprecedented. (If Sanders becomes the nominee, it will be even more so; and, if he then wins on November 3rd, it will be a second American Revolution; but, this time, a peaceful one -- if that's even possible, in today's hyper-partisan, deeply split, USA.) ..."
"... There is no way that the outcome from this will be status-quo. Either it will be greatly increased further schism in the United States, or it will be a fundamental political realignment, more comparable to 1860 than to anything since. ..."
"... Reform is no longer an available option, given America's realities. A far bigger leap than that will be required in order for this country to avoid falling into an utter abyss, which could be led by either Party, because both Parties have brought the nation to its present precipice, the dark and lightless chasm that it now faces, and which must now become leapt, in order to avoid a free-fall into oblivion. ..."
"... The problem in America isn't either Obama or Trump; it's neither merely the Democratic Party, nor merely the Republican Party; it is instead both; it is the Deep State . ..."
Former US President
Barack Obama is now in severe legal jeopardy, because the Russiagate investigation has turned
180 degrees; and he, instead of the current President, Donald Trump, is in its cross-hairs.
The biggest crime that a US President can commit is to try to defeat American democracy (the
Constitutional functioning of the US Government) itself, either by working with foreign powers
to take it over, or else by working internally within America to sabotage democracy for his or
her own personal reasons. Either way, it's treason (crime that is intended to, and does,
endanger the continued functioning of the Constitution itself*), and Mr. Obama is now being
actively investigated, as possibly having done this.
The Russiagate investigation, which had
formerly focused against the current US President, has reversed direction and now targets the
prior President. Although he, of course, cannot be removed from office (since he is no longer
in office), he is liable under criminal laws, the same as any other American would be, if he
committed any crime while he was in office.
A
December 17th order by the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court severely
condemned the performance by the FBI under Obama, for having obtained, on 19 October 2016 (even prior to the US Presidential
election), from that Court, under false pretenses, an authorization for the FBI to commence
investigating Donald Trump's Presidential campaign, as being possibly in collusion with
Russia's Government. The Court's ruling said:
In order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and its implications, it is
useful to understand certain procedural and substantive requirements that apply to the
government's conduct of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Title I of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA ), codified as amended at 50 USC. 1801-1813,
governs such electronic surveillance. It requires the government to apply for and receive an
order from the FISC approving a proposed electronic surveillance. When deciding whether to
grant such an application, a FISC judge must determine among other things, whether it
provides probable cause to believe that the proposed surveillance target is a "foreign power"
or an agent a foreign power.
The government has a heightened duty of candor to the FISC in ex parte proceedings, that
is, ones in which the government does not face an adverse party, such as proceedings on
electronic surveillance applications. The FISC expects the government to comply with its
heightened duty of candor in ex parte proceedings at all times. Candor is fundamental to this
Court's effective operation.
On December 9, 2019, the government filed, with the FISC, public and classified versions
of the OIG Report. It documents troubling instances in which FBI personnel provided information
to NSD [National Security Division of the Department of Justice] which was unsupported
or contradicted by information in their possession. It also describes several instances in
which FBI personnel withheld from NSD information in their possession which was detrimental to
their case for believing that Mr. [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign
power.
On December 18th, Martha McCallum, of Fox News,
interviewed US Attorney General Bill Barr , and asked him (at 7:00 in the video
) how high up in the FBI the blame for this (possible treason) goes:
MACCALLUM: Were you surprised that he [Obama's FBI Director James Comey]
seemed to give himself such a distance from the entire operation?
"JAMES COMEY: As the director sitting on top of an organization of 38,000 people you
can't run an investigation that's seven layers below you. You have to leave it to the career
professionals to do."
MACCALLUM: Do you believe that?
BARR: No, I think that the -- one of the problems with what happened was precisely
that they pulled the investigation up to the executive floors, and it was run and bird dogged
by a very small group of very high level officials. And the idea that this was seven layers
below him is simply not true.
The current (Trump) A.G. there called the former (Obama) FBI Director a liar on that.
If Comey gets heat for this possibly lie-based FBI investigation of the US Presidential
nominee from the opposite Party of the sitting US President (Comey's own boss, Obama), then
protecting himself could become Comey's top motivation; and, in that condition, protecting his
former boss might become only a secondary concern for him.
Though Halper actually did no such studies for the Pentagon,
he instead functioned as a paid FBI informant (and it's not yet clear whether that money came
from the Pentagon, which spends
trillions of dollars that are off-the-books and untraceable ), and at some point Trump's
campaign became a target of Halper's investigation. This investigation was nominally to examine
"The Russia-China Relationship: The impact on US Security interests."
It seems that the Pentagon-contracted work was a cover-story, like
pizza parlors have been for some Mafia operations. But, anyway, this is how America's
'democracy' actually functions .
And, of course, America's
Deep State works not only through governmental agencies but also through
underworld organizations . That's just reality, not at all speculative. It's been this way
for decades, at least since the time of Truman's Presidency (as is documented at that
link).
Furthermore, inasmuch as this operation certainly involved Obama's CIA Director John Brennan
and others, and not only top officials at the FBI, there is no chance that Comey would have
been the only high official who was involved in it. And if Comey was
involved, then he would have been acting in his own interest, and not only in his boss's -- and
here's why: Comey would be expected to have been highly motivated to oppose Mr. Trump,
because Trump publicly questioned whether NATO (the main international selling-arm for
America's 'defense'-contractors) should continue to exist, and also because Comey's entire
career had been in the service of America's Military-Industrial Complex, which is the reason
why Comey's main
lifetime income has been the tens of millions of dollars he has received via the revolving door
between his serving the federal Government and his serving firms such as Lockheed Martin .
For these people, restoring, and intensifying, and keeping up, the Cold War , is a very profitable business . It's called
by some "the Military-Industrial Complex," and by others "the Deep State," but by any name it
is simply agents of the billionaires who own and control US-based international corporations,
such as General Dynamics and Chevron. As a governmental official, making decisions that are in
the long-term interests of those investors is the likeliest way to become wealthy.
Consequently, Comey would have been benefitting himself, and other high officials of the
Obama Administration, by sabotaging Trump's campaign, and by weakening Trump's Presidency in
the event that he would become elected. Plus, of course, Comey would have been benefitting
Obama himself. Not only was Trump constantly condemning Obama, but Obama had appointed to lead
the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 Presidential primaries, Debbie Wasserman Schultz ,
who as early as
20 February 2007 had endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in the Democratic Party
primaries, so that Shultz was one of the earliest supporters of Clinton against even Obama
himself. In other words, Obama had appointed Shultz in order to
increase the odds that Clinton -- not Sanders -- would become the nominee in 2016 to
continue on and protect his own Presidential legacy. Furthermore, on 28 July 2016, Schultz
became forced to resign from her leadership of the DNC after WikiLeaks released emails
indicating that Schultz and other members of the DNC staff had exercised bias against Bernie
Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic primaries -- which
favoritism had been the reason why Obama had appointed Shultz to that post to begin with. She
was just doing her job for the person who had chosen her to lead the DNC. Likewise for Comey.
In other words: Comey was Obama's pick to protect Clinton, and to oppose
Trump (who had attacked both Clinton and Obama).
Nowadays, Obama is telling the Party's billionaires that Elizabeth Warren would be good for
them , but not that Sanders would -- he never liked Sanders. He wants Warren to get the
voters who otherwise would go for Sanders, and he wants the Party's billionaires to help her
achieve this (be the Party's allegedly 'progressive' option), so that Sanders won't be able to
become a ballot option in the general election to be held on 3 November 2020.
He is telling
them whom not to help win the Party's nomination. In fact, on November 26th,
Huffington Post headlined
"Obama Said He Would Speak Up To Stop Bernie Sanders Nomination: Report" and indicated that
though he won't actually say this in public (but only to the Party's billionaires), Obama is
determined to do all he can to prevent Sanders from becoming the nominee. In 2016, his
choice was Hillary Clinton; but, today, it's anyone other than Sanders; and, so, in a sense, it
remains what it was four years ago -- anyone but Sanders.
Comey's virtually exclusive concern, at the present stage, would be to protect himself, so
that he won't be imprisoned. This means that he might testify against Obama. At this stage,
he's free of any personal obligation to Obama -- Comey is now on his own, up against Trump, who
clearly is his enemy. Some type of back-room plea-bargain is therefore virtually inevitable --
and not only with Comey, but with other top Obama-appointees, ultimately. Obama is thus clearly
in the cross-hairs, from now on. Congressional Democrats have opted to gun against Trump (by
impeaching him); and, so, Trump now will be gunning against Obama -- and against the
entire Democratic Party (unless Sanders becomes its nominee, in which case, Sanders will
already have defeated that Democratic Party, and its adherents will then have to choose between
him versus Trump; and, so, too, will independent voters).
But, regardless of what happens, Obama now is in the cross-hairs. That's not just political
cross-hairs (such as an impeachment process); it is, above all, legal cross-hairs (an
actual criminal investigation). Whereas Trump is up against a doomed effort by the Democratic
Party to replace him by Vice President Mike Pence, Obama will be up against virtually
inevitable criminal charges, by the incumbent Trump Administration. Obama played hardball
against Trump, with "Russiagate," and then with "Ukrainegate"; Trump will now play hardball
against Obama, with whatever his Administration and the Republican Party manage to muster
against Obama; and the stakes this time will be considerably bigger than just whether to
replace Trump by Pence.
Whatever the outcome will be, it will be historic, and unprecedented. (If Sanders becomes
the nominee, it will be even more so; and, if he then wins on November 3rd, it will be a second
American Revolution; but, this time, a peaceful one -- if that's even possible, in today's
hyper-partisan, deeply split, USA.)
There is no way that the outcome from this will be status-quo. Either it will be greatly
increased further schism in the United States, or it will be a fundamental political
realignment, more comparable to 1860 than to anything since.
The US already has a
higher percentage of its people in prison than does any other nation on this planet.
Americans who choose a 'status-quo' option will produce less stability, more violence, not more
stability and a more peaceful nation in a less war-ravaged world. The 2020 election-outcome for
the United States will be a turning-point; there is no way that it will produce reform.
Americans who vote for reform will be only increasing the likelihood of hell-on-Earth. Reform
is no longer an available option, given America's realities. A far bigger leap than that will
be required in order for this country to avoid falling into an utter abyss, which could be led
by either Party, because both Parties have brought the nation to its present precipice, the
dark and lightless chasm that it now faces, and which must now become leapt, in order to avoid
a free-fall into oblivion.
The problem in America isn't either Obama or Trump; it's neither merely the Democratic
Party, nor merely the Republican Party; it is instead both; it is the
Deep State .
That's the reality; and the process that got us here started on 26 July 1945 and secretly continued on the American side even after
the Soviet Union ended and Russia promptly ended its side of the Cold War. The US regime's
ceaseless thrust, since 26 July 1945, to rule the entire world, will climax either in a Third
World War, or in a US revolution to overthrow and remove the Deep State and end its
dictatorship-grip over America. Both Parties have been controlled by that
Deep State , and the final stage or climax of this grip is now drawing near. America thus
has been having a string of the worst
Presidents -- and worst Congresses -- in US history. This is today's reality.
Unfortunately, a lot of American voters think that this extremely destabilizing reality, this
longstanding trend toward war, is okay, and ought to be continued, not ended now and replaced
by a new direction for this country -- the path toward world peace, which FDR had accurately
envisioned but which was aborted on 26 July 1945. No matter how many Americans might vote for
mere reform, they are wrong. Sometimes, only a minority are right. Being correct is not a
majority or minority matter; it is a true or false matter. A misinformed public can willingly
participate in its own -- or even the world's -- destruction. That could happen.
Democracy is a
prerequisite to peace, but it can't exist if the public are being systematically misinformed.
Lies and democracy don't mix together any more effectively than do oil and water.
"... Admiral Bill McRaven is proving himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Yes, I'm calling a so-called military hero a clown. He is out today with a despicable op-ed attacking President Trump for removing ACTING DNI Joe Maguire. Here is a sampling of McRaven's stupidity: ..."
"... Maguire's role as DNI was a temporary appointment. It was not permanent and was not submitted to the Senate as part of a confirmation process. He was a mere place holder. Yet McRaven and others in the anti-Trump crowd display their profound ignorance and insist, wrongly, that Trump fired Maguire. ..."
"... Guess what? Maguire's resignation coincides with the 210 day limit. ..."
"... Donald Trump is now on the offensive against a corrupt, dishonest intelligence and law enforcement community as well as their enablers in the festering establishment--the whole crowd is panicked. ..."
"... If there really was intelligence that Russia had embarked on a new, more expansive round of meddling then that intelligence should have been briefed to the President as part of Presidential Daily Briefing. But that has not taken place. Trump's National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien says pointedly that he has seen no intelligence to substantiate The NY Times report. NONE : ..."
"... "I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien, who was appointed by Trump to the post in September, said in an ABC News interview to be broadcast on Sunday. ..."
"... "Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called "The Resistance," and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration. Now, "resistance" is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes -- It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous -- and indeed incendiary -- notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the "loyal opposition," as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government." ..."
"... Now don't go troubling yourself, Admiral, over finding a reason why people outside your beltway circle don't give a rat's ass about you and your pals getting disrespected. It's been a long time coming, a very long time, but ya'll have earned in spades the right to be ignored. Get used to it. Fool us for a year, for two years, three... but for eighteen years??? Sorry Admiral. Stop whining. ..."
"... Caity Johnstone has written a parody piece in which the intelligence community labels every candidate other than Buttigieg to be a Secret Russian Agent. ..."
The Russia Interference Hoax--Deja Vu All Over Again by Larry C Johnson
Admiral Bill McRaven is proving himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Yes, I'm calling a so-called military hero a clown. He
is out today with a despicable op-ed attacking President Trump for removing ACTING DNI Joe Maguire. Here is a sampling of McRaven's
stupidity:
Edmund Burke, the Irish statesman and philosopher,
once said
: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Over the course of the past three years, I have
watched good men and women, friends of mine, come and go in the Trump administration -- all trying to do something -- all trying
to do their best. Jim Mattis, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, Sue Gordon, Dan Coats and, now, Joe Maguire, who until this week was the
acting director of national intelligence. . . .
But, of course, in this administration, good men and women don't last long. Joe was dismissed for doing his job: overseeing the
dissemination of intelligence to elected officials who needed that information to do their jobs. As Americans, we should be frightened
-- deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When good men and women can't speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity
and character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than national security -- then there
is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.
Bill, you are wrong as you can be. Are you too damn lazy to do some simple reading and research?
Maguire's role as DNI was a temporary appointment. It was not permanent and was not submitted to the Senate as part of a confirmation
process. He was a mere place holder. Yet McRaven and others in the anti-Trump crowd display their profound ignorance and insist,
wrongly, that Trump fired Maguire.
Here is the dishonest NY Times spin:
On Wednesday, the president announced that he was replacing Mr. Maguire with Richard Grenell, the ambassador to Germany and an
aggressively vocal Trump supporter. And though some current and former officials speculated that the briefing might have played a
role in that move, two administration officials said the timing was coincidental. Mr. Grenell had been in discussions with the administration
about taking on new roles, they said, and Mr. Trump had never felt a kinship with Mr. Maguire.
Once a vacancy occurs, the position is eligible to be filled by an acting officer for 210 days from the date of the vacancy, as
well as any time when a nomination is pending before the Senate.
Guess what? Maguire's resignation coincides with the 210 day limit.
Facts do not matter to the anti-Trumpers. Remember all of the hysteria surround Attorney General Barr's legitimate and proper
submission of a RECOMMENDATION for reduced sentencing in the case of Roger Stone. The media and punditry reacted as if Barr was calling
for the mass extermination of physically handicapped children. Hardly any took time to note that Barr's "RECOMMENDATION" was just
that--a recommendation. Nothing Barr said or wrote could compel or coerce Judge Berman to act according to Barr's wishes. And guess
what? Judge Berman decided that Barr was right. The key point being that, SHE DECIDED. Not Barr.
Donald Trump is now on the offensive against a corrupt, dishonest intelligence and law enforcement community as well as their
enablers in the festering establishment--the whole crowd is panicked.
The faux outrage over Trump replacing Maguire is just one indicator of this fear. Another is the fact that we are once again being
bombarded with the recycled propaganda that Russia meddled in our 2016 election and is poised to do the same in 2020. What next?
Resurrect Jussie Smollet and hire a group of pretend rednecks to stage another faux attack on him during the night on the wintry
streets of Chicago?
Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President
Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that
Democrats would use it against him.
The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, the president berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national
intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump was particularly irritated that Representative
Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the leader of the impeachment proceedings, was at the briefing.
During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump's allies challenged the conclusions, arguing that he had been
tough on Russia and that he had strengthened European security.
Just another scurrilous lie. Pure propaganda being spun for the sole purpose of smearing Trump and tainting his election. The
real truth is that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is doing less "meddling" in our elections than did his predecessors. We meddled
in their elections and domestic politics going back to the end of World War II. Meddling is a natural consequence of having professional
intelligence services like the CIA, the FSB, the GRU, the DIA, etc. Another uncomfortable fact is that social media makes it more
difficult for the traditional intelligence actors to interfere in politics. Michael Bloomberg's spending in the 2020 Democrat primary
dwarfs all efforts to control the social media message. Yet, there are limits to the effectiveness of such "meddling."
If there really was intelligence that Russia had embarked on a new, more expansive round of meddling then that intelligence
should have been briefed to the President as part of Presidential Daily Briefing. But that has not taken place. Trump's National
Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien says pointedly that he has seen no intelligence to substantiate The NY Times report.
NONE :
"I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien,
who was appointed by Trump to the post in September, said in an ABC News interview to be broadcast on Sunday.
"I have not seen that, and I get pretty good access," he said, according to excerpts released on Saturday.
Another meme in the latest propaganda push by deranged Democrats and discredited media is to portray Maguire's temporary replacement,
Ambassador Richard Grenell, as some sort of ignorant, unqualified political hack.
"The President has selected an individual without any intelligence experience to serve as the leader of the nation's intelligence
community in an acting capacity. This is the second acting director the President has named to the role since the resignation of
Dan Coats, apparently in an effort to sidestep the Senate's constitutional authority to advise and consent on such critical national
security positions, and flouting the clear intent of Congress when it established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
in 2004.
"The intelligence community deserves stability and an experienced individual to lead them in a time of massive national and global
security challenges. And at a time when the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice has been called into grave question,
now more than ever our country needs a Senate-confirmed intelligence director who will provide the best intelligence and analysis,
regardless of whether or not it's expedient for the President who has appointed him.
Warner conveniently forgets that Trump named Dan Coats as DNI and the Senate, along with Warner's vote, approved him. Coats had
trouble spelling CIA and DNI. He was completely unqualified for the position, yet the Senate rolled over for him with barely a whimper.
How about the first DNI? Ambassador John Negroponte was
not an intelligence professional. He was career Foreign Service.
Ambassador Grenell has experience comparable to Negroponte's. Grenell has dealt with all elements of the intelligence community
during his tenure working within the realm of the U.S. foreign service. The good news is that Grenell is now on the job as DNI and
is starting to clean house. This should have been done four years ago. The DNI, like many other parts of the bureaucracy, is infested
with anti-Trump haters doing their best to sabotage his Presidency.
Robert O'Brien has cleaned out the NSC. There are a lot of empty desks there now. And persons through out the National Security
bureacracy, including DOD and CIA, are being emptied. This is a prelude. When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments
expect the screaming to intensify.
"When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments....."
Larry, it looks like you have a lot of confidence in Durham. What gives you this confidence? The actions of the DOJ to date
should make people skeptical that they'll prosecute their own leadership.
If Barr and Durham were going to play ball with the Deep Staters and the anti-Trumpers they would not be attacked as is happening.
The hysterical over wrought accusations leveled at Barr last week are merely a symptom of the fear seizing these seditionists.
Americans still retain their keen sense of fair play. Nothing wrong with wanting to be surrounded by those loyal to the elected
President.
It is the President's duty to the office itself to demand those appointed also be competent and act with integrity. The President
pays the price if they do not.
- on an English blog in order to underline some parallels between the parliamentary crisis in England last year and the very
similar constitutional crisis in the US. But there's a lot more to the lecture than that -
"Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called "The Resistance," and they rallied
around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration.
Now, "resistance" is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously
connotes -- It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous -- and indeed incendiary --
notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the "loyal
opposition," as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a
war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government."
That, together with some penetrating remarks about the difference between Progressive and Conservative - and making it amply
clear how destructive Progressivism was - was perhaps more than William Barr merely setting out his stall. It was a declaration
of intent and if it's held to then we may expect some dramatic results.
So I'm not surprised the Democrats are attacking him. The wonder is that they're not tearing him limb from limb.
Chris Murphy - the dolt from CT - on TV whining about Grenell being unqualified and a Trump loyalist. This is the same stooge
who just met with the Iranian Foreign Minister (and a head of hair looking for a brain John Kerrey) in Munich.
Admiral McRaven and his gumba Pentagon bureaucrats should be doing a little belly button gazing to determine how after 2 decades
they've managed with considerable sturm und drang to win nothing but have succeeded magnificently in piloting the
country into Cold War II with a real adversary.
Well done, Admiral!
Now don't go troubling yourself, Admiral, over finding a reason why people outside your beltway circle don't give a rat's
ass about you and your pals getting disrespected. It's been a long time coming, a very long time, but ya'll have earned in spades
the right to be ignored. Get used to it. Fool us for a year, for two years, three... but for eighteen years??? Sorry Admiral.
Stop whining.
You mean all those VERY important people - dressed like doormen -who haven't won a war since WWII? BTW, Gulf Storm
doesn't count - you'd probably get more fight back from the NY State Troopers.
These politicians in uniform know all about "diversity", pissing away LOTS of money, transgenders, sucking up and especially
landing Beltway bandit contracts. Fighting, not so much.
Note, I'm referring to the General Officer ranks, not actual troops.
I assess with 100% certainty that this fake scandal was contrived to coincide with the end of this Maguire's "service". Indeed,
all of this time he has been acting as an agent of the Borg, only chucking this stinkbomb as his last, spiteful act. Contemptible.
Caity Johnstone has written a parody piece in which the intelligence community labels every candidate other than Buttigieg
to be a Secret Russian Agent.
Unless someone in the DNC or numerous affiliates can come up with an actual Russian, this kind of hoax will begin to be be seen
as dated.
However, with the Weinstein conviction, the MeToo movement will get new life and a wave of similar high profile pursuits
will begin.
Undoubtedly this will include one DJT, featuring accusers going back to the 1960's in a orchestrated 24/7 chorus of unproven
horror that they hope will succeed where Mueller and Schiff et al have failed.
Who knows, perhaps one accuser (two for corroboration) will even allege some vague Russian presence.
So a democratic megadoner is convicted of multiple accounts of sexual assault and surprise! Others in the moral cesspool that
is Hollywood won't be brought to "justice", social or otherwise but we'll see Stormy Daniels 2.0. Except her lawyer's already
in jail. The left better come up with something better than that.
How about Epstein and his pals? That would be a good start. However nothing will happen on that since too many powerful people
would likely be ensnared like Billy Clinton and a British prince.
The Russia Interference Hoax--Deja Vu All Over Again by Larry C Johnson
Admiral Bill McRaven is proving himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Yes, I'm calling a
so-called military hero a clown. He is out today with a despicable op-ed attacking President
Trump for removing ACTING DNI Joe Maguire. Here is a sampling of McRaven's stupidity:
Edmund Burke, the Irish statesman and philosopher, once
said : "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Over the course of the past three years, I have watched good men and women, friends of mine,
come and go in the Trump administration -- all trying to do something -- all trying to do their
best. Jim Mattis, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, Sue Gordon, Dan Coats and, now, Joe Maguire, who
until this week was the acting director of national intelligence. . . .
But, of course, in
this administration, good men and women don't last long. Joe was dismissed for doing his job:
overseeing the
dissemination of intelligence to elected officials who needed that information to do their
jobs. As Americans, we should be frightened -- deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When
good men and women can't speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and
character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than
national security -- then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.
Bill, you are wrong as you can be. Are you too damn lazy to do some simple reading and
research?
Maguire's role as DNI was a temporary appointment. It was not permanent and was
not submitted to the Senate as part of a confirmation process. He was a mere place holder. Yet
McRaven and others in the anti-Trump crowd display their profound ignorance and insist,
wrongly, that Trump fired Maguire.
Here is the dishonest NY Times spin:
On Wednesday, the president announced that he was replacing Mr. Maguire with Richard
Grenell, the ambassador to Germany and an aggressively vocal Trump supporter. And though some
current and former officials speculated that the briefing might have played a role in that
move, two administration officials said the timing was coincidental. Mr. Grenell had been in
discussions with the administration about taking on new roles, they said, and Mr. Trump had
never felt a kinship with Mr. Maguire.
Once a vacancy occurs, the position is eligible to be filled by an acting officer for 210
days from the date of the vacancy, as well as any time when a nomination is pending before the
Senate.
Guess what? Maguire's resignation coincides with the 210 day limit.
Facts do not matter to the anti-Trumpers. Remember all of the hysteria surround Attorney
General Barr's legitimate and proper submission of a RECOMMENDATION for reduced sentencing in
the case of Roger Stone. The media and punditry reacted as if Barr was calling for the mass
extermination of physically handicapped children. Hardly any took time to note that Barr's
"RECOMMENDATION" was just that--a recommendation. Nothing Barr said or wrote could compel or
coerce Judge Berman to act according to Barr's wishes. And guess what? Judge Berman decided
that Barr was right. The key point being that, SHE DECIDED. Not Barr.
Donald Trump is now on the offensive against a corrupt, dishonest intelligence and law
enforcement community as well as their enablers in the festering establishment--the whole crowd
is panicked.
The faux outrage over Trump replacing Maguire is just one indicator of this fear. Another is
the fact that we are once again being bombarded with the recycled propaganda that Russia
meddled in our 2016 election and is poised to do the same in 2020. What next? Resurrect Jussie
Smollet and hire a group of pretend rednecks to stage another faux attack on him during the
night on the wintry streets of Chicago?
Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the
2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter
said, a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use
it against him.
The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, the president berated Joseph Maguire, the
outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people
familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump was particularly irritated that Representative Adam
B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the leader of the impeachment proceedings, was at the
briefing.
During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump's allies challenged the
conclusions, arguing that he had been tough on Russia and that he had strengthened European
security.
Just another scurrilous lie. Pure propaganda being spun for the sole purpose of smearing
Trump and tainting his election. The real truth is that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is doing
less "meddling" in our elections than did his predecessors. We meddled in their elections and
domestic politics going back to the end of World War II. Meddling is a natural consequence of
having professional intelligence services like the CIA, the FSB, the GRU, the DIA, etc. Another
uncomfortable fact is that social media makes it more difficult for the traditional
intelligence actors to interfere in politics. Michael Bloomberg's spending in the 2020 Democrat
primary dwarfs all efforts to control the social media message. Yet, there are limits to the
effectiveness of such "meddling."
If there really was intelligence that Russia had embarked on a new, more expansive round of
meddling then that intelligence should have been briefed to the President as part of
Presidential Daily Briefing. But that has not taken place. Trump's National Security Advisor,
Robert O'Brien says pointedly that he has seen no intelligence to substantiate The NY Times
report.
NONE :
"I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President
Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien, who was appointed by Trump to the post in September, said in
an ABC News interview to be broadcast on Sunday.
"I have not seen that, and I get pretty
good access," he said, according to excerpts released on Saturday.
Another meme in the latest propaganda push by deranged Democrats and discredited media is to
portray Maguire's temporary replacement, Ambassador Richard Grenell, as some sort of ignorant,
unqualified political hack.
"The President has selected an individual without any intelligence experience to serve as
the leader of the nation's intelligence community in an acting capacity. This is the second
acting director the President has named to the role since the resignation of Dan Coats,
apparently in an effort to sidestep the Senate's constitutional authority to advise and consent
on such critical national security positions, and flouting the clear intent of Congress when it
established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in 2004.
"The intelligence community deserves stability and an experienced individual to lead them in
a time of massive national and global security challenges. And at a time when the integrity and
independence of the Department of Justice has been called into grave question, now more than
ever our country needs a Senate-confirmed intelligence director who will provide the best
intelligence and analysis, regardless of whether or not it's expedient for the President who
has appointed him.
Warner conveniently forgets that Trump named Dan Coats as DNI and the Senate, along with
Warner's vote, approved him. Coats had trouble spelling CIA and DNI. He was completely
unqualified for the position, yet the Senate rolled over for him with barely a whimper. How
about the first DNI? Ambassador John Negroponte was not an intelligence
professional. He was career Foreign Service.
Ambassador Grenell has experience comparable to Negroponte's. Grenell has dealt with all
elements of the intelligence community during his tenure working within the realm of the U.S.
foreign service. The good news is that Grenell is now on the job as DNI and is starting to
clean house. This should have been done four years ago. The DNI, like many other parts of the
bureaucracy, is infested with anti-Trump haters doing their best to sabotage his
Presidency.
Robert O'Brien has cleaned out the NSC. There are a lot of empty desks there now. And
persons through out the National Security bureacracy, including DOD and CIA, are being emptied.
This is a prelude. When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments expect the screaming
to intensify.
"When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments....."
Larry, it looks like you have a lot of confidence in Durham. What gives you this
confidence? The actions of the DOJ to date should make people skeptical that they'll
prosecute their own leadership.
If Barr and Durham were going to play ball with the Deep Staters and the anti-Trumpers they
would not be attacked as is happening. The hysterical over wrought accusations leveled at
Barr last week are merely a symptom of the fear seizing these seditionists.
Americans still retain their keen sense of fair play. Nothing wrong with wanting to be
surrounded by those loyal to the elected President.
It is the President's duty to the office itself to demand those appointed also be
competent and act with integrity. The President pays the price if they do not.
- on an English blog in order to underline some parallels between the parliamentary crisis
in England last year and the very similar constitutional crisis in the US. But there's a lot
more to the lecture than that -
"Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called
"The Resistance," and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and
maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration. Now,
"resistance" is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying
military power. It obviously connotes -- It obviously connotes that the government is not
legitimate. This is a very dangerous -- and indeed incendiary -- notion to import into the
politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as
the "loyal opposition," as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years,
they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a
duly elected government."
That, together with some penetrating remarks about the difference between Progressive and
Conservative - and making it amply clear how destructive Progressivism was - was perhaps more
than William Barr merely setting out his stall. It was a declaration of intent and if it's
held to then we may expect some dramatic results.
So I'm not surprised the Democrats are attacking him. The wonder is that they're not
tearing him limb from limb.
Chris Murphy - the dolt from CT - on TV whining about Grenell being unqualified and a Trump
loyalist.
This is the same stooge who just met with the Iranian Foreign Minister (and a head of hair
looking for a brain John Kerrey) in Munich.
Admiral McRaven and his gumba Pentagon bureaucrats should be doing a little belly button
gazing to determine how after 2 decades they've managed with considerable sturm und drang to
win nothing but have succeeded magnificently in piloting the country into Cold War II with a
real adversary.
Well done, Admiral!
Now don't go troubling yourself, Admiral, over finding a reason why people outside your
beltway circle don't give a rat's ass about you and your pals getting disrespected. It's been
a long time coming, a very long time, but ya'll have earned in spades the right to be
ignored. Get used to it. Fool us for a year, for two years, three... but for eighteen
years??? Sorry Admiral. Stop whining.
You mean all those VERY important people - dressed like doormen -who haven't won a war since
WWII?
BTW, Gulf Storm doesn't count - you'd probably get more fight back from the NY State
Troopers.
These politicians in uniform know all about "diversity", pissing away LOTS of money,
transgenders, sucking up and especially landing Beltway bandit contracts.
Fighting, not so much.
Note, I'm referring to the General Officer ranks, not actual troops.
I assess with 100% certainty that this fake scandal was contrived to coincide with the end of
this Maguire's "service". Indeed, all of this time he has been acting as an agent of the
Borg, only chucking this stinkbomb as his last, spiteful act. Contemptible.
Caity Johnstone has written a parody piece in which the intelligence community labels every
candidate other than Buttigieg to be a Secret Russian Agent.
Unless someone in the DNC or numerous affiliates can come up with an actual Russian, this
kind of hoax will begin to be be seen as dated.
However, with the Weinstein conviction, the MeToo movement will get new life and a wave of
similar high profile pursuits will begin.
Undoubtedly this will include one DJT, featuring
accusers going back to the 1960's in a orchestrated 24/7 chorus of unproven horror that they
hope will succeed where Mueller and Schiff et al have failed.
Who knows, perhaps one accuser (two for corroboration) will even allege some vague Russian
presence.
So a democratic megadoner is convicted of multiple accounts of sexual assault and
surprise! Others in the moral cesspool that is Hollywood won't be brought to "justice",
social or otherwise but we'll see Stormy Daniels 2.0. Except her lawyer's already in jail.
The left better come up with something better than that.
How about Epstein and his pals? That would be a good start. However nothing will happen on
that since too many powerful people would likely be ensnared like Billy Clinton and a British
prince.
Instead of settling on charges that relate to statutory crimes, with clear, concrete criteria, the Democrats have released
two articles of impeachment in which the misconduct exists largely in the eye of the beholder. Instead of settling on charges that
relate to statutory crimes, with clear, concrete criteria, the Democrats have instead released two articles of impeachment in which
the misconduct exists largely in the eye of the beholder.
First, Congress chose not to include articles of impeachment based on the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses. Democratic
members of Congress have long alleged that President Trump is illegally profiting from his business entities that cater to foreign
and state governments. Indeed, more than 200 members of Congress have sued the president in federal court, arguing that his conduct
is unconstitutional. (I have filed a series of amicus briefs arguing
that Trump's conduct amounts to poor policy, but is lawful.) Yet, the House has not even held a hearing on these once obscure provisions
of the Constitution. It would have been very difficult to make the case for impeachment based on a nonexistent record. ... ... ...
...What exactly is an abuse of power? The term is not defined in the Constitution, and indeed it resists a simple definition.
This is a crime that exists in a person's subjective judgment: One person's abuse of power is another's diplomacy.
...The House issued subpoenas to the Trump administration to assist its impeachment inquiry. In turn, the Trump administration
categorically refused to comply with all of those subpoenas. The House of Representatives then asked the courts to enforce those
subpoenas. And the Trump administration asserted various privileges, mirroring arguments they have made in prior court cases. That
litigation proceeds separately. But now the House contends that Trump's refusal to comply with the subpoenas is itself an impeachable
act. Is that theory correct? Trump will likely counter that asserting a privilege in lieu of responding to a subpoena is a well-worn
executive practice, not grounds for removal. Who is right? The Senate will decide.
The Senate is heading into uncharted territory. ... any president who refuses to comply with what he sees as an improper investigation
can be charged with "obstruction of Congress." This one-two punch can be drafted with far greater ease than were the articles of
impeachment presented against Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, or Bill Clinton.
...the predicates of the Trump articles will set a dangerous precedent, as impeachment might become -- regrettably -- a common,
quadrennial feature of our polity.
"... It was a mind-numbing spectacle, devoid of morality and ethics, the kind of political theater that characterizes despotic regimes. No one in the House chamber was protecting the Constitution. No one was seeking to hold accountable those who had violated it. No one was fighting to restore the rule of law. The two parties, which have shredded constitutional protections and rights and sold the political process to the highest bidders, have engaged in egregious constitutional violations for years and ignored them when they were made public. Moral stances have a cost, but almost no one in Congress seems willing to pay. Trying to tar Trump as a Russian agent failed. Now the Democrats hope to discredit him with charges of abuse of power and contempt of Congress. ..."
"... The politicization of the impeachment process has only exacerbated the antagonisms and polarization in the country. It has, ironically, increased support for Trump, who in this toxic environment may well be reelected. His approval rating has jumped to 45 percent, up from 39 percent when the impeachment inquiry was launched, according to the latest Gallup survey , conducted from Dec. 2 to Dec. 15. This is the third consecutive increase in Trump's approval rating. Among Republicans, Trump has a job approval rating of 89%, almost nine in 10 in the GOP. Fifty-one percent of Americans oppose impeachment and removal, up five percentage points since the House inquiry began, Gallup reports. ..."
The impeachment process was a nauseating display of moral hypocrisy. The sound bites by Republicans and Democrats swiftly became
predictable. The Democrats, despite applauding the announcement of the voting results before being quickly silenced by House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi, sought to cloak themselves in gravitas and solemnity. Pelosi's calculated decision to open the impeachment proceedings
with the 1954 "under God" version of the Pledge of Allegiance was an appropriate signal given the party's New McCarthyism. The Democrats
posited themselves as saviors, the last line of defense between a constitutional democracy and tyranny. The Republicans, as cloyingly
sanctimonious as the Democrats, offered up ludicrous analogies to attack what they condemned as a show trial, including Rep. Barry
Loudermilk's statement that "Pontius Pilate afforded more rights to Jesus than the Democrats have afforded to this president." The
Republicans shamelessly prostrated themselves throughout the 10-hour process at the feet of their cult leader Donald Trump, offering
abject and eternal fealty. They angrily accused the Democrats of seeking to overturn the 2016 election in a legislative coup.
It was a mind-numbing spectacle, devoid of morality and ethics, the kind of political theater that characterizes despotic regimes.
No one in the House chamber was protecting the Constitution. No one was seeking to hold accountable those who had violated it. No
one was fighting to restore the rule of law. The two parties, which have shredded constitutional protections and rights and sold
the political process to the highest bidders, have engaged in egregious constitutional violations for years and ignored them when
they were made public. Moral stances have a cost, but almost no one in Congress seems willing to pay. Trying to tar Trump as a Russian
agent failed. Now the Democrats hope to discredit him with charges of abuse of power and contempt of Congress.
The politicization of the impeachment process has only exacerbated the antagonisms and polarization in the country. It has, ironically,
increased support for Trump, who in this toxic environment may well be reelected. His approval rating has jumped to 45 percent, up
from 39 percent when the impeachment inquiry was launched, according to the latest
Gallup survey
, conducted from Dec. 2 to Dec. 15. This is the third consecutive increase in Trump's approval rating. Among Republicans, Trump
has a job approval rating of 89%, almost nine in 10 in the GOP. Fifty-one percent of Americans oppose impeachment and removal, up
five percentage points since the House inquiry began, Gallup reports.
Yes, Trump's contempt of Congress and attempt to get Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, to open an investigation of
Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in exchange for almost $400 million in U.S. military aid and allowing Zelensky to visit the White
House are impeachable offenses, but trivial and minor ones compared with the constitutional violations that the two parties have
institutionalized and, I fear, made permanent. These sustained, bipartisan constitutional violations -- not Trump -- resulted in
the failure of our democracy. Trump is the pus coming out of the wound.
If the Democrats and the Republicans were committed to defending the Constitution why didn't they impeach George W. Bush when
he launched two illegal wars that were never declared by Congress as demanded by the Constitution? Why didn't they impeach Bush when
he authorized placing the entire U.S. public under government surveillance in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment? Why didn't
they impeach Bush when he authorized torture along with kidnapping terrorist suspects around the world and holding them for years
in our black sites and offshore penal colonies? Why didn't
they impeach Barack Obama when he expanded these illegal wars to 11, if we count Yemen? Why didn't they impeach Obama when Edward
Snowden revealed that our intelligence agencies are monitoring and spying on almost every citizen and downloading our data and metrics
into government computers where they will be stored for perpetuity? Why didn't they impeach Obama when he misused the 2002 Authorization
for Use of Military Force to erase due process and give the executive branch of government the right to act as judge, jury and executioner
in assassinating U.S. citizens, starting with the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and, two weeks later, his 16-year-old son? Why didn't
they impeach Obama when he signed into law Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, in effect overturning the 1878
Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military as a domestic police force?
There are other bipartisan constitutional violations, including violating treaty clauses that are supposed to be ratified by the
Senate, violating the Constitution by making appointments without seeking Senate confirmation, and the routine abusive use of executive
orders. But the two major political parties, salivating at the thought of wielding the king-like power that now comes with the presidency,
have no desire to curb these far more dangerous violations.
The selective use of the two violations to impeach Trump is a weaponization of the impeachment process. Should the Democrats take
control of the White House and the Republicans control of the Congress, impeachment, with or without merit, will become another form
of political pressure exerted within our dysfunctional and divided political system. The rule of law will be a pretense, as in the
current process of impeachment and Senate trial.
The impeachment circus, which will culminate in a preordained, choreographed and televised show in the Senate, coincided with
The Washington Post's release of what is being called the
Afghanistan Papers . The Post, through a three-year legal battle, obtained more than 2,000 pages of internal government documents
about the war. The papers detail bipartisan lies, fraud, deceit, corruption, waste and gross mismanagement during the 18-year conflict,
the longest in U.S. history. It is a blistering indictment of the ruling class, which, as the papers note, since 2001 has seen the
Defense Department, State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development spend or win appropriation of between $934 billion
and $978 billion, according to an inflation-adjusted estimate calculated by Neta Crawford, a political science professor and co-director
of the Costs of War Project at Brown University. "These figures," the Post adds, "do not include money spent by other agencies such
as the CIA and the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is responsible for medical care for wounded veterans." [
See Chris Hedges discuss the Afghanistan Papers with Spenser
Rapone, a West Point graduate who served as an Army Ranger in Afghanistan.]
This window into the inner workings of our bankrupt ruling elite, responsible for widespread destruction and the loss of tens,
perhaps hundreds, of thousands of lives in Afghanistan, was largely ignored by the media during the impeachment proceedings. Neither
political party, and none of their courtiers on the cable news shows, is interested in exposing the bipartisan failure, lying and
grotesque incompetence on the part of the United States in the years it has occupied Afghanistan. Afghan and U.S. officials concede
that the Taliban is stronger now than at any other time since the 2001 invasion.
In a functioning democracy, the publication of the Afghanistan Papers would see generals and politicians who knowingly deceived
the public hauled before congressional committees. The Fulbright hearings, during the Vietnam War, although they did not lead to
prosecutions, at least aggressively held U.S. officials to account and made public their duplicity and failure. But in the wake of
the new disclosures, no one in either political party or the military will be held accountable for the debacle in Afghanistan, a
conflict that saw a vast waste of resources, including nearly a trillion dollars that could have been used to address our pronounced
social inequality, rebuild our decaying infrastructure and help end our reliance on fossil fuels.
The Afghanistan Papers lay bare a truth the hyperventilating Republican and Democratic mandarins in Congress prefer to mask. On
all the major structural issues -- war, the economy, the use of militarized police and the world's largest prison system for social
control, the infusion of corporate money to deform the electoral and legislative processes, slashing taxes for the wealthy and corporations,
exploitative trade deals, austerity, the climate emergency and the rapidly accelerating government debt -- there is little or no
difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.
The political clashes are not substantive, despite what we heard in the impeachment hearings. They are rhetorical and largely
inconsequential. The Republicans and the Democrats recently passed a $738 billion defense bill for fiscal year 2020, a $21 billion
increase over what was enacted for fiscal year 2019. The vote was a lopsided 377 to 48. The U.S. spends more on its military than
the next 10 countries combined. Also, a day after the impeachment of President Trump, the Republicans and Democrats in the House
passed a thinly veiled rewrite of the Clinton administration's North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the 25-year-old free
trade agreement that hollowed out our manufacturing centers and sent U.S. jobs and production to Mexico. Again, the vote was lopsided,
385 to 41. When the wealthy and our corporate masters want something done, it gets done. Our elected officials serve them, not us.
We are to be controlled.
The Republican and Democratic politicians, like the generals, government bureaucrats and intelligence chiefs, once they leave
their government posts will be generously rewarded by being given jobs as lobbyists and consultants or being appointed to corporate
boards. These politicians are the mutant products of our system of legalized bribery,
shameless
kleptocrats . The only interests they serve are their own. This truth binds half the country to Trump, who although a con artist
and himself flagrantly corrupt, at least belittles and mocks the ruling elites who have betrayed us.
Trump and his supporters are not wrong in condemning the deep state -- the generals, bankers, corporatists, lobbyists, intelligence
chiefs, government bureaucrats and technocrats who oversee domestic and international policy no matter who is in power. The Afghanistan
Papers, while detailing the quagmire in Afghanistan -- where more than 775,000 Americans were deployed over the 18 years, more than
2,300 soldiers and Marines killed and more than 20,000 wounded -- also illustrate how seamlessly the two ruling parties and the deep
state work together.
"What did we get for this $1 trillion effort? Was it worth $1 trillion?" Jeffrey Eggers, a retired Navy SEAL and White House staffer
for Bush and Obama, is quoted as saying by The Washington Post. "After the killing of Osama bin Laden, I said that Osama was probably
laughing in his watery grave considering how much we have spent on Afghanistan."
The Post writes , "The documents also contradict a long chorus of public statements from U.S. presidents, military commanders
and diplomats who assured Americans year after year that they were making progress in Afghanistan and the war was worth fighting.
Several of those interviewed described explicit and sustained efforts by the U.S. government to deliberately mislead the public.
They said it was common at military headquarters in Kabul -- and at the White House -- to distort statistics to make it appear the
United States was winning the war when that was not the case."
"As commanders in chief, Bush, Obama and Trump all promised the public the same thing," the Post notes. "They would avoid falling
into the trap of 'nation-building' in Afghanistan. On that score, the presidents failed miserably. The United States has allocated
more than $133 billion to build up Afghanistan -- more than it spent, adjusted for inflation, to revive the whole of Western Europe
with the Marshall Plan after World War II."
There is no difference, the Afghanistan Papers make clear, in the mendacity and incompetence of the policymaking apparatus no
matter who controls Congress or the White House. No party or elected official dares defy the military-industrial complex or other
titans of the deep state. The Democrats through impeachment have no intention of restoring constitutional rights that would curb
the power of the deep state and protect democracy. The deep state funds them. It sustains them in office. The Democrats are seeking
to replace the inept and vulgar face of empire that is Trump with the benign and decorous face of empire that is Joe Biden. What
the Democrats, and the deep state that has allied itself with the Democratic Party, object to is the mask, not what is behind it.
If you doubt me, read the six-part series on Afghanistan in the Post.
Columnist Chris Hedges is a Truthdig columnist, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, a New York Times best-selling author, a professor
in the college degree program offered to New Jersey state prisoners by Rutgers
At the end of this essay, you may find a song which reasonably applies to Donald Trump
directed to Democrats.
How does one say Adam Schiff without laughing? It's hard to continue typing while
contemplating the Burbank Buffoon. Yet AS is making obscene flatus-like noises about
impeachment 2.0. He and Nervous Nancy will conspire with chief strategist Gerald Nadler about
extending the charges of 1.0 to 2.0.
Second verse
Same as the first
Obstructing leaking by firing leakers. That's one of the pending charges. Leutnant Oberst
Vindman will be help up as the innocent victim of political retaliation. As I understand the
military code of conduct, it says that the underling, Herr Oberst Vindman, went outside the
chain of command and released classified information. In the military this is called
insubordination, perhaps gross insubordination in view of the classified nature of the
information.
Another charge to be filed on behalf of former Ambassador Yovanovich, is that her God-given
Female rights were brutally violated as retaliation of advising Ukrainian officials to
disregard Commander Cheeto.
There is no telling what additional non-crimes may be thrown at the feet at El Trumpo. All
too horrible to contemplate--like someone throwing feces-contaminated dope needles onto Nervous
Nancy's front lawn in Pacific Heights.
If this Shampeachment 2.0 (S2) occurs before November's election, Democrats will become as
rare as dodo birds. If such proponents of S2 persist after the general election, they better
have secure transportation to an extradition-free country.
If it gets bad enough, considering the Clinton Mafia's body count, would it be unreasonable
to expect some untimely heart attacks and suicides with red scarves? On Clintonites? Soros et
al.?
When the first shot and you don't kill the king, flee. But the DNC is going to attempt shot
number 2. Trump WILL NEVER ALLOW A SECOND IMPEACHMENT TO OCCUR, no matter how patently
worthless? Will the most powerful narcissist in the world allow the DNC / coup perpetrators to
escaping Trumpian retribution?
Those doubting the Wrath of Q be prepared to be disabused of the impression that Q is pure
fantasy. Fantasy--like GPS targeting a single small sniper drone to shoot someone from 3000
feet.
Sorry folks. I live in a swamp. I've stepped in shit with my eyes open. Many of you have
too. Some of the excrement was of my own making.
Think about the singularly most effective and complex plot the world has ever seen, called
9/11. Think of the thousands of lives purposefully snuffed in then name of power and money.
Call yourselves serfs--that's a euphemism. You--including me-- are nothing but ants. Goddam
little ants that only Janes respect. There are no ascetic Janes in the penthouses of the
elites.
But I digressed to the mysterious existence of morality in politics as a whole. Today's
topic is more confined to the Democratic nomination.
Statement of Bias: Go Tulsi. Bravo Andy. The rest of you to the elsewhere--yeah, BS too.
The Dems are determined to grasp Defeat from the jaws of Defeat. Quite a trick. Like trying
to borrow money from the Judge during a Bankruptcy trial.
I talked today with a freshman college student majoring in political science about her
thought about the Shampeachment. She hadn't been paying attention. Not that I blame her. Her
college freshman friend watched C-Span; wasn't impressed. We political aficionados know all
about this political debauchery. If AS and NN attempt S2, expect many defections from the
supporting vote.
Democrat respect has dwindled in the Independent sector. This is not to say the Repugnants
are thereby more popular. They aren't. Trump is. Trump need that NH clown to challenge him in
the Repugnant primary to prove exactly how powerful he is. Anybody notice who were in the
audience, sitting nearby during Trump's post acquittal speech. Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham.
The lamb and the lion laying together. They are both on the Trump Train. Even Richard Burr
voted Trump in the impeachment. Mittens feared both his cojones would be excised if he voted
against Trump on both counts. What a chickenheart.
But where are the Dems? Why, they are Here. Yes. Yes. And they are There. Yes. Yes. And they
are Near. Yes. Yes. But....they are Far. Whither thou goest?
I refrain from pointed comments about AOC in further comments. The Squad is the iceberg
floating away from the glacier which spawned it. Unsuitable to warm weather produced by
political combat, the Squad faction will woke themselves up to dubious futures.
Establishment versus Bernie:
Not a contest. Spineless Bernie pretzelizes during first heated combat (which the Dem Debate
Debacles were not). Won't take a second punch--the first during night 3 of the '16 DNC
convention. Fist-shy now. Open Borders? WTF? Are you so nuts? If one offered a person the
choice personal safety in their own homes and streets and free medical care for all--including
the criminal aliens that A New Path Forward proposes--what do you think 85% of the public would
choose?
Pandering.
The Left is also pushing strenuous avoidance of discussing issues in a platitude-depleted
fashion. Yeah, Bernie's giving the same speech, with suitable modification, over 40 years.
Consistency is a good thing, yeh? How about persistently beating your head with a hammer (while
you still can)? Sounds like something Sun Tzu might not recommend.
Now, speaking of Las Vegas and the Nevada Primary. The culinary workers union will not
endorse Bernie due to well-deserved or ill-deserved claims that M4A will abolish hard won union
health benefits. And don't worry, the Shadow will be there, although Buttjiggle has now
disavowed any further connection, along with David Plouffe.
Keeping the Bern off the campaign trail is going to infuriate the Woke Generation / Antifa.
When--not if--the DNC cheats Bernie out of the nomination, if such proves necessary* will
literally result in blood on the streets along with broken windows and flaming tires. Associate
with that lot, eh? Given the choice of going into a biker bar, where brawls are always on the
menu, or a discreet wine bar, which would one rather choose? Sorry, those are your only
choices.
Nancy Pelosi, impressed by Arnold Schwarzenegger's former physical prowess, tears up her
copy of the state of the union address. How decorous. How courteous. How polite. Seen around
the world. Nigel Farage must be laughing his butt off, thinking about the shallow anti-Brexit
campaigns against his were compared to our Coup. Nigel won. Trump . is. winning. Getting tired
of winning yet?
I could go on for pages more of Dem stupidity, but why bother? Stupidity surrounds us.
Betting odds: DNC 1,999,999 to Bernie 1.
Place your bets.
For all the good it will do and I am sincere about this, I will vote Tulsi in the Dem
primary.
Here is the song Dems need to heed. This is Donald Trump telling' y'all I'M NOT YOUR MAN
"... It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die. ..."
"... It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS. ..."
Admittedly the news cycle in the United States seldom runs longer than twenty-four hours, but that should not serve as an excuse
when a major story that contradicts what the Trump Administration has been claiming appears and suddenly dies. The public that actually
follows the news might recall a little more than one month ago the United States assassinated a senior Iranian official named Qassem
Soleimani. Openly killing someone in the government of a country with which one is not at war is, to say the least, unusual, particularly
when the crime is carried out in yet another country with which both the perpetrator and the victim have friendly relations. The
justification provided by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking for the administration, was that Soleimani was in Iraq planning
an "imminent" mass killing of Americans, for which no additional evidence was provided at that time or since.
It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that
might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently
knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani
to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent
threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die.
The incident that started the killing cycle
that eventually included Soleimani consisted of a December 27th attack on a US base in Iraq in which four American soldiers and two
Iraqis were wounded while one US contractor, an Iraqi-born translator, was killed. The United States immediately blamed Iran, claiming
that it had been carried out by an Iranian supported Shi'ite militia called Kata'ib Hezbollah. It provided no evidence for that claim
and retaliated by striking a Kata'ib base, killing 25 Iraqis who were in the field fighting the remnants of Islamic State (IS). The
militiamen had been incorporated into the Iraqi Army and this disproportionate response led to riots outside the US Embassy in Baghdad,
which were also blamed on Iran by the US There then followed the assassinations of Soleimani and nine senior Iraqi militia officers.
Iran retaliated when it fired missiles
at American forces , injuring more than one hundred soldiers, and then mistakenly
shot down a passenger
jet , killing an additional 176 people. As a consequence due to the killing by the US of 34 Iraqis in the two incidents, the
Iraqi Parliament also
voted to expel
all American troops.
It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out
by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic
State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack
took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni
IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS.
This new development was reported in the New York Times in
an article that was
headlined "Was US Wrong About Attack That Nearly Started a War With Iran? Iraqi military and intelligence officials have raised
doubts about who fired the rockets that started a dangerous spiral of events." In spite of the sensational nature of the report it
generally was ignored in television news and in other mainstream media outlets, letting the Trump administration get away with yet
another big lie, one that could easily have led to a war with Iran.
Iraqi investigators found and identified the abandoned white Kia pickup with an improvised Katyusha rocket launcher in the vehicle's
bed that was used to stage the attack. It was discovered down a desert road within range of the K-1 joint Iraqi-American base that
was hit by at least ten missiles in December, most of which struck the American area.
There is no direct evidence tying the attack to any particular party and the improvised KIA truck is used by all sides in the
regional fighting, but the Iraqi officials point to the undisputed fact that it was the Islamic State that had carried out three
separate attacks near the base over the 10 days preceding December 27th. And there are reports that IS has been increasingly active
in Kirkuk Province during the past year, carrying out near daily attacks with improvised roadside bombs and ambushes using small
arms. There had, in fact, been reports from Iraqi intelligence that were shared with the American command warning that there might
be an IS attack on K-1 itself, which is an Iraqi air base in that is shared with US forces.
The intelligence on the attack has been shared with American investigators, who have also examined the pick-up truck. The Times
reports that the US command in Iraq continue to insist that the attack was carried out by Kata'ib based on information, including
claimed communications intercepts, that it refuses to make public. The US forces may not have shared the intelligence they have with
the Iraqis due to concerns that it would be leaked to Iran, but senior Iraqi military officers are nevertheless perplexed by the
reticence to confide in an ally.
If the Iraqi investigation of the facts around the December attack on K-1 is reliable, the Donald Trump administration's reckless
actions in Iraq in late December and early January cannot be justified. Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking
for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted
in a war that would benefit no one. To be sure, the Trump administration has lied about developments in the Middle East so many times
that it can no longer be trusted. Unfortunately, demanding any accountability from the Trump team would require a Congress that is
willing to shoulder its responsibility for truth in government backed up by
a media that is willing to take on an administration that regularly punishes anyone or any entity that dares to challenge it
Well, the 9/11 Commission lied about Israeli involvement, Israeli neocons lied America into Iraq, and Netanyahu lied about Iranian
nukes, so this latest news is just par for the course.
Pompeo had evidence of immediate catastrophic attack. That turned out to be a lie and plain BS.
Why should we believe Pompeo or White House or intelligence about the situation developing around 27-29 Dec ? Is it because it's
USA who is saying so?
[it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind
of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.]
The Jewish mafia stooge and fifth column, Trump, is a war criminal and an ASSASSIN.
Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official
to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.
Soleimani was a soldier involved in covert operations, Iran's most celebrated hero, and had been featured in the Iraq media
as the target of multiple Western assassination attempts. He did not have diplomatic status.
As it happens Iran did not declare war on America and America did not declare war on Iran. If Americans soldiers killed in
Iraq should not have been there in the first place, then the same goes for an Iranian soldier killed there too.
@04398436986 There is western assertion and western assertion only that Iran influences Iraqi administration and intelligence
. It can be a projection from a failing America . It can be also a valid possibility .
But lying is America's alter ego . It comes easily and as default explanation even when admitting truth would do a better job
.
Now let's focus on ISIS 's claims . Why is Ametica not taking it ( claim of ISIS) as truth and fact when USA has for last 19
years has jailed , bombed, attacked mentally retarded , caves and countries because somebody has pledged allegiance to Al Quida
or to ISIS!!!
It seems neither truth nor lies , but what suits a particular psychopath at a particular time – that becomes USA's report (
kind of unassigned sex – neither truth nor lies – take your pick and find the toilet to flush it down memory hole) – so Pompeo
lies to nation hoping no one in administration will ask . When administrative staff gets interested to know the truth , Pompeo
tells them to suck it up , move on and get ready to explain the next batch of reality manufactured by a regime and well trained
by philosopher Karl Rove
To what "conspiracy" are you referring? It's a well established fact that your ilk was, at the very least, aware that the 9/11
attacks would occur and celebrated them in broad daylight. No conspiracy theory needed. Mossad ordnance experts were living practically
next door to the hijackers. Well established fact.
It's also undeniable that the 9/11 Commission airbrushed Israeli involvement from their report. No conspiracy theory there,
either.
Same goes for Israeli neocons and their media mandarins using "faulty intel" to get their war in Iraq. "Clean Break"? "Rebuilding
America's Defenses"? Openly written and published. Judith Miller's lies? Also no conspiracy.
And Israel's own intelligence directors were undermining Netanyahu's lies on Iran. Not a conspiracy in sight.
contemplating the outcome of normal everyday competition, influenced by good & bad luck, is just too much truth for some
psychological makeups
That's one of the lamest attempts at deflection I've seen thus far, and I've seen quite a few here.
Those who deny the official version of 9/11 are in the majority now:
We've reached critical mass. Clearly, that's just too much truth for your psychological makeup. Were we really that worthy
of ignoring, your people wouldn't be working 24/7/365 to peddle your malarkey in fora of this variety.
I have thought that Trump's true impeachable crime was the illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat. Pence
should also be impeached for the botched coup in Venezuela. That was true embarrassment bringing that "El Presidente" that no
one recognizes to the SOTU.
USA is basically JU-S-A now, Jews own and run this country from top to bottom, side to side, and because of it, pretty much
run the world. China-Russia-Iran form their new "Axis of Evil" to be brought in line. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Covid-19
is a bioweapon, except not one created by China. Israel has been working on an ethnic based bioweapon for years. US sent 172 military
"athletes" to the Military World Games in Wuhan in October, 2019, two weeks before the first case of coronavirus appeared. Almost
too coincidental.
@Sean He wasn't there as a soldier -- he was there in a diplomatic role. (regardless of his official "status"). It
also appears he was lured there with intent to assaninate.
Your last para is not only terrible logic but ignores the point of the article. Iran likely was not responsible for the US deaths.
Even had it been responsible it would still not legitimate such a baldly criminal action.
[I]illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat
Lawful combat according to the Geneva Convention in which war is openly declared and fought between two countries each of which
have regular uniformed forces that do all the actual fighting is an extremely rare thing. It is all proxy forces, deniability
and asymmetric warfare in which one side (the stronger) is attacked by phantom combatants.
The Israeli PM publically alluded to the fact that Soleimani had almost been killed in the Mossad operation to kill
Imad Mughniyeh a decade ago. The
Iranian public knew that Soleimani had narrowly escaped death from Israeli drones, because Soleimani appeared on Iranian TV in
October and told the story. A plot kill him by at a memorial service in Iran was supposedly foiled. He came from Lebanon by way
of Syria into Iraq as if none of this had happened. Trump had sacked Bolton and failed to react to the drone attack on Saudi oil.
Iran seems to have thought that refusal to actually fight in the type of war that the international conventions were designed
to regulate is a licence to exert pressure by launch attacks without being targeted oneself. Now do they understand.
@Sean American troops invaded Iraq under false pretenses, killed thousands, and caused great destruction. Chaos and vengeful
Sunnis spilled over into Syria where the US proceeded to grovel before the terrorists we fret about. Soleimani was effective in
organizing resistance in Iraq and Syria and was in both countries with the blessing of their governments.
How you get Soleimani shouldn't be there out of that I have no idea.
@04398436986 Yet you ignore that the Neocons have lied about virtually every cause if war ever. Lied about Iraq, North Korea
and Iran nuclear info actions, about chem weapons in Syria, lied about Kosovo, lied about Libya, lied about Benghazi, lied about
Venezuela. So Whom I gonna believe, no government, but a Neocon led one least of all
It is common knowledge that ISIS is a US/Israeli creation. ISIS is the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. Thus, the US/Israel
staged the attack on the US base on 12.27.2019.
ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #2: ISIS Never Attacks Israel
It is more than highly strange and suspicious that ISIS never attacks Israel – it is another indication that ISIS is controlled
by Israel. If ISIS were a genuine and independent uprising that was not covertly orchestrated by the US and Israel, why would
they not try to attack the Zionist regime, which has attacked almost of all of its Muslim neighbors ever since its inception
in 1948? Israel has attacked Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, and of course has decimated Palestine. It has systemically tried to
divide and conquer its Arab neighbors. It continually complains of Islamic terrorism. Yet, when ISIS comes on the scene as
the bloody and barbaric king of Islamic terrorism, it finds no fault with Israel and sees no reason to target a regime which
has perpetrated massive injustice against Muslims? This stretches credibility to a snapping point.
ISIS and Israel don't attack each other – they help each other. Israel was treating ISIS soldiers and other anti-Assad rebels
in its hospitals! Mortal enemies or best of friends?
The MQ-9 pilot and sensor operator will be looking over their shoulders for a long time. They're as famous as Soleimani. Their
command chain is well known too, hide though they might far away.
And who briefed the president that terror Tuesday? The murder program isn't Air Force.
@anonymous The kind of crap Trump pulled in the assassination of Soleimani is what he should be impeached about–not the piss-ant
stuff about Hunter Biden's job in the Ukaranian gas company and his pappy's role in it.
Iraq an ally of the United States! Is it some kind of a joke? How can a master and slave be equal? We, the big dog want their
oil and the tail that wags us, Israel, want all Muslims pacified and the Congress, which is us wether we like or not, compliant
out of financial fears. Unless we curb our own greedy appetite for fossil fuels and at the same time tell an ally, which Israel
is by being equal in a sense that it can get away with murder and not a pip is raised, to limit its ambition, nothing is going
to be done to improve the situation. Until then it's an exercise in futility, at best!
Iran has NO choice but to defend itself from the savages. It has not been Iran that invaded US, but US with a plan that design
years before 9/11 invaded many countries. Remember: seven countries in five years. Soleimani was a wise man working towards peace
by creating options for Iran to defend itself. Iran is not the aggressor, but US -Israel-UK are the aggressor for centuries now.
Is this so difficult to understand. 9/11 was staged by US/Israel killing 3000 Christians to implement their criminal plan.
Soleimani, was on a peace mission, where was assassinated by Trump, an Israeli firster and a fifth column and the baby killer
Netanyahu. Is this difficult to understand by the Trump worshiper, a traitor.
Now, Khamenie is saying the same thing: "Iran should be strong in military warfare and sciences to prevent war and maintain
PEACE.
Only ignorant, arrogant, and racists don't understand this fact and refuse to understand how the victims have been pushed to
defend themselves.
The Assassin at the black house should receive the same fate in order to bring the peace.
When does Amerikastan *not* lie about anything? If an Amerikastani tells you the sun rises in the east, you're probably on Venus,
where it rises in the west.
I think this article is getting close to the truth, that this whole operation was and is an ISIS (meaning Israeli Secret Intelligence
Service) affair designed to pit America against the zionists' most formidable enemy thus far, Iran.
I'm of the opinion that Trump did not order the hit on Soleimani, but was forced to take credit for it, if he didn't want to
forfeit any chance of being reelected this year. The same ISIS (Israeli) forces that did the hit also orchestrated the "retaliation"
that Mr. Giraldi so heroically documents in this piece.
As usual, this is looking more and more like a zionist /jewish false flag attack on the Muslim world, with the real dirty-work
to be done by the American military.
It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan
that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House
apparently knew about may even have approved.
It's now obvious that the slumlord son-in-law Jared Kushner is really running the USA's ME policy.
Kushner is not only a dear friend of at-large war criminal Bibi Nuttyahoo, he also belongs to the Judaic religious cult of Chabad
Lubavitcher, whom make the war-loving Christian Evangelicals almost look sane. Chabad also prays for some kind of Armageddon to
bring forth their Messiah, just like the Evangelicals.
One can tell by Kushner's nasty comments he makes about Arabs/Persians and Palestinians in particular, that he loathes and
despises those people and has an idiotic ear to cry into in the malignant form of Zion Don, AKA President Trump.
It's been said that Kushner is also a Mossad agent or asset, which is a good guess, since that agency has been placing their
agents into the WH since at least the days of Clinton, who had Rahm Emmanuel to whisper hate into his ear.
That the Iranian General Soleimani was lured into Iraq so the WH could murder the man probably most responsible for halting
the terrorist activities of the heart-eating, head-chopping US/Israel/KSA creation ISIS brings to mind the motto of the Israeli
version of the CIA, the Mossad.
"By way of deception thou shalt make war."
Between Trump's incompetence, his vanity–and yes, his stupidity– and his appointing Swamp creatures into his cabinet and
allowing Jared to run the ME show, Trump is showing himself to be a worse choice than Hillary.
If that maniac gets another 4 years, humanity is doomed. Or at least the USA for sure will perish.
Mitt Romney's decision to convict President Trump on the impeachment charge of abuse of
power was " motivated by bitterness and jealousy ," according to former Romney spokesman Rick
Gorka, who added that President Trump has "accomplished what he [Mitt] has failed to do
multiple times."
These are the same people that hated Mitt in 2012 and they will hate him again when they
are done with him. It is sad to see that Mitt has not learned the lessons from 2012. Now he
has betrayed his Party and millions of voters.
"These are the same people that hated Mitt in 2012 and they will hate him again when they
are done with him," Gorka added. "
It is sad to see that Mitt has not learned the lessons from 2012. Now he has betrayed his
Party and millions of voters."
While that's a good theory, at least a few people have been passing around this Federalist article from September, 2019 which notes that Romney adviser Cofer
Black worked with Hunter Biden on the board of Ukrainian energy giant Burisma .
According to web archives, top Mitt Romney adviser Joseph Cofer Black, who publicly goes
by "Cofer Black," joined Burisma's board of directors while Hunter Biden was also serving on
the board.
According to The New Yorker , Hunter joined Burisma's board in April of 2014 and
remained on it until he declined to renew his position this past May. Meanwhile, according to
Burisma's website, Black was appointed in February of 2017 and continues to serve on its
board. The timelines would indicate that Black and Biden worked together at Burisma, and
indeed, web archives
from late 2017 show Black and Biden listed simultaneously on the board. -
The Federalist
This picture may or may not sum up Romney's utter contempt for Donald Trump:
At least the good thing about Mitt Romney, he has a mind of his own. Can't say that about
the rest of the Republicans who go around marching in lock step to the party's tune, like
mechanical robots. (Talk about Communism)!!!!!!
Wait until you find out what else he did. This was the believable part. A democrat cut off
Romney's balls after the first debate with Obama. The dirt must be pretty vile, my guess is
that Trump has the dirt 2.
You just know when you look at Mittens he as a total dweeb and never got laid in high
school or probably college either. The girls he lusted after were actually ******* their
brains out with the bad boys--like Trump. There was a time when I almost--almost felt sorry
for guys like him because they just didn't 'get it". Mittens probably recoiled in terror the
first time he heard Queen's "Tie your mother down".
So, Mittens grew up and got even. Fucked over lots of blue collar middle class and their
supervisors. He hates Trump because he knows it was a guy like Trump that fucked all of his
girl friends behind his back. Trump reminded him of his cuckedness on the debate stage one
night. He did the same thing to JEB.
He has also betrayed his country and his oath to uphold the constitution, to the extent
that Trump was trying to have Biden investigated for his crimes.
It must always be remembered that Trump's impeachment was about Trump's alleged attempt to
have Biden investigated for crimes that Biden actually committed. If Trump really attempted
to do so, then he was doing his job as president.
Trump was accused of doing his job. Biden committed a crime, and then bragged about
it.
He split his vote at least... as for his vindictive side, well: We all know that exists!
His Utah voters will decide this as it's not up to us! Time Wounds All Heels! Poor Joe Biden
and Poor Mitt... 1 loss for Mitt, 2? 3? for Joe? God being a LOSER must really SUCK! Mitt:
Play for the Team or Switch Sides! Straddling the fence is not for Men... it's for Boys!
ROMNEY NEEDS TO RESIGN AS SENATOR FROM UTAH. if he had any integrity at all, that's what
he'd do as he surely doesn't represent the State of Utah. Only represents his bruised little
ego and he's a schmuck. Beta Male.
Resign? Are you kidding? These guys are brazen, in-your-face dishonest these days. Up
until Slick Willie's cigar shenigans, pols would resign for the good of the nation usually,
not any more.
My gawd, romney is the clear example of the bully next door who is just SO ticked off,
that his first cousin somehow won a brand new bike from entering a drawing at the county
fair, and then proceeds to call the cops on the cousin ratting him out that he never licensed
the bike with the city; Cousin then gets his bike impounded by the cops.....Just jealous as
all get out that HE didn't win the presidency but trump did. People of Utah had better wake
the hell up and dump this RINO asap. Shame on orrin hatch for recommending him in the first
place!!!!!!
Yeah, I had a sister like this. I bought a custom ordered 2000 Ford Ranger and she came to
visit me. She couldn't stand that I had a new truck (even though she knew I had lived without
any vehicle for years while I went to univ and rode public transit).
I would ride the bus to visit her for holidays or family stuff and she complained about me
calling to have her pick me up at the bus stop closest to her place (less than 2 miles). I
was expected to spend money topping off her gas tank for the honor of her picking me up along
with buying groceries and pot (for her to smoke).
I am glad to say I have never asked anyone to top off my gas tank, ever. Low class
move.
I don't understand being jealous over anything. It's material crap.
When he went to dinner with Trump that time that Trump was allegedly considering him for
Secretary of State, Trump made Romney eat frogs legs. Trump has a great sense of humor.
Really great.
Frog legs for the ******* frog that Romney is.........
Mitt says he's prepared to pay a dear cost for his betrayal of both his constituents, the
President and the party. So the bigger question is, why the **** is he in public office? He's
a billionaire, he doesn't need money. His family is prosperous and secure. He doesn't
represent the people of Utah or their wishes? He is hated and despised by both Republicans
and Democrats and the media establishment on both sides. He really needs to do some solid
introspective self examination. There is no place for his contemptable brand of high cuckery
in today's GOP. He is best served crossing the aisle to the Antiwhite party where such
nonsense is standard.
They really are two sides of the same **** coin. One inherited wealth, the other married
it. One lied about his service, the other lied to his voters. Both corrupt as hell grifters
that would do the world a favor by simply living like Howard Hughes in a dark hotel room.
The Romneys came over from England as Mormons in the 1860's. Not one Romney male, to
include now Mittens 5 sons, has ever served in the military. Big patriots they are.
A couple of generations did flee to Mexico to keep multiple wives.
Mittens dad, George was a big, squish liberal Republican. Govenor of Michigan and always
ready to raise taxes. George hated Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
Mittens was a total squish and wimp like his father as Govenor of Massachusetts, raising
every fee, license, permit he could, and of course his signature abortion, Romneycare,
precursor to Obamacare.
Mittens ran against Ted Kennedy for Kennedys Senate seat, and had a chance against a
obvious un well, fat, drunk, pre brain cancer Ted, but Mittens was such a daddy's boy wimp,
the old pickled drunk biytch slapped little Mittens like the woose he was. Later fat Candy
Crowley would do the same.
Mittens has always been a wimpy, goody-two shoes wimp and resents Alpha dog males like
Trump.
I am nearing my finals, soon the University of Hedge will award me my PHD. I must however
include your comments in my discussions with ALL THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS and the public at
large! up voted! U Next!
Haven't used that Ignore User button much. Just seems counter to free exchange. But you're
my exception. Got you pegged as a twisted INCEL type. Amirite?
On occasion I have down voted myself because the critics seemed so pathetic, and voting so
meaningful that, what the heck, help a poor short bus window licker out.
It has been a bad few days for the establishment, really bad.
In a 51-49 vote, the Senate refused to call witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald
Trump and agreed to end the trial Wednesday, with a near-certain majority vote to acquit the
president of all charges.
As weekend polls show socialist Bernie Sanders surging into the lead for the nomination in
the states of Iowa, New Hampshire and California, the sense of panic among Democratic Party
elites is palpable.
Former Secretary of State and Joe Biden surrogate John Kerry was overheard Sunday at a Des
Moines hotel talking of the "possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party --
down whole."
Tuesday, Trump takes his nationally televised victory lap in the U.S. Capitol with his State
of the Union address, as triumphant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and a humiliated Speaker
Nancy Pelosi sit silently side-by-side behind him.
Democrats may declare the Trump impeachment a victory for righteousness, but the anger and
outrage, the moans and groans now coming off the editorial and op-ed pages and cable TV suggest
the media know otherwise.
History, we are told, will vindicate what Pelosi and the Democrats did and stain forever the
Republican Party for voting to acquit.
Perhaps, but only if some future Howard Zinn is writing the history.
Reality: The impeachment of Trump was an attempted -- and failed -- coup that not a single
Republican supported, only Democrats in the House and their Senate caucus. The impeachment of
Trump was an exercise in pure partisanship and itself an abuse of power.
What was the heart of the Democrats' case to remove Trump?
Trump failed to invite Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to the White House, and held
up military aid to Kyiv for several months, to get Zelenskiy to hold a press conference to
announce that Kyiv was looking into how Hunter Biden got on the board of a corrupt energy
company at a retainer of $83,000 a month while his father was the chief international monitor
of corruption in Ukraine.
The specific indictment: Trump's suspension of military aid imperiled "our national
security" by denying arms to an "ally" who was fighting the Russians over there, so we don't
have to fight them over here.
And what was the outcome of it all?
Zelenskiy got his meeting with the president. He got the military aid in September. He did
not hold the press conference requested. He did not announce an investigation of the
Bidens.
No harm, no foul.
How did President Obama handle Ukraine?
After Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea and intervened to protect pro-Russian secessionists in
the Donbass, Obama's White House restricted U.S. lethal military aid to Kyiv and provided
blankets and meals ready to eat.
What punishment did House and Senate Democrats and anti-Trump media demand for the pause in
sending weapons for Ukraine?
Capital punishment, a political death penalty.
Democrats demanded that a Republican Senate overturn the election of 2016, make Trump the
first president ever impeached and removed, and then ensure that the American people could
never vote for him again.
Nancy Pelosi's House and the Democratic minority in the Senate were demanding that a
Republican Senate do their dirty work and keep Trump off the ballot in 2020, lest he win a
second term.
For four years, elements of the liberal establishment -- in the media, "deep state" and
major institutions -- have sought to destroy Trump. First, they aimed to smear him and prevent
his election, and then to overturn it as having been orchestrated by the Kremlin, and then to
impeach and remove him, and then to block him from running again.
The damage they have inflicted upon our country's institutions is serious.
U.S. intelligence agencies are being investigated by U.S. Attorney John Durham for their
role in instigating an investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign. The FBI has been
discredited by exposure of a conspiracy of top-level agents to spy on Trump's campaign.
The media, by endlessly echoing unproven claims that Trump was a stooge of the Kremlin,
discredited themselves to a degree unknown since the "Yellow Press" prostituted itself to get
us into war with Spain. Media claims to be unbiased pursuers of truth have suffered, not only
from Trump's attacks, but from their own biased and bigoted coverage and commentary.
Always at least a dribble of Beltway, uniparty propaganda that Russia is "our" enemy ruled by
a dictator, etc: "After Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea .." Can this columnist not acknowledge
that the people of Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine after Uncle Sam helped stage a coup
and handpicked its new figurehead? He is still on record espousing the claim that Russia
"hacked" the 2016 U.S. election.
Anyone who believes that people above the level of sacrificial flunky "being investigated
by U.S. Attorney John Durham for their role in instigating an investigation of a U.S.
presidential campaign" will be charged with a felony is dreaming.
Mr. Buchanan's jobs as Stagehand Right in the Washington puppet show are to whitewash the
imperialism and to lead enough Red sheep to vote in the next Most Important Election
Ever.
Ooh, lookie lookie, Trump is being impeached! Cheer the noble Democrats striking a blow
for freedom and virtue! Or boo the corrupt Democrats for putting on this farce! Take your
pick.
But whatever you do, don't pay any attention to the ongoing third-world invasion on our
southern border, or the trillions we are wasting on pointless winless foreign wars, or the
tens of trillions (that's not a mis-print) we are wasting bailing out and subsidizing Wall
Street and financial engineering, don't pay any attention to the fact that most of our drugs
are now made in Communist China with very little quality control, and yet prices for these
same drugs in the US are skyrocketing. And don't get me started on the growing industry of
"Surprise Medical Billing." I could go on but you get the idea.
Yes, impeachment was a bad joke. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Mr. Buchanan continues in his refusal to mention that the Maidan Revolution in the Ukraine
was a color revolution backed by the Obama-era State Department, the CIA and various
Soros-affiliated NGOs. But he dutifully invokes the Russian annexation of Crimea while never
mentioning the fact that it followed a referendum on the issue which was supported by the
vast majority in Crimea.
"Reality: The impeachment of Trump was an attempted -- and failed -- coup that not a single
Republican supported, only Democrats in the House and their Senate caucus. The impeachment of
Trump was an exercise in pure partisanship and itself an abuse of power."
Reality–Mr. Buchanan is still smarting from his boss Nixon getting busted, and will
stoop to new lows to exonerate him and others on the same trajectory. Of course, impeachment
is not a coup, and the Democrats made a strong case. It is other than surprising in an
election year where Trump threatened to burn any Republican Senator to the ground that they
are "united".
It is laughable that there was this "perfect call", yet he stonewalled any and all efforts
to enable witnesses to come forward. Why not have the Bidens, Guiliani, Parnas, Mulvaney, and
everyone associated to this scandal be allowed to speak their minds in the Senate? What is
the GOP so afraid of?
Several questions remain:
Why did Trump task Giuliani, in a personal capacity, to press Ukraine on the Bidens rather
than Trump asking the Department of Justice to investigate? Why were several key
administration officials "in the dark" about the activities of Giuliani?
Why did one Trump lawyer say to Senators that the House never authorized a resolution
(when it did) for subpoenas of Trump officials, when that same lawyer stated in 2019 that
resolution was unnecessary since they would testify on their own behalf?
White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney admitted to a quid pro quo and then walked it
back. Could he testify as to explain why? Why not allow other Trump officials to testify as
witnesses to exonerate Trump?
Trump stated he is concerned about adult children benefiting from their father's name? Why
did he give his children a place in his administration?
Trump's lawyers argued that in order to convict him, the Senate must find him guilty
"beyond a reasonable doubt". Except that has never been the standard ever used in past
impeachment trial. Why would they make this claim?
Time for a senate investigation into Joe Biden's blatant corruption and abuse of power in the
Burisma matter. There has already been a shitload of evidence gathered by Ukraine prosecutors
and a French journalist and it all points to Joe actually being guilty of everything the Dems
charged Trump with. Subpoena all of it plus sworn testimony from Joe and Hunter themselves
(though they will both have to take the Fifth to avoid self-incrimination).
@Truth3
You'd think at 82 and presumably secure financially Pat would let 'er rip once in a while,
but he had bigger stones three decades ago when he had a mainstream career in middle age to
protect. I met him a couple of times in the '80s, and the pugnacious brawler image he liked
to project -- back then, at least -- is not what comes across in person. He was a little
reserved and diffident (maybe it was the company). Nothing wrong with that, of course, but
you didn't sense a zest for engaging and confronting.
All the coup members should be arrested and tried for treason. Including those working at the
corporate news networks who cheered this on.
Also, the Democratic party will cease to be a viable national party by 2030. (ok, it
really should be 2032, because that will be the first presidential election they will not be
viable, but I'll stick with 2030).
Why? Simple: a political party based on a coalition solely devoted to hating the other
side won't work. Political parties, unlike wartime militaries, need a constructive agenda to
unite behind. Meaning the party must want to do certain things when in power that everyone in
the party agrees on, not merely to trample on their political opponents
Ironically, that's why Bernie's going so well: he's got a constructive agenda. Yes,
socialism is evil, but all the other candidates merely say the same flavor of "defeating
Trump is paramount." Socialism is at least something to implement beyond recriminations
against whitey.
@Corvinus
lmao. Our personal paid media-matters troll, Corvinus, is desperately trying to spin his
conspiracy theory hoax again. Go, Corvinus, go, earn Mr. Soros's paycheck you maginificent
lying bastard!
@Anonymous
"Subpoena all of it plus sworn testimony from Joe and Hunter themselves (though they will
both have to take the Fifth to avoid self-incrimination)."
Then charge them with Obstruction Of Congress. Isn't that what you're supposed to do when
someone exercises their rights?
@gsjackson
Remember this is the guy that was attacked on stage by Jewish thug-wannabees the day he
announced his Presidential Campaign and he bounced them off the stage solo.
He knows the Elephant with the hooked nose well enough is he still afraid of Mossad?
It makes me wonder. Even though Jews are over-represented in elite institutions, the great
majority of Deep State is still made up of goyim. Then, why are they all so servile to Jewish
agendas and Jewish wishes? Do goyim lack a mind of their own? If Jews say 'gay marriage',
deep state goyim run to fetch the stick. When Jews 'more Wars for Israel', deep state goyim
roll over. If Jews say, 'bail out Wall Street', deep state goyim just go along. If Jews say,
"fuc* the first and second amendments", deep state goyim nod along. Look at cuck goyim in
Virginia grabbing guns to serve their Jewish masters. If Jews say 'let's get Trump', deep
state goyim bark and bite.
It could be that deep state goyim just happen to share the same ideas and values as the
Jews. Or it could be their minds were molded by Jewish-run media and academia. Or they're
just afraid of Jewish power that, via media, blackmail, and bought off politicians, can
destroy anyone. Indeed, the sheer chutzpah of all those Jews coming out of the woodwork to
unseat an elected president.
Jewish attitude is "Powers Is Ours. All you goyim are just guests at the table."
Jews are captains of the ship. Deep State goyim must man the engines with no sense of
direction or destiny of their own.
@Corvinus
Trump is scump, and yes, he was sniffing at Hunter for political reasons. But there is no
smoking gun that he violated any law. It's all speculation.
Still, Trump did something that was unethical even though he was probing into corruption.
He did it for political reasons. After all, if Trump is concerned about corruption, he should
begin with US defense budgets.
But Dems are also full of shit. They began with the agenda, "Let's impeach Trump" and
grasped for ANYTHING to carry it out. It didn't begin with the possible violation on Trump's
part but with the desire to get Trump somehow someway. Impeach Trump was the apriori agenda
from the day he was elected.
Besides, if Trump should really be removed, it's for the murder of hero Soleimani. And
Obama should have been impeached for his war crimes. But nope. It's some fantasy about Russia
Collusion or some triviality about Hunter, another scumbag. Jewish Power pushes American
Politicians to do evil things around the world and expresses OUTRAGE only when Jews don't get
what they want.
You pretend to be a proggy, but you're just Hasbara. It's so obvious. Give it up.
@Priss
Factor Henry Ford was the last WASP to resist jew banking and finance. 100 years ago, Ole
Henry bought a newspaper dedicated to attacking the jew, and he disseminated the Elders of
Zio through all his dealerships. He also tried to prevent the jew's favorite project at the
time ..WW1. The jew stomped Ole Henry double plus good and got their war. The WASP
establishment took careful note of Ford's humiliation, and took in the jew as a junior
partner in running and looting the country. 100 years later, the jew is running government,
media, and finance ..with the WASP as a very junior partner, mostly playing the role of
useful idiot providing the cannon fodder and taxes for jew wars.
@Truth3
You and other "blame da jooz" lurkers at Unz clearly haven't spent much time around
non-Jewish White leftists as Pat obviously has. There is no great conspiracy he is trying to
avoid.
I went to a college where every single professor was doing their best to indoctrinate the
students and 90% of them were Anglo or Nordic.
For every Jewish leftist lawyer you can point at in DC there are a thousand non-Jewish
White lawyers behind the scenes.
Liberalism is a sickness that would still exist even if you got rid of the Jews. Have a
look at Deutschland if you doubt this.
Here is the kicker: The non-Jewish leftists know they are lying. It isn't some brainwash
job by the Jewz. Liberal professors and media commentators know they are lying. They think it
is all justified. In their minds we are the problem and lies or gulags are just fine if the
end is the same.
The worst leftist of all time was not Jewish and in fact sent a lot of Jews packing. His
name was Stalin, maybe you have heard of him.
@Truth3
But that get-out is a bit easy. It's like ghetto denizens complaining about "the man".
Yes, philosophical high ground, media high ground, rent-a-mob management ground and
self-unaware ability to act decisively and shamelessly has been taken. Now what? Order up a
box of Red Bull?
The sad fact is that there are REAL reasons for getting Trump's ass dragged off into the
sunset, but they involve wars and hits for you-know-who, so nobody is ever going to mention
those.
Pat Buchanan describes all the steps of a corrupt political system to remove a sitting US
President from office with bogus charges, and their handlers in the media played the
loudspeakers and an inaffable role. This gang bears the responsibility that all the major
institutions are untrustworthy. CNN leads the lying press crowd. I was not surprised hearing
that the Iowa caucus did produce any results yet. As it seems, the "right" person didn't come
out first; Joe Biden. The corrupt Democratic Party starts already at the beginning of the
primaries by rigging the election. The Dems are still suffering from the defeat of the Queen
of Darkness, Hillary Clinton, and their corrupt entourage. The Democratic Parts seems
incapable to clean out this Augean stable. The last telling example has been the charade of
impeachment. As long no Heads will roll, the Democratic Party will remain in the political
quagmire, and corruption will prevail.
What Sanders is doing is revolutionary, in the sense that he is raising enough money to run a
national campaign, and winning, without taking corporate money.
American politics is controlled by a two-party cartel, and candidates have to join the
cartel and take the corporate money to get elected, resulting in policies like high
immigration that make sense to the Chamber of Commerce but not to many voters. Sure, you can
pander to voters and then do the bidding of the Chamber, but a candidate that does more than
pander is a stronger candidate.
You could have a real populist right if you had a candidate who could generate campaign
funding solely from grass roots contributions and refused to take corporate money. Granted
this is not the culture of the GOP, but the reality is that the program of the American
cartels is deeply unpopular with huge swaths of the American people, and the future belongs
to the group that can effectively carry out a hostile take-over of the organization and then,
not having to obey the corporate donors, puts in place a political program that actually
accomplishes the agenda: something like mandatory everify rather than say stupid symbolic
fights about a "wall" that never gets built, or maybe conduct a foreign policy that does not
have to have pre-approval from Sheldon Adelson.
It makes me wonder. Even though Jews are over-represented in elite institutions, the
great majority of Deep State is still made up of goyim. Then, why are they all so servile
to Jewish agendas and Jewish wishes?
Jews have lots of wealth and control the narrative. Plus the average Jew is smarter than
the average goyim.
Do goyim lack a mind of their own?
In many cases yes.
It could be that deep state goyim just happen to share the same ideas and values as the
Jews. Or it could be their minds were molded by Jewish-run media and academia.
The latter is the case.
Jews are captains of the ship. Deep State goyim must man the engines with no sense of
direction or destiny of their own.
This has happened many times in history the out come not so good for Jews.
Henry Ford was the last WASP to resist jew banking and finance.
And Henry Ford actually produced something of value. As opposed to most rich Jews who
produce financial products , which are detrimental to most goyim, but very lucrative
to Jews.
@John
Johnson"The worst leftist of all time was not Jewish and in fact sent a lot of Jews
packing. His name was Stalin, maybe you have heard of him."
No the worst leftist of all time was the creator of it all, Karl Marx, who absolutely was
Jewish. Jews like to use goy cat's paws like Stalin, Roosevelt and Bush to do their dirty
work but never forget who's behind it all.
@Johnny
SmogginsNo the worst leftist of all time was the creator of it all, Karl Marx, who
absolutely was Jewish. Jews like to use goy cat's paws like Stalin, Roosevelt and Bush to do
their dirty work but never forget who's behind it all.
Marx was half-Jewish and White egalitarian marauding predates Marxism. Napoleon and
Lincoln both believed in war for equality.
Did the Jews force Stalin to send millions to the Gulag? Was pol pot also forced by the
Jews to kill his own people? Pretty amazing that Jews were able to manipulate even Asian
leftists when there were zero Jews in those countries.
The corollary of blaming Jews for everything is that non-Jewish leftists are never
responsible for their own actions. This is amusing since behind closed doors leftist leaders
will admit certain politically incorrect truths which shows they are not Goy-drones. But
according to the Unz Blamin' Jews club they are just victims of manipulation. Poor wittle
victims that are consciously lying and would send us all to gulags if they could.
Can this columnist not acknowledge that the people of Crimea voted to secede from
Ukraine
Whose Side Is God on Now?
April 4, 2014 by Patrick J. Buchanan
In his Kremlin defense of Russia's annexation of Crimea, Vladimir Putin, even before he began
listing the battles where Russian blood had been shed on Crimean soil, spoke of an older
deeper bond.
Crimea, said Putin, "is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was
baptized. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the
culture, civilization and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and
Belarus."
Indicting the "Bolsheviks" who gave away Crimea to Ukraine, Putin declared, "May God
judge them."
Putin is entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly City of today and command post of
the counter-reformation against the new paganism.
Putin is plugging into some of the modern world's most powerful currents.
Not only in his defiance of what much of the world sees as America's arrogant drive for
global hegemony. Not only in his tribal defense of lost Russians left behind when the USSR
disintegrated.
He is also tapping into the worldwide revulsion of and resistance to the sewage of a
hedonistic secular and social revolution coming out of the West.
It seems to me, that in a sense, Buchanan is declaring that Putin is 'planting Russia's
flag' as the new moral center of the dying ((murdered)) Western world, with Moscow as the "
the Third Rome".
As the West descends into the moral 'sewer', Putin's Russia is returning to the ideals of
Christian virtues and traditional values.
"But the war to be waged with the West is not with rockets. It is a cultural, social,
moral war where Russia's role, in Putin's words, is to "prevent movement backward and
downward, into chaotic darkness and a return to a primitive state."
Would that be the "chaotic darkness" and "primitive state" of mankind, before the Light
came into the world?"
In other words, Patrick Buchanan knows very well indeed who the villains are vis-a-vis
Crimea, and Russia, vs. the ((Globohomo)). And he's willing to say so, eloquently, when it
suits him to do so.
But even so, there was that vomit reflex moment when I read "writes WCF's Allan
Carlson, "Russia is defending Judeo-Christian values . "
So Pat does pepper his articles with paeans to the Globohomo vernacular of the day, I
suppose for reasons of appealing to the masses, such as they are. But if you've been reading
Pat for as long as I have, you know he's well aware of the subtle nuances behind claims of
'annexing Crimea', but this column is all about the obvious corruption on display with the
impeachment farce, and how the Democrats all gush when Obama does something corrupt, but howl
and screech when it's 'done' by Trump.
So in that context, he's simply using Crimea as an example of Democrat hypocrisy. Like
trying to impeach Trump for endeavoring to uncover the rat-hole of uber-corruption between
Obama/Hillary/Biden/Nuland – and the former regime in Ukraine.
IOW, what Trump did, (what he was actually impeached for) was the "off the reservation"
attempt to expose their uber-corruption. That he trusted the current ((regime)) in Ukraine,
and in his own deepstate, was his monumental error.
Then, there's this:
The NSC and State Department have been exposed as employing individuals with an
exaggerated view of their role in the origination and the execution of foreign policy.
Disloyalty and animosity toward the chief executive appear to permeate the upper echelons
of the "deep state."
The arrogance on display from all those diplomats, with sanctimonious outrage, at a
president that actually thinks *he's* in charge of foreign policy! 'Who does he think he
is?!, to decide when Ukraine gets their belligerent weapons to use on Putin's/Hitler's
aggressive Russia?! These decisions are all made wayyyy above that asshole's pay grade, and
we need to put him in his place!'
Not in our lifetime have the institutions of government and the establishment been held
in lower regard.
Almost all now concede we have become an us vs. them nation.
Liberal Jews, who hate Trump's guts with the searing heat of a thousand exploding suns,
vs. war mongering neocon Jews, who also hate Trump, but see in him a very pliant and useful
idiot.
@ Priss
Or they're just afraid of Jewish power that, via media, blackmail, and bought off
politicians, can destroy anyone.
Bingo
If you're a goyim in the administration, and you mumble something about how much the wars
are costing, either in untold trillions or in political capital, the dagger-eyed glowering
would be immediate from every Jew in the room. 'So, we have a little wannabe Himmler here.
He'll soon fine out what happens to Adolf wannabes, when he gets his arse handed to him, and
he's out on the streets'. Make him the first on your list.'
Everyone with two synapses to rub together, knows that all these wars are Jewish
supremacist wars of conquest. Duh. Even the war on Yemen, is a proxy war against Iran. So the
moment anyone tries to rein in the belligerence, he's going to have Hymie to pay. And that is
what this really is all about. Trump's holding back weapons from Ukraine, is seen as counter
productive to the ((greater agenda)), and so they pile on. And if the president of the United
States, can be keelhauled for a year, and impeached, for daring to obstruct the Eternal Wars
for Israel*, then how well will some lesser veck fare if he too thinks the wars are not the
greatest thing since sliced bread?
The Jews are uniform and connected on certain subjects. The Eternal Wars are one of them.
I know some liberal Jews. To this day, they seem to worship Obama, and loath Trump with
obvious distain, (clear hatred), but when it comes to the wars, they're kosher.
That's why there's perfect conformity from both isles in DC, on the need to continue the
wars. That's why both Fox news and ABCNNBCBS.. et al, are all perfectly aligned on that
particular issue. Which is why Tulsi has been 'Ron Pauled'. When it's something all Jews are
all aligned on ** , then it's unwritten, and woe be to any wrong-minded goyim, who's brave
enough to step over that particular line.
*Obama got a pass on a lot of things, because the liberal Jews gushed when he walked into
the room. Trump gets no such leeway.
** .. in reality, since first entering Congress in 1991, Sanders has compiled a lengthy
record of support for war and defense of the predatory interests of American
imperialism."
Sanders' record demonstrates what he considers "necessary wars." It also includes the NATO
air war against Serbia in 1999, launched on the pretext of stopping the imminent ethnic
cleansing of Kosovars.
In 2001, Sanders joined in a near-unanimous vote in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan.
Today -- now that the nearly twenty-year-long war is widely unpopular -- Sanders conveniently
declares that his earlier vote was a "mistake." But he has continued to endorse US wars in
the Middle East, including the US proxy war in Syria.
Sanders has also supported Israel's repeated assaults on Gaza, imperialist war crimes made
possible with the support of the United States. In a 2014 town hall meeting, Sanders shouted
down an antiwar protester who challenged his support for Israel even as it was committing
egregious crimes against the Palestinian population.
Moreover, Sanders has publicly voiced support for the use of assassinations and
"extraordinary rendition" in the so-called "war on terror." In 2015, when asked whether
anti-terrorism policies under a Sanders administration would include drones and special
forces, Sanders replied that he supported "all that and more."
I'm amazed Pat even posts here when half of you guys couldn't analyze the contents of a
turkey sandwich without some screed about Jews.
Jews are depicted as some monolithic bloc and yet Israel would undoubtedly take Trump over
Sanders.
So the first Jewish president would be rejected by the world wide Jewish conspiracy? Some
conspiracy.
As a reminder the presidential candidate that actually wanted government troops to kick in
doors and take guns was an Irish Texan. But I'm sure that's somehow the fault of Jews even
though the Jewish candidate has been a moderate on guns.
In the fifth paragraph, Pat writes: "Tuesday, Trump takes his nationally televised victory
lap in the US Capitol with his SOTU address, as Mitch McConnell and a humiliated Speaker
Nancy Pelosi sit silently side-by-side behind him."
I'll forgive Pat the senior moment, as he surely knows that VP Pence, not Mitch McConnell,
will be sitting next to our senile Speaker.
@Rurik
"In other words, Patrick Buchanan knows very well indeed who the villains are vis-a-vis
Crimea, and Russia, vs. the ((Globohomo)). And he's willing to say so, eloquently, when it
suits him to do so.
[I]f you've been reading Pat for as long as I have, you know he's well aware of the subtle
nuances behind claims of 'annexing Crimea', "
Please. Just run "Crimea" in the search engine against Mr. Buchanan's columns. -- >
11/22/2019: " .. 2014, when Vladimir Putin's Russia seized Crimea .." What's subtle or
nuanced about "seized"? Do I need to show you some of his other Beltway bits, like his
standing assertion that Russia "hacked" the 2016 US election?
I repeat: Mr. Buchanan's jobs as Stagehand Right in the Washington puppet show are to
whitewash the imperialism and to lead enough Red sheep (like you?) to vote in the next Most
Important Election Ever.
Refute it, or admit it. Neither should require another 1,300 words.
Jews are depicted as some monolithic bloc and yet Israel would undoubtedly take Trump
over Sanders.
in the comment right above this one, I just wrote
"Liberal Jews, who hate Trump's guts with the searing heat of a thousand exploding
suns, vs. war mongering neocon Jews, who also hate Trump, but see in him a very pliant and
useful idiot."
Jews don't control everything. But when it comes to N. America's foreign policy, you'd
have to be a huge knucklehead not to know of AIPAC, CFR, and PNAC, and all the other Jewish
supremacist institutions herding our congress-critters like so many sheep, to their Eternal
Wars for Israel.
Or ,
..you can explain how its in the American people's interest to spend seven+ trillion, (all
of it borrowed at interest) to slaughter, main and displace millions of innocent people, who
just happen to be inconvenient to Israel's imperial ambitions. While simultaneously getting
tens of thousands of young American soldiers dead, maimed or so soul-shattered they're
committing suicide at some 20 a day?
Or, would you really have us all believe, that Saddam did 9/11, and that he and Gadhafi
had WMD, because they "hate our freedom", and so we have to "fight them over there, so we
don't have to fight them over here"
?
@John
Johnson But for the Jews who controlled the Communist party in the Soviet Union grooming
and promoting him, Stalin would've been a minor tyrant terrorizing the peasantry in the
Georgian countryside. Unfortunately for them, their pet got out of control and started to
bite the hand that fed him. The corollary to this is Jews in the US promoting "civil rights"
and then having some of their negro pets (like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) turn on them.
Remind us friend, where the idea for Marxism came to Asians from? The answer of course is
from the Jew Marx with financing provided by Jacob Schiff and other wealthy Jews. Perhaps Pol
Pot may have found some other outlet for his murderous instincts but as has been the case in
so many instances around the world, it was Jewish Marxism that not only lit the fuse, but set
it up to begin with.
Don't get me wrong, do gooder Christian types are nearly as much to blame for the mess
we're in as the Jews. The difference is that while Christians are naive, gullible and stupid,
their motivations are essentially good even if the outcome is bad. With Jews, the motivation
behind what they do is pure malice.
You seem new here. Welcome. Do some more reading and exploring and then comment more.
You're not the first newbie to wander in from Breitbart ready to defend Israel and the Jews
without first having educated himself, and you won't be the last.
Do I need to show you some of his other Beltway bits, like his standing assertion that
Russia "hacked" the 2016 US election?
from my little screed
"So Pat does pepper his articles with paeans to the Globohomo vernacular of the day, I
suppose for reasons of appealing to the masses, such as they are."
Mr. Buchanan's jobs as Stagehand Right in the Washington puppet show are to whitewash
the imperialism and to lead enough Red sheep (like you?) to vote in the next Most Important
Election Ever.
Refute it, or admit it.
I admit it!
HAHAHAAAAHAAA!!!
I'm actually a Trump supporter because, that's right! I'm a racist!!!
HAHAHAAAHAAAA!
That's why we're all pretending that the Dems are actuyally way worse than Trump when it
comes to the Eternal Wars, because we all secretly love Trump, because he called Mexicans
'bad hombres!! And he said Obama wasn't born here, and we all love that kind of
RACISM!
HAHAHAAAAA!!!!
When ever he mocks Maxine Waters, we all laugh at how racist we all are, and that's why
Pat and the Deplorables and all of us closet racists are going to pull the lever for
Trump!
Because we're racists!! And we don't even worship Obama!! the One!!!
HAHAHAAAHAAAA!!!!
White supremacy, baby!!!
HAHAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!
You're going to get four more years of Orange clown racism! He grabs fulsomely offered
gold-digger's pussies like crazy, and we don't even care!!!
We even like, that he likes women, and isn't even gay!!
HAHAHAAAA
I was just talking to a buddy of mine, and we were lamenting some of Trump's more
egregious disappointments, (assassinating world leaders, tossing Bibi's salad, etc..). But
there was one thing about which we could agree, as bad as Trump is, (and he's a disaster), we
are very much going to enjoy the show, as Hillary and Madow and Maxine and all the other
white-male-castrating hags and losers and SJW POS, will be soul-raped on election day.
That, might go a long way towards mollifying Trump's disastrous presidency.
Sometimes I watch those videos of the reaction to the 2016 election, and the tears, and
howls of existential angst, from Hillary supporters, and boy oh boy are those memories
great.
@RurikJews don't control everything. But when it comes to N. America's foreign policy, you'd
have to be a huge knucklehead not to know of AIPAC, CFR, and PNAC
Zomg Jewish lobbies. You can actually be against aid to Israel while not taking the view
that Jews control every single war and leftist action. Not everything has to be about the
Jews.
Or, would you really have us all believe, that Saddam did 9/11, and that he and Gadhafi
had WMD, because they "hate our freedom", and so we have to "fight them over there, so we
don't have to fight them over here"
What would make you think that I believe Saddam did 9/11? I have said nothing of the
sort.
It's actually possible to be against foreign wars and also against blaming the Jews for
everything. Anglo leaders have started foreign wars without the influence of Jews. If that
angry Austrian didn't start a needless war with Poland we wouldn't be in the mess we are in
today. Then he went and made his great dunderheaded move of attacking Russia before defeating
Britain. Did the Jews make him do it while they were in boxcars? The Romans started all kinds
of needless foreign wars without Jewish influence. But if a US president does it then MUST BE
the Jews. Nevermind that GWB talked about wanting to get even with Saddam or that Cheney had
all sorts of war industry connections. Just blame Jews, it's the Unz way. Thank you Mr.
Jewish Unz for providing this forum.
Disagree w/ Buchanan's key premise: the coup leaders, as Rick Wiles identified them, the Jew
Coup, got everything they wanted and still have tethers in place to force more from Trump, in
the fullness of time.
-- Give us Golan or we'll unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Give us Jewish capital in Jerusalem or we will unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Convey gas rights in Golan to Cheney, other Jewish and American interests or we'll
unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Kill Soleimani or we'll unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Give us full sovereignty and political cover to take all of ersatz Israel, Palestinians
be damned, or we'll unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Ensure that Syria remains fragmented and without financing to rebuild or we'll unleash
"six ways til Sunday"
--
By the way: those of you familiar with gematria or Kabbalah -- remember Schiff's "parody" of
the Trump phone call? Among its other weird references that, I suspect, were not without
esoteric meaning, Schiff repeated the number seven. Does that mean anything?
IMHO, the outcome -- 'acquittal' in the Senate -- is just as pre-ordained by Schiff-Nadler
– Engel – Schumer, as was the No vote on witnesses: Dems are just as dirty as
GOP; they'd have been pissing in their Guccis if Republicans had voted to call more witnesses
who might have implicated Democrats in corruption.
AGREE that Pelosi has been humiliated: nothing Jew Coupers like better than using, then
humiliating a Catholic; that she is Italian (Roman) is cream cheese on the bagels.
@Johnny
SmogginsBut for the Jews who controlled the Communist party in the Soviet Union
grooming and promoting him, Stalin would've been a minor tyrant terrorizing the peasantry in
the Georgian countryside.
Where does Lenin fall into this revisionist history? He had nothing to do with the rise of
Stalin? Why didn't the Jews rally around Trotsky, an actual Jew?
Anyways the Jews dominated the NKVD, not the central party. They executed anyone including
Jews. Their top leaders were eventually executed by Stalin to cover up his crimes. Their
hegemony in the NKVD was eventually broken but the "Jewish USSR" myth remained for
decades.
Remind us friend, where the idea for Marxism came to Asians from? The answer of course
is from the Jew Marx with financing provided by Jacob Schiff and other wealthy Jews.
This is exactly the irrational thinking that I am talking about. If some Asian dictator
kills a million people you actually blame a half-Jew's Communist book even though said book
never called for killing a million people. Total removal of responsibility. You are giving a
free pass to any blood thirsty leftist.
Don't get me wrong, do gooder Christian types are nearly as much to blame for the mess
we're in as the Jews. The difference is that while Christians are naive, gullible and stupid,
their motivations are essentially good even if the outcome is bad.
This shows you don't even understand leftiest leadership in the US or EU. They are mostly
secular, not Christian. They are not manipulated children. They know exactly what they are
doing and fully intend to
transform the US into Brazil.
Whites like Edwards and Beto are not the pawns of some Jewish indoctrination project. They
know full well that they are lying to the public. Nothing on this website would surprise
them. You could tell them all about Jewish lobbies or Jews in the NKVD and they wouldn't
care. Leftists have an egalitarian vision and don't care about what you have to say.
@John
Johnson Can we agree that a person needn't actually be a believer himself to carry the
ideals that the religion espoused?
Marx may have never worn a yarmulke or even believed in God but that doesn't mean that his
actions, perhaps unconsciously, weren't rooted in Jewish ideals. And every single SJW, even
the most stridently atheist, is animated by Christian ideals about making the world a better
place.
Bottom line – Whites are in the sorry state we're in because of both Jews and
Christians but Jews were, and are, motivated by a poisonous hatred of Whites. We'll have to
deal with dumb Christians and SJWs on our own, we don't need Jews with all their money, power
and hate helping them.
You're right though; Before we can tackle the Jewish problem we have to clean our own
house first.
Actually the Establishment is doing fine: the government employs more people, spends more
money, and exerts more influence than ever, while big tech censors legitimate
opposition/dissent.
It's the American people who are screwed by being chained to this freak show by the
coercive tax system, especially when it's obvious voting makes no difference.
"Already, the odds of a modern 30-50-year-old dying from suicide, alcohol, or drugs in
America are 10 times as high as the odds an 18-35-year-old in 1960 had of dying in
Vietnam." https://t.co/RrudZ1cvwX
@Corvinus
Maybe you should contact Gordon Duff over at VT. He'd probably hire you in a New York minute.
It seems that you don't even have the decency to admit that the Impeachment was nothing but a
Deep State orchestrated circus or more accurately farce actually unbelievably promoting the
NeoNazi State of Ukraine as our "ally" who were fighting the evil Rooskies on our behalf.
Number one. Why would it be in the interest of the American people to get involved in a
proxy war with Russia? A nation that happens to have more nukes and a more effective and
deadlier method of delivering them than we do. According to military analysts we are at least
two decades behind them.
Next even if Russia was a valid target. They are not attacking Russia they are attacking
Dombass, dumb ass which happens to be a breakaway region of Ukraine.
Two. Talk about being low life sniffling scum they embrace John Bolton the epitome of
Neocon subversion as an "ally". Just shows how low the establishment demoncrats have sank
proving that they have no moral compass whatsoever and like the CIA the ends justify the
means.
What you and the DemonCrats have shown is that you aren't any better than Trumpenstein but
probably in many ways far worse.
@Corvinus
Hey Corvinus,
The Democrats swung and missed. It was a Hail Mary effort that was bound to fail but their
blind hatred of Trump would not allow them to see the inevitable outcome. The Democrats
simply can't accept that their annotated one (Hillary) was just not Presidential timber, but
many voting Americans could see it. You lost in 2016 and you will lose the Presidency in
2020, almost certainly. If you lose the house too that will simply be the icing on the cake.
Democrats will then be relegated to the sidelines and will be able to do nothing but squall
impotently from the dark spaces they all inhabit. I await your lamenting and gnashing of
teeth after Nov.
The Democratic party may be done for a decade because of this. Their continued actions
have damaged themselves and strengthened Trump but their denial does not allow them to see
it.
Democrats are like the tranny males they claim to espouse. When they look in the mirror
the reflection they see is that of a beautiful girl. But in reality all they are is just a
bunch of dicks.
@Johnny
SmogginsAnd every single SJW, even the most stridently atheist, is animated by
Christian ideals about making the world a better place.
Bottom line – Whites are in the sorry state we're in because of both Jews and
Christians but Jews were, and are, motivated by a poisonous hatred of Whites. We'll have to
deal with dumb Christians and SJWs on our own, we don't need Jews with all their money, power
and hate helping them.
I don't actually believe this is the case and I'm not trying to be argumentative.
If Christianity is the underlying problem then European countries with greater declines in
Christianity should see less support for liberalism. Children raised in secular households
should be less like to be liberal.
This hasn't happened and in fact the opposite is true. Sweden is very secular and very
leftist. Children raised in secular homes are far more likely to be liberal. The data is
clear on this.
We aren't dealing with Christianity or some pseudo form. We are dealing with a new
egalitarian religion called liberalism. The leaders are secular are fully conscious of what
they are doing. If anything Christianity in the right form can provide a layer of
inoculation.
So no I don't think blaming Jews or Christians is valid or helpful.
@Corvinus
Hey. Some Democrat candidates got what they wanted. Old Joe Biden barely survived Iowa, which
was not unintended collateral damage, but rather very intended and targeted. I can imagine
Elizabeth Warren's fingerprints all over this one.
We will see in November exactly who was too clever by half.
@John
Johnson "This hasn't happened and in fact the opposite is true. Sweden is very secular
and very leftist" Sweden is not as 'leftist' as often portrayed. In the last election the
Social Democrats fell to their lowest vote share in over 100 years. They were reduced to only
100 seats in the Riksdag (less than a 1/3)& formed a minority coalition govt. with the
Greens & Commies comprising only 144 seats. The centrist Alliance coalition picked up 143
seats & the rising stars – the right-wing Sweden Democrats, rose to 62 seats. The
coalition was slightly revamped after an early vote of no-confidence but the Social Democrats
are waning & the centrist & right-wing Parties are gaining. The most recent polls in
the country show the Sweden Democrats actually running ahead of the Social Democrats now,
making it the most popular Party in the country at this time. Most of those "Johnson's"
aren't very leftist anymore. But this still doesn't detract from the fact that Christianity
is NOT the problem. After all, our greatest living pundit, Pat Buchanan, is Christian &
he's no raving, leftist loony.
Like a coup really matters when Trump has turned into either Jeb Bush or Lindsey Grahamnesty
without the lisp and the drawl. Trump has become orange Jebulus. He's not the Donald Trump I
voted for in 2016. The Potomoc fever bug finally bit him.
At Trump's State of the Zionist Union speech (SOTZU) he received raucous applause and
shouts of "four more years" from the Republican side of the chamber. Most of these people
used to oppose him but now that Trump has sold out to the deep state (if he ever really
opposed it in the first place), especially on foreign policy, they love him and have accepted
him as one of their own.
@SolontoCroesus
Not to worry, Pelosi got her revenge last night when she churlishly tore up her copy of
Trump's SOTU address right after he was done speaking. What a classless little tramp that
woman is.
Is it not true, though, that the three biggest Jewish plotters in Congress (Schiff,
Nadler, and Schumer) have been equally humiliated?
Hillary Clinton, Nany Pelosi and her likes have poisoned deaply the democratic party without
any chance of cure soon.
Revenge for their humiliation has been the engine behind the Muller trial and the impeachment
circus.
They failed dramatically and now the DNC is not only more humiliated but it has lost the
little credibility it still had.
Only an old fashioned democrat leader can bring back confidence in the democratic ideology
that has been lost by Hillary and Cie. It seems too late for this to happen and Trump will be
back . As it is expected that the economy in the US may enter into a recession in the second
term, why taking away from him the humiliation he will face?
@swampedSweden Democrats actually running ahead of the Social Democrats now, making it the most
popular Party in the country at this time. Most of those "Johnson's" aren't very leftist
anymore. But this still doesn't detract from the fact that Christianity is NOT the
problem.
They have around 20% of the vote which is significant but the majority still buys into
mainstream leftist BS.
After all, our greatest living pundit, Pat Buchanan, is Christian & he's no raving,
leftist loony.
Good point and quite ironic that we have someone here blaming Christians when PB is a
stalworth against the left. Some of the strongest anti-left parties in Europe are in Eastern
Europe where support for the church is strong. The belief that secularism undermines
liberalism simply doesn't match the data. If anything it seems that secular Whites double
down on liberalism because they don't have a religion.
It is Feb 5th and teh US Senate has absolve the President, thus ending 4yrs of endless
Conspiracies, coups and impeachments. Trump has emerge victorious and single handedly destroy
the DEMs party , this in spite of the Fake news establishment, the deepstate and people
within his own innercircle. Trump with the support of the American Deplorables have defeated
the DEM/LEFT/Antifa continues attacks. BUT it seems that the GOP does NOT understand, realize
the golden historical unprecendentes opportunity to REnake the party, rolled back the Great
BLUE wave that never was. The GOP is poised to recover the House, turn the Blue states RED
again. IF the GOP does NOT keep this momentum going, if they break their inner discipline, or
the GOP makes the ILL mistake to sabotage Trump the GOP will go back to playing second fiddle
to the DEMs and will probably lose their best chance to REmake, REimagine, REorganize,
REdefine REunite the GOP and the Conervative movement in America Trumpism is on the March..
@Crazy
Horse "It seems that you don't even have the decency to admit that the Impeachment was
nothing but a Deep State orchestrated circus or more accurately farce actually unbelievably
promoting the NeoNazi State of Ukraine as our "ally" who were fighting the evil Rooskies on
our behalf."
Why are you spreading Fake News?
"Why would it be in the interest of the American people to get involved in a proxy war
with Russia?"
I never directly nor indirectly made any comment about this situation. Pray tell, are you
a Russian troll?
"Talk about being low life sniffling scum they embrace John Bolton the epitome of Neocon
subversion as an "ally"."
Why not let him, the Bidens, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Guiliani, and Parnas have the opportunity
to speak before the Senate if it was the "perfect call"? What does Trump have to hide?
Furthermore, do you support any president digging up dirt on a political rival while in
office by way of a proxy?
Actually, democracy swung and missed. But there are over two dozen investigations taking
place relating to Trump and his associates, and more information will be coming about the
Ukraine fiasco.
"The Democrats simply can't accept that their annotated one (Hillary) was just not
Presidential timber, but many voting Americans could see it."
Actually, she won the popular vote. But I do agree that she was, along with Trump, not
"presidential timber".
"You lost in 2016 and you will lose the Presidency in 2020 "
I didn't run. Moreover, I'm an educated white married man who makes his own decisions
about politics, race, and culture. You?
What this impeachment hoax so rawly exposes is that the politicians who brought on the
impeachment and voted in favor of it (and that includes Romney) think very little, in fact,
nothing about what Joe Biden and his son did. They think it was perfectly OK. What that
should tell everyone is that they too would do (if they haven't already) the same thing given
the opportunity as Congressmen, Senators, a Vice President, or President. They would fill
their pockets and the pockets of their families given the same opportunity. People should
reflect on that next time these people run for office.
@Corvinus
Russian troll? My question is are you a moron? You don't have to answer because the question
is rhetorical.
Seems anyone who disagrees with dipshits like you must be "agents of Putin Inc". McCarthy
would be sooo proud of brain dead assholes like you and to answer your question. NO!
@Virgile
They lost whatever credibility they had by rigging the primary and accusing anyone that
disagreed with the Queen of the Damned that they must be a Russian Troll or Agent. Corvinus
perfectly epitomizes this idiocy.
@Corvinus
"Won" the popular vote is a consolation prize in a presidential election. Besides that's
questionable due to the fact she "won" 1) in states that used Soros owned Smartmatic Voting
Machines 2) reported votes that far exceeded the number eligible voters registered. For
instance LA County reported that 145% of eligible voters "voted" in the last general
election.
"includes Romney) think very little, in fact, nothing about what Joe Biden and his
son did."
Anastasia, it's not disputed that Romney has a least one close associate who worked with
Hunter, but actually in the Ukraine, at Burisma; but I don't believe that's Romney's angle
here.
I think Romney is setting up to run 3rd party for President. Of course the objective will
not be to become the next president: it will be to take out Trump, and make possible a
Bloomberg victory. I would guess Romney will hold off announcement as long as possible to
ensure maximum chaos. Doesn't even need to make all the state ballots to achieve
"victory".
"... About the Dem Party: It is a [neo[Liberal Cult, deeply flawed psycho-socially as any cult is. They are at the terminal phase, ready to take down their own people into the abyss. Suicidal. Physically ready to bleed out millions of people in civil war. ..."
"... Involved in all this corruption were players within the CIA, State Dept, NSC, FBI and all the other Intel agencies needed to cover the crimes. The Clinton-Obama administration had scores of corrupt officials and associates (the Podestas, for instance). It was necessary to create a firewall once Trump won the nomination. As so, they attacked his campaign manager, his national security adviser, his family, himself, using all the means of FISA, wire tapping done by NSA and CIA and Mi6 and probably Mossad. ..."
About the Dem Party: It is a [neo[Liberal Cult, deeply flawed psycho-socially as any cult
is. They are at the terminal phase, ready to take down their own people into the abyss.
Suicidal. Physically ready to bleed out millions of people in civil war.
Layered under the globalism, and progressive extremism is a many-generational fanatic
Russophobia.
And this is where the nexus of Ukraine comes into play with the corrupt elites of the
Party. They have sucked off the $5billion + "invested" in programming the Ukie hatred of
Russia. This has led to the need to cover up their corruption which the Trump Presidency
would eventually expose.
So, they projected onto Trump and his associates all their crimes in Ukraine.
Involved in all this corruption were players within the CIA, State Dept, NSC, FBI and
all the other Intel agencies needed to cover the crimes. The Clinton-Obama administration had
scores of corrupt officials and associates (the Podestas, for instance). It was necessary to
create a firewall once Trump won the nomination. As so, they attacked his campaign manager,
his national security adviser, his family, himself, using all the means of FISA, wire tapping
done by NSA and CIA and Mi6 and probably Mossad.
The rest has played out, all futile attempts to coup the Presidency.
The Dems now will "kill off" one another, a political savaging in a desperate attempt to
get the White House.
As a Cult they will do what cults always do. The ideology, layered deep with fanaticism,
demands death as its ritual, but, unable to get Trump, it will turn on one another.
After they lose again in November, they will unleash their street thugs, Antifa, to
terrorize the winners. Meanwhile for the purists of the Liberal Cult there will be many real
suicides. So, bloodshed and death will become reality.
"... 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.
As repellent as Trump and his policies are, the Democrats' impeachment bid deserves to fail
because they did not attempt to impeach Bush II, whose offences were far graver.
My prediction: Trump will beat the impeachment. If Bernie were, by a miracle, to get the
nomination, he could beat him. If the Democratic establishment scuppers Bernie in favour of a
right-wing Democrat who offers little to blue-collar workers, their chance of winning will be
slim. HRC, as a war-and-Wall Street type, would surely go down like a lead balloon with the
'battlers'.
"... This gave meaning to the quote from Larry Johnson from "Intelligence: The Human Factor" by Col Lang. "Be quick to ask ask why and insist on hard empirical evidence to corroborate or refute a statement claimed as fact. Hopefully, you will discover that National Security is not based on on deploying the the most technologically sophisticated metal detector or hiring new thousands of new specialists -- but on freedom and " the rule of law". The freedoms we enjoy belong to citizens who know their rights and understand how their government works." ..."
I agree with you. I saw elements of the color
revolution that the previous administration used to destabilize governments being used in the
U.S. at that time. It seems the man behind the curtain is using skilled rhetoric, linguistics,
NLP, persuasion principles and hypnosis tactics. These tactics are are also pointedly being
used, to get around the law and and any meaningful accountability. This appears to being done
in a coordinated, organized and continuous method.
This gave meaning to the quote from Larry Johnson from "Intelligence: The Human Factor" by
Col Lang. "Be quick to ask ask why and insist on hard empirical evidence to corroborate or
refute a statement claimed as fact. Hopefully, you will discover that National Security is not
based on on deploying the the most technologically sophisticated metal detector or hiring new
thousands of new specialists -- but on freedom and " the rule of law". The freedoms we enjoy
belong to citizens who know their rights and understand how their government works."
This Youtube breakdown of Adam Schiff's closing statement, gives insight into some of the
tactics I am speaking of, better than I could explain it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U0ipS5gjmDc
"... So we are to know nothing about an accuser, his history, his motives, his loyalties? It seems that servants of the deep state are to be believed and protected without question... ..."
"... Let's be clear ~ Whistleblower/CIA who started this plan in January 2016... probably mentored by Brennan. ..."
"... This whole impeachment is sham much like the Russian investigation, it is clear just from the actions that we all have witnessed that the US intelligence agencies are guilty of attempting to overthrow the elected government. ..."
Update (1:45 p.m.): Paul was once again denied a question about whistleblower Eric
Ciaramella by Chief Justice Roberts during Thursday's round of impeachment questions in the
Senate.
He refused to read the question @RandPaul : "My question today is
about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama NSC and Democrat partisans
conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal
House impeachment proceedings." pic.twitter.com/8FIcu47PBl
Paul then took to Twitter - writing "My question today is about whether or not individuals
who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired
with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House
impeachment proceedings."
My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama
National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot
impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.
" Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close
relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you
aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to
plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings. "
***
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was spitting mad Wednesday night after Chief Justice John Roberts
blocked his question concerning the CIA whistleblower at the heart of the impeachment of
President Trump.
According to both Politico
and The Hill , Roberts told Senators that he wouldn't read Paul's question, or any
other question which would require him to publicly say the whistleblower's name or otherwise
reveal his identity - which has been widely reported as CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella, who worked
for the National Security Council under the Obama and Trump administrations - and who consulted
with Rep. Adam Schiff's (D-CA) staff prior to filing the complaint.
Stunning that Adam Schiff lies to millions of Americans when he says he doesn't know the
identity of the whistleblower.
He absolutely knows the identity of the whistleblower b/c he coordinated with the
individual before the whistleblower's complaint! His staff helped write it!
A frustrated Paul was overheard expressing his frustration on the Senate floor during a
break in Wednesday's proceedings - telling a Republican staffer " If I have to fight for
recognition, I will. "
Roberts signaled to GOP senators on Tuesday that he wouldn't allow the whistleblower's
name to be mentioned during the question-and-answer session that started the next day, the
sources. Roberts was allowed to screen senators' questions before they were submitted for
reading on the Senate floor, the sources noted.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other top Republicans are also
discouraging disclosure of the whistleblower's identity as well . Paul has submitted at least
one question with the name of a person believed to be the whistleblower, although it was
rejected. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) composed and asked a question regarding the whistleblower
earlier Wednesday that tiptoed around identifying the source who essentially sparked the
House impeachment drive. - Politico
"We've got members who, as you have already determined I think, have an interest in
questions related to the whistleblower," said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-SD), adding
"But I suspect that won't happen. I don't think that happens. And I guess I would hope it
doesn't."
That said, Paul says he's not giving up - telling reporters "It's still an ongoing process,
it may happen tomorrow."
Does Ciaramella deserve 'anonymity'?
Of note, Roberts did not offer any legal argument for hiding the whistleblower's identity -
which leads to an
interesting argument from Constitutional law expert and impeachment witness Johnathan
Turley concerning whistleblower anonymity.
Federal law does not guarantee anonymity of such whistleblowers in Congress -- only
protection from retaliation . Conversely, the presiding officer rarely stands in the path of
senators seeking clarification or information from the legal teams. Paul could name the
whistleblower on the floor without violation federal law. Moreover, the Justice Department
offered a compelling analysis that the whistleblower complaint was not in fact covered by the
intelligence law (the reason for the delay in reporting the matter to Congress). The Justice
Department's Office of Legal Counsel found that the complaint did not meet the legal definition
of "urgent" because it treated the call between Trump and a head of state was if the president
were an employee of the intelligence community. The OLC found that the call "does not relate to
'the funding administration, or operation of an intelligence activity' under the authority of
the Director of National Intelligence . . . As a result, the statute does not require the
Director to transmit the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees. " The Council
of the Inspectors General on Integrity and EfficiencyCouncil strongly disagree with that
reading.
Regardless of the merits of this dispute, Roberts felt that his position allows him to
curtail such questions and answers as a matter of general decorum and conduct. It is certainly
true that all judges are given some leeway in maintaining basic rules concerning the conduct
and comments of participants in such "courts."
This could lead to a confrontation over the right of senators to seek answers to lawful
questions and the authority of the presiding office to maintain basic rules of fairness and
decorum . It is not clear what the basis of the Chief Justice's ruling would be in barring
references to the name of the whistleblower if his status as a whistleblower is contested and
federal law does not protect his name. Yet, there are many things that are not prohibited by
law but still proscribed by courts. This issue however goes to the fact-finding interests of a
senator who must cast a vote on impeachment. Unless Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can defuse
the situation, this afternoon could force Roberts into a formal decision with considerable
importance for this and future trials.
Technically he's not a Whistleblower, he's an Informant. To be a whistleblower Ciaramella
would have to inform on the CIA. Because that's who he worked for.
If the Senate is truly the Chief Justices Court the Chief Justice can modify the rules
case by case. In this case he made the wrong decision and Senator Paul is concerned I agree
with Senator Paul.
I'd have double-tapped that ****** and pissed in his face while he bled to death. And I'd
have been a little bit "slow" to dial 911 after I'd dialed 9MM.
Interesting how Trump does not need to make any more appointments to SCOTUS. I figure RBG
is not long for the court, but Roberts might beat her to it. Either way, the majority
strengthens by subtraction.
So we are to know nothing about an accuser, his history, his motives, his loyalties?
It seems that servants of the deep state are to be believed and protected without
question...
The Deep State agents must be protected at all costs, including obstruction of justice and
failing to allow relevant information to be submitted without reference to a
whistleblower.
The chief justice will not allow CIA agents who conspire and plan a coup to overthrow the
president to be revealed for it would destroy any sliver of credibility they have left.
I think it's hilarious that they actually believe they can remove a President based on
nothing but hidden "evidence" and that we will all just accept that! These people are the
Alpha and Omega of stupid!
The problem is, there seems to be no court to try him. Actually SCOTUS would be that
court, but it's questionable, if the Conservative bench at SCOTUS would dare to take that
case, even though they would be in majority, since „Chief Judge" Roberts would - as
party in the case - not be allowed to vote in that matter
The problem with all these compromised a-holes, like Roberts is they are slaves to the
state. Their oath to office needs to be rewritten, with hand placed on an enormous money
vault.
Why call someone clearly guilty of sedition a whistle blower?
This whole impeachment is sham much like the Russian investigation, it is clear just
from the actions that we all have witnessed that the US intelligence agencies are guilty of
attempting to overthrow the elected government.
They are not helping Ukraine citizen of which after 2014 live in abject poverty. So in now
way this an aid. They are arming Ukraine to kill Russians and maintain a hot spot on Russian
border.
The USA, specifically Brennan, Nuland and Biden create civil war out of nothing pushing far
right nationalist to suppress eastern population by brute forces (they burned alive 200 hundred
or more people on Odessa and killed people in Mariupol before Donbass flared up)
They are despicable MIC bottomfeeders. Neocon calculation is that Russia will not respond to
this provocation, because it is too weak after the economic rape of 1991-2000. While Putin is a
very patient politician they might be wrong.
Notable quotes:
"... Authored by James Bovard via JimBovard.com, ..."
"... "corruption is positively correlated with aid received from the United States." ..."
"... "I think it makes no sense to give aid money to countries that are corrupt." ..."
"... " remains skeptical after a history of broken promises [from the Ukraine govt]. Kiev hasn't successfully completed any of a series of IMF bailout packages over the past two decades, with systemic corruption at the heart of much of that failure." ..."
"... "Most foreign aid winds up with outside consultants, the local military, corrupt bureaucrats, the new NGO [nongovernmental organizations] administrators, and Mercedes dealers." ..."
"... James Bovard is the author of " ..."
"... Attention Deficit Democracy ..."
"... The Bush Betrayal ..."
"... Terrorism and Tyranny ..."
"... ," and other books. Bovard is on the USA Today Board of Contributors. He is on Twitter at @jimbovard. His website is at ..."
The campaign to convict and remove President Donald Trump in the Senate hinges on delays in
disbursing U.S. aid to Ukraine. Ukraine was supposedly on the verge of great progress until
Trump pulled the rug out from under the heroic salvation effort by U.S. government bureaucrats.
Unfortunately, Congress has devoted a hundred times more attention to the timing of aid to
Ukraine than to its effectiveness. And most of the media coverage has ignored the biggest
absurdity of the impeachment fight.
The temporary postponement of the Ukrainian aid was practically irrelevant considering that
U.S. assistance efforts have long fueled the poxes they promised to eradicate –
especially
kleptocracy, or government by thieves .
A 2002 American Economic Review analysis concluded that
"increases in [foreign] aid are associated with contemporaneous increases in corruption" and
that "corruption is positively correlated with aid received from the United
States."
Then-President George W. Bush promised to reform foreign aid that year,
declaring , "I think it makes no sense to give aid money to countries that are
corrupt." Regardless, the Bush administration continued delivering billions of dollars in
handouts to
many of the world's most corrupt regimes .
Then-President Barack Obama, recognizing the failure
of past U.S. aid efforts, proclaimed at the United Nations in 2010 that the U.S. government
is "
leading a global effort to combat corruption ." The following year, congressional
Republicans sought to restrict foreign aid to fraud-ridden foreign regimes. Then-Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton wailed that restricting handouts to nations that fail anti-corruption
tests "has
the potential to affect a staggering number of needy aid recipients."
The Obama administration continued pouring tens of billions of U.S. tax dollars into
sinkholes such as Afghanistan, which even its president, Ashraf Ghani, admitted in 2016 was
"one of the
most corrupt countries on earth ." John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghan
Reconstruction (SIGAR), declared that "U.S.
policies and practices unintentionally aided and abetted corruption" in Afghanistan.
Since the end of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has provided more than $6 billion in aid to
Ukraine. At the House impeachment hearings, a key anti-Trump witness was acting U.S. ambassador
to the Ukraine, William B. Taylor Jr. The Washington Post hailed Taylor as someone who "
spent much of the 1990s telling Ukrainian politicians that nothing was more critical to
their long-term prosperity than rooting out corruption and bolstering the rule of law, in his
role as the head of U.S. development assistance for post-Soviet countries." A New York Times
editorial
lauded Taylor and State Department deputy assistant secretary George Kent as witnesses who
"came across not as angry Democrats or Deep State conspirators, but as men who have devoted
their lives to serving their country."
After their testimony spurred criticism, a Washington Post headline
captured the capital city's reaction: "The diplomatic corps has been wounded. The State
Department needs to heal." But not nearly as much as the foreigners supposedly rescued by U.S.
bureaucrats.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Oct. 31 that the International Monetary Fund, which has
provided more than $20
billion in loans to Ukraine, " remains
skeptical after a history of broken promises [from the Ukraine govt]. Kiev hasn't
successfully completed any of a series of IMF bailout packages over the past two decades, with
systemic corruption at the heart of much of that failure."
The IMF concluded that Ukraine continued to be vexed by " shortcomings
in the legal framework, pervasive corruption, and large parts of the economy dominated by
inefficient state-owned enterprises or by oligarchs." That last item is damning for the U.S.
benevolent pretensions. If a former Soviet republic cannot even terminate its government-owned
boondoggles, then why in hell was the U.S. government bankrolling them?
Transparency International, which publishes an annual Corruption Perceptions Index, shows
that corruption
surged in Ukraine in the late 1990s (after the U.S. decided to rescue them) and remains at
abysmal levels. Ukraine is now ranked as the 120th most
corrupt nation in the world -- a lower ranking than received by Egypt and Pakistan, two
other major U.S. aid recipients also notorious for corruption.
Actually, the best gauge of Ukrainian corruption is the near-total collapse of its citizens'
trust in government or in their own future. Since 1991, the nation
has lost almost 20% of its population as citizens flee abroad like passengers leaping off a
sinking ship.
And yet, the House impeachment hearings and much of the media gushed over career U.S.
government officials despite their strikeouts. It was akin to a congressional committee
resurrecting Col. George S. Custer in 1877 and fawning as he offered personal insights in
dealing with uprisings by Sioux Indians (while carefully avoiding awkward questions about the
previous year at
the Little Big Horn ).
Foreign aid is virtue signaling with other people's money. As long the aid spawns press
releases and photo opportunities for presidents and members of Congress and campaign donations
from corporate and other beneficiaries, little else matters. Congress almost never conducts
thorough investigations into the failure of aid programs despite their legendary pratfalls. The
Agency for International Development ludicrously evaluated its programs in Afghanistan based
on their "burn rate" – whether they were spending money as quickly as possible,
almost regardless of the results. SIGAR's John Sopko "found a USAID lessons-learned report from
1980s on Afghan reconstruction but nobody at AID had read it
."
After driving around the world, investment guru Jim Rogers declared: "Most foreign
aid winds up with outside consultants, the local military, corrupt bureaucrats, the new NGO
[nongovernmental organizations] administrators, and Mercedes dealers." After the Obama
administration promised massive aid to Ukraine in 2014,
Hunter Biden jumped on the gravy train – as did legions of well-connected
Washingtonians and other hustlers around the nation. Similar largesse assures that there will
never be a shortage of overpaid individuals and hired think tanks ready to write op-eds or
letters to the editor of the Washington Post whooping up the moral greatness of foreign aid or
some such hokum.
When it comes to the failure of U.S. aid to Ukraine, almost all of Trump's congressional
critics are like the "
dog that didn't bark " in the Sherlock Holmes story. The real outrage is that Trump and
prior presidents, with Congress cheering all the way, delivered so many U.S. tax dollars to
Kiev that any reasonable person knew would be wasted. If Washington truly wants to curtail
foreign corruption, ending U.S. foreign aid is the best first step.
paying billions to corrupt Jewish Ukranians is just another way to support Israel.
Christian Zionists understand and approve of this. So what's the big deal? It's free money.
Money that grows on trees. What does it cost to print billions of free money by a few
electronic entries? Nothing. We should print more. Free **** is a beautiful thing.
We can postpone judgment day for at least another decade or so. By then, all the smart
Harvard educated guys and gals at Goldman Sachs and Wall Street will figure out how to kick
the can down the road for another decade or so.
When it all collapses, half of India and Africa and central America will already have
replaced what used to be the American population. The few remaining Americans aside from the
immigrants will be unrecognizable anyway. many will have left. Many more will have been
reduced by failure to procreate and replace themselves. Christians will be a despised,(even
the idiotic Zio-Christians who looked the other way on important issues as long as we were
bombing and killing for their beloved Israel) We will have a dying population as many will
have chosen the gay LGBTQ lifestyle and we are replaced by subservient obedient, uneducated
immigrants who are happy to work for $8 an hour and live in a single room apartment they
share with other immigrant families.
Ukraine was a failed state since day one and it got much worse since US/EU instigated
coup. I don't see any light at the end of tunnel. Zielensky is a more friendly face, but
that's it. He obviously doesn't have power to change the course. He can promise anything
while abroad, but he has to appease the nazis at home or they will get rid of him. In other
words Ukraine is doomed.
Zielensky is more than friendly face...he signed many deals with Putin and behave as
responsible politician who wanna bring normalization and peace. Same forces overthrow
Yanukovitch will try it with Zielensky, because they not wanna peace, but their interest is
war....so Zielensky is in danger.
Ukraine has biggest potential of all countries. Has richest on a planet soil, educated
European population, is poor so money go long way. And of course bridge to forcing Russia
being our ally, and adhere to nationalism, vs being corrupted by globalists.
No ****, it's absurd. The Wretched City was practically unanimous in the screeching about
sending weapons to Ukraine because Crimea voted to join Russia, something they describe up
there as being "annexed". Especially so now because since then Iraq voted to kick the US out
of their country and has been ignored, themselves being "annexed".
This is something that is accepted to a certain degree as a result of Bob Mueller.
Crimea is military important for their security...that why they had naval base there..they
cant afford lose this point and Black Sea....
Soviets were not willing to colonize these satelites like Poland, Czechoslovakia etc. they
were relevant after ww2 and Russians were scared of another war...day they become irrelevant
thanks of new weapons they abandon these states.
I know they are corrupted one...but USA is careless toward Ukraine fortunes...they use
them to provoke conditions to create cold war two...military industry need big enemies for
sake of hundreds bilions usd profits...how would you explain your citizens you pay one third
of budget and no enemies??? so Deep state want cold war two.
More than milion Ukrainians left to Russia...while EU has closed Ukrainian borders...so
who care more of Ukrainian people?
Russians were victims of all of this...red line was Crimea...and Putin did
right...otherwise Russian nuclear security would be doomed if you allow NATO troops to
Crimea.
US politicians not do it first time...did you know most wealthy Kosovian is Magdalene All
Bright?? i live in postcommunist state and whole my life witness western proxies stealing all
valuable stakes here....Communism created state ownership of big industries...domestic
politicians alongside western snakes steal it very ugly way.IN SO CALLED PRIVATIZATION..wheather it is Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, Romania etc. even information networks are owed by westeners....we are absolutely
blackmailed.
Russians and partly Ukrainians did not allow foreigers to entry ...they tried it..here and
there something got, whole 90s was going on this big fight among Russians and plus western
snakes for stakes....Putin created order in it alongside Russian oligarchy and
normalization....that why Russians like him.
Are these idiotic Democrats and Russia haters crazy?
Russia has a population and GDP roughly the same as Mexico and they're on the other side
of the planet (unless you're in Alaska). There is exactly zero chance Russia will invade or
attack Western Europe or the USA.
The USA should be concerned with the USA, and not whether Russia will act to safeguard its
border.
When Soviet Union left...military industry for sake of their profits needed to create big
enemy....they created terrorism and islamic wars......now as it failing apart they need new
enemies..big one to explain you why is necessary to give one third of your taxes into
military toys...so they create conflicts around China and Russia with hope to dig in into
cold war two.
Russians and Chinese have not big corporate bussines behind their military...their
spending is tiny compared to US military industry profits....so they have no interest in
wars...while US seek them.
Be aware Americans...your military is not only milking you, but risking of whole humanity
throwing into military disasters even as an accidents . Putin explained it many
times...computer supersystems can be activated so easily if some misteps happen...
If Quid Pro Que is legal, then the swamp is drained. The swamp isn't doing anything wrong.
They have been following the law all this time. Ask the president.
"... Mueller and Schiff are similar figures, who have filled the same thematic space. From the moment Trump took office, a particularly plugged-in segment of the Democratic electorate has been waiting for a Boy Scout with a law degree to take him down. ..."
"... At the Center for American Progress's Ideas Conference in June, for instance, Schiff alluded to the norms of the criminal justice system as he argued that the House should gather enough evidence to convince Republicans to convict Trump in an eventual trial. "How many of you are former prosecutors who indicted someone in the knowledge that you would be unsuccessful in trying to prove the case to a jury?" he asked. "Probably none of you." ..."
"... That, of course, is precisely what Schiff and the House's managers are now doing, House leadership having decided that the revelation of Trump's Ukraine scheme meant that impeachment could wait no longer. ..."
"... "A dangerous moment for America when an impeachment of the president of the United States is being rushed through because of lawyer lawsuits," he intoned. "The Constitution allows it; if necessary, the Constitution demands it if necessary." ..."
"... Everyone participating in the trial knows full well that Trump's acquittal is certain. The real task at hand is speaking to audiences beyond the chamber -- including, at least as far as the defense is concerned, one particular viewer in the White House. ..."
"... When the House managers gave you their presentation -- when they submitted their brief -- they repeatedly referenced Hunter Biden and Burisma," said Bondi. "They spoke to you for over 21 hours and they referenced Biden or Burisma over 400 times. And when they gave these presentations, they said there was nothing to see, it was a sham. ..."
With acquittal a foregone conclusion, Trump's accusers and defenders strive to reach
audiences beyond the Senate.
The impeachment trial of President Trump has been short on
drama. The rules that govern the proceedings effectively preclude it -- senators observing
the trial sit testily, but quietly, through presentations from either side and submit their
questions in writing directly to Chief Justice John Roberts. It's been left to the two legal
teams in the room -- the House managers prosecuting the case against Trump and the
president's defenders -- to craft those moments that might resonate with the public. Now and
again, over the course of their arguments, they've delivered. In this way, the dueling
attorneys don't merely represent two sides in the impeachment debate -- they've served as
stand-ins for the two parties themselves.
The most viral moment of the trial thus far came at the end of last Thursday's session,
when House Intelligence Committee chair and impeachment manager Adam Schiff choked up in an
earnest defense of constitutional order: "If right doesn't matter, we're lost. If the truth
doesn't matter, we're lost. The Framers couldn't protect us from ourselves if right and truth
don't matter. And you know that what he did was not right....
"Here right is supposed to matter. It's what's made us the greatest nation on earth. No
Constitution can protect us if right doesn't matter anymore. And you know you can't trust
this president to do what's right for this country."
Figures ranging from Star Wars icon Mark Hamill to former Acting Solicitor General
Neal Katyal offered Schiff rapturous praise for the speech on Twitter, where hashtags like
"#AdamShiffROCKS [sic]" and "#AdamSchiffHasMyRespect" quickly took off. MSNBC's Lawrence
O'Donnell called Schiff "the greatest defender of the Constitution in the twenty-first
century." "Thank God," The Washington Post 's Jennifer Rubin said, "I was alive to
hear Schiff speak these past few days."
The reception from liberals and Never Trumpers was reminiscent of special counsel Robert
Mueller's many months in the sun, prior to the release of his Russia report and his testimony
before the House -- although Schiff, to be fair, has yet to make a shirtless
cameo appearance in a children's book. All told, Mueller and Schiff are similar
figures, who have filled the same thematic space. From the moment Trump took office, a
particularly plugged-in segment of the Democratic electorate has been waiting for a Boy Scout
with a law degree to take him down. The thirst for a legal fight stems not only from
impeachment's offer of a nonelectoral remedy for Trump but also from the way the legalism and
rhetoric that surrounds any discussion about sustaining Constitutional norms offers a stark
contrast to Trump's style of politics. The knotty work of trying to best Trump methodically
through a legal process feels, for some, inherently restorative.
But it's worth remembering that a year ago, the rhetoric of legalism was being deployed to
suppress calls for Trump's impeachment in the first place. Those who advocated for Trump's
removal were told that hearings would have to wait indefinitely until Mueller's deliberate
and disciplined gathering of evidence and the House's various legal battles with the
administration reached their conclusions. Schiff himself was among those defending the party
line. At the Center for American Progress's Ideas Conference in June, for instance,
Schiff alluded to the norms of the criminal justice system as he argued that the House should
gather enough evidence to convince Republicans to convict Trump in an eventual trial. "How
many of you are former prosecutors who indicted someone in the knowledge that you would be
unsuccessful in trying to prove the case to a jury?" he asked. "Probably none of
you."
That, of course, is precisely what Schiff and the House's managers are now doing,
House leadership having decided that the revelation of Trump's Ukraine scheme meant that
impeachment could wait no longer.
As for Trump's defenders, there has been clear separation between the attorneys
responsible for sketching out a half-plausible legal defense for Trump -- as best they can --
and the lawyers tasked mostly with providing a steady stream of tangential obfuscation and
misdirection. Jay Sekulow, one of Trump's personal lawyers and a fixture on Fox News, has
clearly been in the latter camp, reviving familiar lines about a conspiracy against the
president in the booming tones he's honed on his radio show, Jay Sekulow Live. In an
initially befuddling moment on the first day of the trial, Sekulow pivoted into a harangue
against the House managers for complaining about "lawyer lawsuits" -- complaints they hadn't
actually made. It later emerged that Sekulow had simply misheard the phrase "FOIA lawsuits"
-- although the White House's legislative affairs office insisted, naturally, that Sekulow
had been correct. The salient point is that Sekulow powered through his remarks anyway,
defending the principles embedded in the inherently redundant and nonsensical phrase he'd
invented. "A dangerous moment for America when an impeachment of the president of the
United States is being rushed through because of lawyer lawsuits," he intoned. "The
Constitution allows it; if necessary, the Constitution demands it if necessary."
On Tuesday, Sekulow delivered one of the final speeches before the trial's questioning
phase. Most of it was dedicated to relitigating Mueller's report, with a few declamations
against an election year impeachment scattered throughout. But he also tried out, almost as
an aside, one of the most absurd defenses for the president's actions yet. Trump, he argued,
couldn't have been looking out for his own interests in his dealings with Ukraine because
he's proven himself genuinely interested enough in world affairs to seek peace in the Middle
East: "The one that still troubles me -- this idea that the president, it was said by several
of the managers, is only doing things for himself. Understanding what's going on in the world
today as we're here. They raised it, by the way. I'm not trying to be disrespectful. They
raised it! This president is only doing things for himself, while the leaders of opposing
parties, by the way, at the highest level, to obtain peace in the Middle East. To say you're
only doing that for yourself."
This, putting it mildly, is not the kind of argument one makes in an earnest attempt at
swaying jurors. Everyone participating in the trial knows full well that Trump's
acquittal is certain. The real task at hand is speaking to audiences beyond the chamber --
including, at least as far as the defense is concerned, one particular viewer in the White
House.
This goes some way toward explaining former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi's
involvement in the trial. She's perhaps best known for her run-in with Anderson Cooper after
the Orlando nightclub shooting in 2016, during which Cooper criticized her for professing
support for the LGBT community after her efforts to block gay marriage in Florida. Three
years earlier, Bondi, having announced an investigation into fraud allegations against Trump
University, suddenly closed the investigation after a group affiliated with her reelection
campaign received an illegal donation from Trump's charitable foundation. After a stint as a
lobbyist for Qatar, she's back in Trump's orbit, and she took up half an hour Monday airing
the dirt on Hunter Biden that Trump had badgered the Ukrainians to promote in the first
place. It would have been a slightly shorter speech had she not stumbled through the text
laid in front of her so clumsily. " When the House managers gave you their presentation
-- when they submitted their brief -- they repeatedly referenced Hunter Biden and Burisma,"
said Bondi. "They spoke to you for over 21 hours and they referenced Biden or Burisma over
400 times. And when they gave these presentations, they said there was nothing to see, it was
a sham. This is fiction. In their trial memorandum, the House managers described this as
baseless. Now, why did they say that? Why did they invoke Biden or Burisma over 400 times?
The reason they needed to do that is because they're here saying that the president must be
impeached and removed from office for raising a concern. And that's why we have to talk about
this today. They say sham, they say baseless. Because -- they say this -- because if it's OK
for someone to say, 'Hey, you know what, maybe there's something here worth raising,' then
their case crumbles."
The remarks as delivered don't seem too far off from one of Trump's digressive riffs. Like
Trump, she managed to get at least the right nouns in circulation as red meat for a base less
interested in the formal arguments being concocted by Trump's team. By contrast, Schiff's
earnestness and reason is the corresponding cri de coeur for a meaningful proportion of
Democratic voters, as well as -- Democratic leaders hope -- an affect that will reassure
those voters who have remained on the fence about impeachment.
Earlier today Graham and Cruz turned the question back on Schiiff of Romney's son engaged with Burisma and colored it with
enough language to subtly tell Romney to get in line as his control file is brimming with corruption in Ukraine. Notice how he
became curiously quiet for the rest of the questioning leaving Murkowski and Collins to ask their own questions, which is why Burr
joined their team.
Notable quotes:
"... Yup did you catch the Graham/Cruz question back to Schitt regarding Romney's son involved with Burisma? It was an epic take down letting him know his control file has a lot of evidence...Romney has been very quiet since them. Look for his vote to acquit. ..."
"... This whole impeachment sham has been two-fold: ..."
"... try and damage Trump as much as possible, but more importantly, ..."
"... Try and take the spotlight off the total cesspool the Dem's and, possibly some Republicans (i.e., Romney), have made of the Ukraine. ..."
"... All to cover the monstrous corruption of $multi Billion+ Ukraine aid that was funneled from Obummer's Administration to all the sons, daughters, brothers and phony front companies of the criminal Dimwits and RINOS. Same model in China and Iran. ..."
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) - who has forcefully advocated for testimony from former national
security adviser John Bolton after a leaked manuscript from his upcoming book claims President
Trump directly tied Ukraine aid to investigations into the Bidens - said nothing after the
lunch, which Murkowski did not attend.
Mitt Romney created Obamacare for Massachusetts ... as anti American and anti republican as
you can get... throw the two out.
OpenEyes
Mitt Romney is about to get thrown under the bus by the republican establishment.
Then comes the Durham report
Then comes the official investigation into the Ukraine corruption
The comes the orange jumpsuit
For Mittens, the hits will just keep coming
Totally_Disillusioned
Yup did you catch the Graham/Cruz question back to Schitt regarding Romney's son involved with Burisma? It was an epic
take down letting him know his control file has a lot of evidence...Romney has been very quiet since them. Look for his vote
to acquit.
1) try and damage Trump as much as
possible, but more importantly,
2) Try and take the spotlight off the total cesspool the Dem's and, possibly some Republicans (i.e.,
Romney), have made of the Ukraine. Congress and other agencies could spend years
investigating all the corruption there with starring roles by: Obama, Soros, much of the
Obama State Department, CIA, Obama Defense Dept...........the list is quite long.
All to cover the monstrous corruption of $multi Billion+ Ukraine aid that was funneled
from Obummer's Administration to all the sons, daughters, brothers and phony front companies
of the criminal Dimwits and RINOS. Same model in China and Iran.
The American Enterprise Institute and The Heritage Foundation which shapes Republican
policy, came up with that.
Bush was going to present his plan in 2005 but was sidetracked by his Iraqi War Crimes.
Romney tested it in Massachusetts.
Democrats passed Republican ACA to woo industry donations to themselves. Republicans are
pissed at that and want the donors back. THIS IS WHAT THE REAL FIGHT IS ABOUT.
Impeachment: Trump Team Nails Bidens, Burisma, And Obama's Hot-Mic Moment With Russia by
Tyler Durden Mon,
01/27/2020 - 20:05 0 SHARES
President Trump's defense team cut straight to the heart of the impeachment on Monday,
insisting that Democrats have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bidens didn't engage
in textbook corruption in Ukraine - and that President Trump's request to investigate it was
out of line.
Former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, a recent addition to the White House
communications team, walked the Senate through the entire malarkey for 30 minutes , including Hunter Biden's 'nepotistic at
best, nefarious at worst' board seat at Ukrainian gas giant Burisma.
"All we are saying is that there was a basis to talk about this, to raise this issue, and
that is enough," said Bondi, who noted that Hunter Biden was paid over $83,000 per month to sit
on Burisma's board even though he had zero experience in natural gas or Ukrainian relations
while his father was Vice President and in charge of Ukraine policy for the United States.
Trump attorney Eric Herschmann said that Democrats have been "circling the wagons" to
protect the Bidens - and are refusing to investigate the Bidens, claiming without conducting an
investigation that all allegations against them are 'debunked.'
Herschmann then laid into former President Obama, who was caught on a hot mic asking Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev for "space" until after his election .
One can only imagine what would happen if the Left & the media applied their
manufactured outrage to Obama's actions & statements.
Remember when Obama was caught asking Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for "space" until
after his election?
Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine supported comments made by Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT)
over whether former National Security Adviser John Bolton should testify in President Trump's
impeachment trial, after a manuscript of his upcoming book was leaked to the New York
Times which claims that President Trump explicitly linked a hold on Ukraine aid to an
investigation of the Bidens. "The reports about John Bolton's book strengthen the case for
witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues," said Collins.
JUST IN: GOP Sen. Susan Collins: "The reports about John Bolton's book strengthen the case
for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues." https://t.co/wDglFX1ipA
pic.twitter.com/DlSjXMfDsk
Collins echoed Monday comments by Romney, who said " it is increasingly apparent that it
would be important to hear from John Bolton ," adding that it is "increasingly likely" that
other GOP senators would join the 11th hour call.
... ... ...
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said " This looks like a marketing tactic to sell
books is what it looks like to me."
Sen. Blunt on John Bolton:
"I can't imagine that anything he would have to say would change the outcome of the final
vote. Might be interesting, might be an oversight question that Congress wants to take months
to pursue."
"I think Bolton is credible, he's a friend of mine."
Update (0130ET) : The word of the day is "Shredded" - as in, several Republicans have
described the White House counsel's presentation as having shredded House Democrats'
impeachment arguments.
Democratic lawmakers are continuing to lay out their case for removing the president from office in the final day of opening arguments
by Democrats in the historic impeachment trial of President Trump. Republicans will begin their opening arguments on Saturday. The
Senate trial comes a month after the House impeached Trump for withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine as part
of an effort to pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate Trump's political rival, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
On Thursday, House impeachment manager Jerrold Nadler made the case that a president can be impeached for noncriminal activity. During
another part of Thursday's proceedings, House impeachment manager Congressmember Sylvia Garcia relied on polls by Fox News
to make the case that President Trump decided to target Joe Biden after polls showed the former vice president could beat Trump in
2020.
For more on the impeachment trial, we're joined by Marjorie Cohn, professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and the
former president of the National Lawyers Guild. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical
Issues .
TRANSCRIPT
AMY GOODMAN : We turn now to the historic impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump. Democratic
lawmakers are continuing to lay out their case for removing the president from office. Today marks the final day of a 24-hour opening
argument by the Democrats. Republicans begin their opening arguments Saturday. The Senate impeachment trial comes a month after the
House impeached Trump for withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine as part of an effort to pressure the Ukrainian
president to investigate Trump's political rival, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. On Thursday, House impeachment manager
Jerrold Nadler made the case that a president can be impeached for noncriminal activity.
REP . JERROLD NADLER : No one anticipated that a president would stoop to this misconduct, and Congress has passed no specific
law to make this behavior a crime. Yet this is precisely the kind of abuse that the Framers had in mind when they wrote the impeachment
clause and when they charged Congress with determining when the president's conduct was so clearly wrong, so definitely beyond
the pale, so threatening to the constitutional order as to require his removal.
AMY GOODMAN : During his presentation, Judiciary chair in the House Jerrold Nadler relied in part on past statements made by key
supporters of President Trump.
REP . JERROLD NADLER : And I might say the same thing of then-House manager Lindsey Graham, who, in President Clinton's trial,
flatly rejected the notion that impeachable offenses are limited to violations of established law. Here is what he said.
REP . LINDSEY GRAHAM : What's a high crime? How about if an important person hurt somebody of low means? It's not very scholarly,
but I think it's the truth. I think that's what they meant by high crimes. Doesn't even have to be a crime.
REP . JERROLD NADLER : In Attorney General Barr's view, as expressed about 18 months ago, presidents cannot be indicted or
criminally investigated, but that's OK, because they can be impeached. That's the safeguard. And in an impeachment, Attorney General
Barr added, the "President is answerable for any abuses of discretion" and may be held "accountable under law for his misdeeds
in office."
AMY GOODMAN : Senator Lindsey Graham reportedly left the Senate chamber shortly before Congressman Nadler played the clip of him
from Bill Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999. During another part of Thursday's proceedings, House impeachment manager Congresswoman
Sylvia Garcia relied on polls by Fox News to make the case that President Trump decided to target Joe Biden after polls showed
the former vice president could beat Trump in 2020.
REP . SYLVIA GARCIA : It wasn't until Biden began beating him in the polls that he called for the investigation. The president
asked Ukraine for this investigation for one reason and one reason only: because he knew he would -- it would be damaging to an
opponent who was consistently beating him in the polls, and therefore it could help him get re-elected in 2020. President Trump
had the motive, he had the opportunity and the means, to commit this abuse of power. If we allow this gross abuse of power to
continue, this president would have free rein -- free rein -- to abuse his control of U.S. foreign policy for personal interests.
And so would any other future president. And then this president and all presidents become above the law.
AMY GOODMAN : House Intelligence chair, House manager Adam Schiff -- he's the lead House impeachment manager -- ended the long
day of oral arguments.
REP . ADAM SCHIFF : It doesn't matter how good the Constitution is. It doesn't matter how brilliant the Framers were. It doesn't
matter how good or bad our advocacy in this trial is. It doesn't matter how well written the oath of impartiality is. If right
doesn't matter, we're lost. If the truth doesn't matter, we're lost. The Framers couldn't protect us from ourselves, if right
and truth don't matter. And you know that what he did was not right.
AMY GOODMAN : To talk more about the impeachment trial of President Trump, we go to San Diego, California, where we're joined
by Marjorie Cohn, professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. She's the former president of the National Lawyers Guild.
Her most recent book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues .
Welcome to Democracy Now! , Marjorie Cohn. Start off by assessing the Democrats' case so far for the removal of President
Trump.
MARJORIE COHN : Well, yes, Amy. The Democratic managers, the House managers, have laid out a meticulous case for abuse of power
and obstruction of Congress. And many of these Republican senators who are listening, who have to sit in their chairs for eight hours
a day without talking, without using cellphones, are a captive audience. And many of them have never heard this before. They didn't
follow the case that was made in the House. And this case is so powerful and so deep that Schiff said at the end -- Adam Schiff said
at the end, "You know he's guilty. The question is: Will you remove him?"
Now, these senators, the Republicans, have walked in lockstep with Donald Trump. They are what Frank Rich would call Vichy Republicans,
Vichy being the government in France, in Nazi-occupied France, who were doing Hitler's bidding. They walk in lockstep with him, and
there is almost no chance that they're not going to acquit him. But what Adam Schiff was trying to get across was, they are going
to be on the wrong side of history, because what Donald Trump does -- and he does this consistently -- is to put his own personal
interest ahead of the national interest. And that's something that they all have to grapple with.
Now, one of the things that they focused on yesterday was to refute the allegations that the Bidens did something wrong and therefore
there was merit in Trump's, basically, demand that Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, investigate what they did with the Burisma
company. And what the Democrats were trying to do is to take the wind out of the sails of the Republican case by bringing it up first.
And what the Republicans have said now -- and this is the defense team, Donald Trump's defense team -- is that, "Well, now that they've
opened the door, now that the managers have opened the door, we're going to make that probably a focus" of their defense.
Now, what they did in the House was to focus mainly on process, whereas the managers, the Democrats, focused on the facts and
laid out this roadmap to prove abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. What the Republicans did was to focus on process: "Donald
Trump was denied due process" -- which he wasn't. He was invited to come and didn't participate. Many process arguments. It's unclear
to me, Amy, how the Republicans, how the defense, Donald Trump's defense, is going to take up two or three days -- and they've said
now it's probably going to be two days -- in addition to meeting the Biden -- talking about the Biden issue, because they're going
to really harp on that. It's not clear what they're going to do. They're going to harp on process.
But the thing that's really important about this is not so much that -- he's not going to be found guilty. There's no doubt about
that. The American people are watching. They're following this. And just like during Watergate, when people were riveted to the television,
that is going to be reflected, I believe, in the election. The polls are already showing that people, the majority of American people,
think he should be removed. A huge majority think he did something unethical. And a sizable majority think he did something illegal.
So, this is really, really important, even though ultimately he won't be removed.
AMY GOODMAN : And if he is found guilty, is he automatically removed?
MARJORIE COHN : The Constitution provides that the Senate is to determine his guilt and removal. So it's really part of the same
thing, and therefore -- and this is what Adam Schiff was trying to get at -- even though all or most of the Republicans know in their
heart of hearts that he's guilty, they don't think he should be removed. And so, therefore, they will probably, in all probability,
vote not guilty. But, yes, conviction means removal. That's not going to happen.
AMY GOODMAN : You said that the senators have to sit there for eight hours. In fact, that's not what's happening. Is that right?
I mean, to be very clear, the Republicans are controlling the frame of the TV image. It's no longer, you know, C- SPAN on the floor
of the Senate or the House, so you can't see what's actually happening behind the scenes. But you have Tennessee Republican Senator
Blackburn. She's got books that she's reading. You have Thom Tillis. I believe he got up and he went into the press gallery to hang
out there for a while. And, of course, Lindsey Graham, when Congressmember Nadler played the clip of him saying exactly the opposite
of what he's saying now, that it has to be a crime that President Trump has committed, according to the criminal code, saying the
opposite during Clinton's trial, he reportedly was not in the Senate chamber.
MARJORIE COHN : Yes, that's true. There were a handful of senators who were not there, who were coming and going. But the bulk
of them are listening to, if not all of it, most of it. They just can't get away from it. They are not allowed to have cellphones,
which is probably really difficult for them. And, yes, they do get up and leave and come back, and we're not seeing that, but most
of them are hearing most of this very airtight case, really.
AMY GOODMAN : Can you talk about exactly what President Trump has been impeached for, these two articles of impeachment? And if
you think -- I mean, just look at the title of your book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues
. You have long focused on the issue of war crimes and U.S. presidents guilty of them. The narrow framing of this impeachment?
MARJORIE COHN : Yes. Well, Nancy Pelosi resisted for many, many months mounting impeachment, an impeachment proceeding in the
House. And there are many different grounds that he could have been impeached for: violation of the emoluments clause, corruption
and war crimes, as you said, most recently killing Soleimani in violation of the U.N. Charter, in violation of the War Powers Resolution.
But when the whistleblower complaint came out and it became so clear what Trump had done with strong-arming Zelensky to mount --
not to mount investigations necessarily, but to announce that he was mounting investigations into Trump's political rival, Joe Biden
and this discredited theory that Ukraine had meddled in the 2016 election, Nancy Pelosi understood that this was an airtight case.
It was narrow. It was clear. People could get their brains around it.
And so we have these two articles of impeachment. Abuse of power and quid pro quo , this for that, dirt for dollars --
I think is one of the phrases that we hear -- that Trump really believed that because we've been so good to Ukraine, Ukraine owes
us. He really does not understand how foreign policy works. It's all about making a business deal, making himself look good. So,
this dirt for dollars -- in other words, if Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, announced an investigation against the Bidens, that
would tarnish Biden, who was leading him in the polls at that time, and help Trump's re-election. Patently illegal, a patent abuse
of power. And then the second article of impeachment is obstruction of Congress. And in an unprecedented move -- no president ever
before has done this, a president facing impeachment, even judges facing impeachment, haven't totally stonewalled the House of Representatives,
not producing one document in response to subpoenas, forbidding all officials of the executive branch from testifying. And this is
a direct violation of the Constitution's command that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. That
means it's not up to the president to decide whether he's going to cooperate with it.
And now, of course, we move to the Senate trial. We have moved to the Senate trial. And the first day of the trial was filled
with pretrial motions, 11 motions, by the House managers for the testimony of four witnesses and the production of documents from
a number of government agencies. Two of those witnesses are John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney. Mick Mulvaney said very incriminating
things about the president, admitting the quid pro quo . And John Bolton, who left on bad terms, left the White House on bad
terms, he says he's prepared to testify if he's subpoenaed. Now, Trump is very, very threatened by Bolton's testimony. And, you know,
what Trump thinks comes right out in his tweets. There's no guessing what he's thinking. And most recently he said he doesn't want
Bolton to testify because "Bolton knows how I feel about these matters," and it's a national security threat. And he said, "We didn't
leave on the best of terms." And he's terrified about what Bolton will say.
Now, In the pretrial motions, the Republicans, to a person, walked in lockstep with Trump in tabling the whole issue of whether
or not witnesses would be allowed, these four witnesses or any witnesses, and whether documents could be subpoenaed, until after
six days of argument, opening arguments, by the two parties, by the House managers and by the defense, and 16 hours of questioning
by the senators. It's like in Alice in Wonderland : first the trial, then the evidence. So we have the opening statements,
and then we have the questions by senators. And then, are we going to have evidence? Looks like we may not. Looks like they may prevent
witnesses from testifying, although they have made noises about wanting one of the Bidens to testify, to bolster this spurious theory
that they did something wrong. The Bidens have been completely exonerated by everybody who has examined what happened during this
time in Ukraine, when Joe Biden was acting as vice president consistent with American policy -- very, very different from what Trump
is accused of.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, let me stick with the Bidens for a minute. I want to read from today's New York Times , the
front page . "Joseph R.
Biden Jr. called an octogenarian voter a 'damn liar' and challenged him to a push-up contest. He dismissed a heckler as an 'idiot.'
He commanded the news media to focus on President Trump instead of the overseas business dealings of his son, Hunter Biden, demanding
of one reporter, 'Ask the right question!' For Mr. Biden, the stream of questions about his son touches on a vulnerability for his
candidacy and presents a fine line for him to navigate. At issue is an unsubstantiated theory pushed by Mr. Trump that Mr. Biden
took action in Ukraine as vice president in order to help his son, who at the time held a lucrative position as a board member of
Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company."
So, I mean, let's talk about this for a minute. You know, some have speculated this is a real crisis, the impeachment trial, at
this time, because, you know, four senators can't be out on the campaign trail, the leading senators in the Senate, Senator Sanders
and Senator Elizabeth Warren, so Biden is out there along with Buttigieg in Iowa at this key moment. But it could also be a liability
for Biden, as he is now open to questions from both Iowans and reporters about what actually happened, not necessarily about what
Vice President Biden did. But what about his son, Hunter Biden, on the board of Burisma? If you can talk about what the accusations
are and also, significantly, this whole issue of reciprocal witnesses, the idea that the Republicans could call Hunter Biden to testify?
Clearly, Biden is getting very nervous about this, too.
MARJORIE COHN : He is, Amy. And yes, this could cut both ways. People will be very defensive of Biden and say, you know, he's
being unfairly attacked, he's been cleared, he didn't do anything wrong. And on the other hand, some people will think, "Well, where
there's smoke, there's fire." And this doesn't look good. Biden, Joe Biden, was vice president at the same time that Hunter Biden
was on the board of Burisma, this very, very lucrative position. But Biden was vice president at the time, and he -- consistent with
the Obama administration's policy, he was pressuring Ukraine to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor, because the U.S. policy was to oppose
corruption in Ukraine. And so, really, in that context, Biden did not do anything wrong. However, that doesn't mean that the fact
that he is in this position -- was in this position, and his son was on the board of Burisma, is going to raise some questions. Where
there's smoke, there's fire. There will be people who will not support Biden for that reason. On the other hand, he may well benefit
from being on the defensive by Donald Trump.
Now, if there are witnesses allowed at all -- and I highly doubt it -- I can't imagine that the Republicans would not push to
subpoena one or both of the Bidens. And then it's going to become a mini trial, a trial within a trial, where it's going to focus
on what Biden did or didn't do. Did he do something improper? Was Trump justified in asking Zelensky to mount an investigation of
Joe Biden? And so, I think this is going to be very interesting. And certainly, the Republicans, Trump's defense, are going to go
deeply into the appearance of impropriety with Biden and his son. It remains to be seen whether one or both of the Bidens will actually
be called to testify, and whether any witnesses, for that matter, will be called to testify.
AMY GOODMAN : And, very quickly, this whole issue that Republicans are raising, if the witness issue is going to be -- this impeachment
trial could go on for months, because it will go to court. Now, interestingly, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts,
is right in the room. He's presiding over this trial. So, where does he weigh in on this? And is this true?
MARJORIE COHN : I don't see this being hung up in the courts. I think it will be resolved in the Senate. Chief Justice John Roberts
is in a very, very delicate position. I'm sure he would rather be anywhere than where he is, presiding over this Senate trial, which
the Constitution provides for. And he really doesn't have much power. One of the amendments that the House managers proposed in their
pretrial motions was to allow Chief Justice John Roberts to determine whether any prospective witness's testimony would be relevant
to the issues. And the Republicans voted that down. Now, even if they had allowed that to happen and he had served that function,
any ruling that John Roberts makes could be overruled by 51 senators. So, it's really kind of a ceremonial role that he plays. He
is not going to take an active role. He's going to follow what Chief Justice Rehnquist did during the Clinton impeachment trial and
really call balls and strikes, for the first time, which is what Roberts promised to do during his confirmation hearings as Supreme
Court justice. And, of course, that is not the case at all.
AMY GOODMAN : Marjorie Cohn, I want to thank you for being with us, professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former
president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, member
of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical
Issues .
While I agree that the removal of Trump might be slightly beneficial (Pence-Pompeo duo initially will run scared), this Kabuki
theater with Schiff in a major role is outright silly.
Adam Schiff physically resembles a typical prosperity theology preacher -- a classic modern American snake oil salesman. And
with his baseless accusations and the fear to touch real issues , he is even worse than that -- he looks outright silly even for
the most brainwashed part of the USA electorate ;-)
As he supported the Iraq war, he has no right to occupy any elected office. He probably should be prosecuted as a war criminal.
Realistically Schiff should be viewed as yet another intelligence agency stooge, a neocon who is funded by military contractors
such as Northrop Grumman, which sells missiles to Ukraine.
The claim that Trump is influenced by Russia is a lie. His actions indicate that he is an agent of influence for Israel, not
so much for Russia. Several of his actions were more reckless and more hostile to Russia than the actions of the Obama administration.
Anyway, his policies toward Russia are not that different from Hillary's policies. Actually, Pompeo, in many ways, continues Hillary's
policies.
The claim that the withdrawal of military aid from Ukraine somehow influences the balance of power in the region was a State
department concocted scam from the very beginning. How sniper rifles and anti-tank missiles change the balance of power on the
border with the major nuclear power, who has probably second or third military in the world.? They do not.
They (especially sniper rifles) will definitely increase casualties of Ukrainian separatists (and will provoke Russian reaction
to compensate for this change of balance and thus increase casualties of the Ukrainian army provoking the escalation spiral ),
but that's about it. So more people will die in the conflict while Northrop Grumman rakes the profits.
They also increase the danger of the larger-scale conflict in the region, which is what the USA neocons badly wants to impose
really crushing sanctions on Russia. The danger of WWIII and the cost of support of the crumbling neoliberal empire with its outsize
military expenditures (which now is more difficult to compensate with loot) somehow escapes the US neocon calculations. But they
are completely detached from reality in any case.
I think Russia can cut Ukraine into Western and Eastern parts anytime with relative ease and not much resistance. Putin has
an opportunity to do this in 2014 (risking larger sanctions) as he could establish government in exile out of Yanukovich officials
and based on this restore the legitimate government in Eastern and southern region with the capital in Kharkiv, leaving Ukrainian
Taliban to rot in their own brand of far-right nationalism where the Ukraine identity is defined negatively via rabid Russophobia.
His calculation probably was that sanctions would slow down the Russia recovery from Western plunder during Yeltsin years and,
as such, it is not worth showing Western Ukrainian nationalists what level of support in Southern and Eastern regions that they
actually enjoy.
My impression is that they are passionately hated by over 50% of the population of this region. And viewed as an occupying
force, which is trying to colonize the space (which is a completely true assessment). They are viewed as American stooges, who
they are (the country is controlled from the USA embassy in any case).
And Putin's assessment might be wrong, as sanctions were imposed anyways, and now Ukraine does represent a threat to Russia
and, as such, is a huge source of instability in the region, which was the key idea of "Nulandgate" as the main task was weakening
Russia. In this sense, Euromaidan coup d'état was the major success of the Obama administration, which was a neocon controlled
administration from top to bottom.
Also unclear what Dems are trying to achieve. If Pelosi gambit, cynically speaking, was about repeating Mueller witch hunt
success in the 2018 election, that is typical wishful thinking. Mobilization of the base works both ways.
So what is the game plan for DemoRats (aka "neoliberal democrats" or "corporate democrats" -- the dominant Clinton faction
of the Democratic Party) is completely unclear.
I doubt that they will gain anything from impeachment Kabuki theater, where both sides are afraid to discuss real issues like
Douma false flag and other real Trump crimes.
Most Democratic candidates such as Warren, Biden, and Klobuchar will lose from this impeachment theater. Candidates who can
gain, such as Major Pete and Bloomberg does not matter that much.
While baseless House claims definitely can be shred, the fact that Trump abused his office
remains.
Notable quotes:
"... Dems do not want Schiff and the whistleblower. So while they publicly say they want witnesses, privately they do not. But they do want to hang the blame on the republicans when Trump is acquitted, noting that this whole process was unfair to the dems (forget the President, he doesn't deserve fairness anyway). As victims, they should recapture some of their losses at the 2020 polls. ..."
Update (0130ET) : The word of the day is "Shredded" - as in, several Republicans
have described the White House counsel's presentation as having shredded House Democrats'
impeachment arguments.
"In two hours, the White House counsel entirely shredded the case by the House managers,"
said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) in a statement to reporters. "What we saw today was factually
relevant ... and (we) saw there were a lot of half-truths from the House managers and, frankly,
pushed by the media."
Rep. Elise Stafanik (R-NY) offered similar comments - saying "It took less than two hours to
completely shred and eviscerate Adam Schiff's failed case for impeachment," adding "There is no
case for impeachable offenses here. And it took less than two hours to do so. I think the
American people understand that."
While Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) said "3 days of Democrat arguments were just shredded 2
hours."
Rep. Adam Schiff, meanwhile, says the White House counsel is trying to "deflect" away from
Democrats' claims that President Trump abused his office, according to The Hill .
"After listening to the President's lawyers opening arguments, I have three observations:
They don't contest the facts of Trump's scheme. They're trying to deflect, distract from, and
distort the truth. And they are continuing to cover it up by blocking documents and witnesses,"
Schiff tweeted on Saturday.
After listening to the President's lawyers opening arguments, I have three
observations:
They don't contest the facts of Trump's scheme.
They're trying to deflect, distract from, and distort the truth.
And they are continuing to cover it up by blocking documents and witnesses.
Update (1130ET) : Trump's lawyers began their opening arguments Saturday by
slamming Democrats for having "no evidence" to support their argument that Trump's conduct with
Ukraine warrants impeachment and removal.
"They're asking you not only to overturn the results of the last election but, as I've said
before, they're asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that's
occurring in approximately nine months," said White House counsel Pat Cipolline, adding "I
don't think they spent one minute of their 24 hours talking to you about the consequences of
that for our country."
Cipollone began on Saturday by reading directly from the transcript of the July 25 phone
call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky - claiming Democrats
misrepresented it. In particular, the White House counsel played a clip of House Intelligence
Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) reading a 'parody' of the call .
The use of the clip is likely to satisfy Trump. The president spent the days after Schiff
made the comments calling for the congressman's resignation and suggesting he committed
treason. Even months after the September hearing, Trump continues to bring up Schiff's
comments in interviews when railing against the impeachment proceedings.
Trump in his call with Zelensky asked the foreign leader to investigate a debunked theory
about 2016 election interference and to probe Joe Biden and his son Hunter's dealings in
Ukraine. The call triggered a rare intelligence community whistleblower complaint claiming
that Trump solicited foreign interference in a U.S. election, with the complaint being a key
piece of evidence in the Democrats' impeachment case. -
The Hill
Following Saturday arguments, Trump's lawyers will pick up again on Monday.
***
After three days of "why" , here comes the "why not" ...
Beginning at 10am ET, White House lawyers began their defense of the President on Day 5 of
the Senate Impeachment Trial.
The Trump lawyers are expected to speak for upwards of three hours after Democrats wrapped
up their opening arguments on Friday night.
A member of the legal team, Jay Sekulow, referred to Saturday's session as "a trailer" of
"coming attractions" for next week's sessions.
Like how debunked used to mean something that had been thoroughly investigated and proven
to be false, while now it means something never looked into... that democrats don't want
looked into.
I don't have a partisan dog in this fight... I just hope America wins. That said, I do
agree that the WH attorneys shredded the flimsy, highly tendentious Dumocratic Party case...
testimony was focused and entirely relevant...this whole farce must be put to bed immediately
by the Senate... and MAYBE the Congress might try to address unfolding crises on many fronts
(though I doubt they have the smarts or integrity to do so)
I started watching at 42:00 and it was all over for Schiff by 2:38:00. Less than 2 hours
to completely gut 3 days and 21 hours of bullSchiff Every American who has critical thinking
ability and isn't completely deranged should watch this.
It's so great the way every democrat has said "We need witnesses!".
Bolton, Mulvaney--and they will raise executive privilege, which will have to be newly
litigated in the impeachment context.
For how long? Now that the House has rushed the process and left this mess for the Senate,
they don't care how long it takes, expecially if it leads to a continuing impeachment during
the 2020 election.
Do they really want witnesses? Because Trump really wants Biden, Schiff, and the
whistleblower. On the first day of counsel's argument, did you hear white house counsel say
"Schiff is a fact witness" and say how even Schiff started by saying "We have to hear from
the whistleblower" before it was revealed that he was all tied up with the whistleblower.
Dems do not want Schiff and the whistleblower. So while they publicly say they want
witnesses, privately they do not. But they do want to hang the blame on the republicans when
Trump is acquitted, noting that this whole process was unfair to the dems (forget the
President, he doesn't deserve fairness anyway). As victims, they should recapture some of
their losses at the 2020 polls.
Adam Schiff, the liberal hero of impeachment, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
military-industrial complex and a fervent exponent of permanent war.
o some Democrats and journalists, Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) is a hero. All over the
internet, people are thanking him for defending the Constitution, hoping he'll run for
president someday. After his performance during this week's impeachment hearing, the worship
was especially intense; a letter writer to the New York Times called it
"brilliant" and a "tour de force," while the conservative Washington Times made
fun of all the blue-checked Twitter accounts losing their objectivity in ecstatic praise. As
the face of the impeachment effort, especially for liberals disengaged from the election
process, Schiff represents a glimmer of hope for domestic regime change.
We'd like to be on his side. After all, he's working hard to take down Donald Trump, one of
the worst presidents in American history. But let's not get carried away in fandom. Schiff is a
dangerous warmonger, and his efforts to fuel paranoia about Russia only serve to feed that
agenda. It would be admirable if Schiff's impeachment crusade was limited to Trump's
corruption. But something else drives him: he wants a proxy war in Ukraine with Russia, and he
has for some time.
Adam Schiff physically resembles a prosperity preacher. That is to say, he looks like a
classic dodgy American salesman, but with a beatific glow of righteousness. This creepily
wholesome look lends a corny Cold War ambiance to his constant fulmination about "the
Russians." It's hard not to listen to him without thinking of Allen Ginsberg's 1956 poem
"America":
America, it's them bad Russians
Them Russians, them Russians and them Chinamen.
And them Russians.
Assuring us that he is aware, actually, of what century this is, Schiff
said in 2015 , "Now, we're not seeing the same bipolar world we had between communism and
capitalism." (Phew!) He then added, "But we are seeing a new bipolar world, I think, where you
have democracy versus authoritarianism." Schiff has not viewed this as a mere contest of ideas:
he constantly advocated for Obama to impose tougher sanctions on Russia and give more weapons
to Ukraine.
Although delicately opposed to violence in some contexts -- he's a vegan! -- this isn't the
only war Schiff has championed. He supported the Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya wars, greater US
intervention in Syria, as well as the Saudi war with Yemen (although he has, in the past year,
turned against the latter adventure, seeming to draw the line at sawing up journalists with
bonesaws -- he is a moderate after all, plus very popular with the media), and he has
voted for nearly every possible increase in the defense budget.
As Jacobin
's own Branko Marcetic observed two years ago , Schiff's bellicosity is extensively funded
by arms manufacturers and military contractors. A Ukrainian arms dealer named Igor Pasternak
held a $2,500 per head fundraiser for Schiff in 2013, as the late Justin Raimondo reported
in a terrific analysis on Antiwar.com in 2017, at a time when Ukraine was desperately trying to
counter the Obama administration's disinterest in funding its war with Russia. Despite that
disinterest, the State Department approved some very profitable dealings for Pasternak in
Ukraine after that fundraiser.
And that's only one example. In the current cycle, donations from the war industry have
continued to flood his coffers. Many come from employees of firms with extensive Department of
Defense contracts, including Radiance Technologies and Raytheon. PACs representing the defense
industry also make a robust showing among Schiff's contributors, according to data on Open
Secrets.org; companies funneling money to Schiff -- sorry, contributing to those PACs
-- include Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Radiance, and others, including
L3Harris Technologies (which
got in big trouble with the State Department in September and had to pay $13 million in
penalties for illegal arms dealing).
Guess what these companies want? War with Ukraine. Why wouldn't they? Last
October, the United States approved a $39 million sale of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, a
joint contract between Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. The previous year, Ukraine bought $37
million worth of missiles from the same two companies. As a missile-maker, Zacks Equity
Research has noted, Northrop Grumman also benefits richly from conflict in Ukraine, as missiles
are heavily used in cross-border wars.
Despite his enthusiastic support for state violence and cozy ties to the makers of deadly
weaponry, Schiff, an Alexander Hamilton–quoting windbag, doesn't have much crossover
appeal to the sort of people who put "These Colors Don't Run" stickers on their trucks. His
impeachment crusade only seems to reinforce Trump's support among the faithful; at this
writing, 93 percent of Republicans oppose the president's removal from office.
Welcome to the #Resistance.
Liza Featherstone is a columnist forJacobin, a freelance journalist,
and the author ofSelling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Workers' Rights at
Wal-Mart.
This article was originally published by "Jacobin" -
These swine care nothing about truth--their only object is to create a "narrative" (which
used to be known as a "line of ********") to brainwash what few followers can still stomach
it and cover their moral bankruptcy and crimes.
Schiff is a GD fascist. And a ******* liar. He claims Trump would "cheat again" in 2020.
Huh? Does this prick have problems dealing with reality? Seriously, did the Mueller Report
not happen in his mind? I don't think I've ever seen someone who believes so much that's just
not true. And he's indignant about his own fucked up version of "facts" that are lies. He
needs to just go and be with Satan.
Clearly he didn't awe anyone, but part of the show is to refer to this flop as a sparkling
whimsical glory of magical historical spiffyness, by the most grandest superb stunning genius
man ever to be televised, ever. Ever.
Video and a transcript of former OPCW engineer and
dissenter Ian Henderson's UN testimony appears at the end of this report.
A former lead investigator from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) has spoken out at the United Nations, stating in no uncertain terms that the scientific
evidence suggests there was no gas attack in Douma, Syria in April 2018.
The dissenter, Ian Henderson, worked for 12 years at the international watchdog
organization, serving as an inspection team leader and engineering expert. Among his most
consequential jobs was assisting the international body's fact-finding mission (FFM) on the
ground in Douma.
He told a UN Security Council session convened on January 20 by Russia's delegation that
OPCW management had rejected his group's scientific research, dismissed the team, and produced
another report that totally contradicted their initial findings.
"We had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred," Henderson said, referring
to the FFM team in Douma.
The former OPCW inspector added that he had compiled evidence through months of research
that "provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack."
Western airstrikes based on unsubstantiated allegations by foreign-backed jihadists
Foreign-backed Islamist militants and the Western
government-funded regime-change influence operation known as the White Helmets accused the Syrian government of
dropping gas cylinders and killing dozens of people in the city of Douma on April 7, 2018.
Damascus rejected the accusation, claiming the incident was staged by the insurgents.
The governments of the United States, Britain, and France responded to the allegations of a
chemical attack by launching airstrikes against the Syrian government on April 14. The military
assault was illegal under international law, as the countries did not have UN
authorization.
Numerous OPCW whistleblowers and leaks challenge Western government claims
In May 2019, an internal
OPCW engineering assessment was leaked to the public. The document, authored by Ian
Henderson, said the "dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders" in Douma
"were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder having
been delivered from an aircraft," adding that there is "a higher probability that both
cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from
aircraft."
After reviewing the leaked report, MIT professor emeritus of Science, Technology and
International Security Theodore Postol told The Grayzone, "The evidence is overwhelming that
the gas attacks were staged." Postol also accused OPCW leadership of overseeing "compromised
reporting" and ignoring
scientific evidence .
WikiLeaks has published
numerous internal emails from the OPCW that reveal allegations that the body's management staff
doctored the Douma report.
As the evidence of internal suppression grew, the OPCW's first director-general, José
Bustani, decided to speak out. "The convincing evidence of irregular behavior in the OPCW
investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already
had," Bustani stated.
"I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official
reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now,
although very disturbing," the former OPCW head concluded.
OPCW whistleblower testimony at UN Security Council meeting on Douma
On January 20, 2020, Ian Henderson delivered his first in-person testimony, alleging
suppression by OPCW leadership. He spoke at a UN Security Council
Arria-Formula meeting on the fact-finding mission report on Douma.
( Video of the session follows at the bottom of this article, along with a full
transcript of Henderson's testimony .)
China's mission to the UN invited Ian Henderson to testify in person at the Security Council
session. Henderson said in his testimony that he had planned to attend, but was unable to get a
visa waiver from the US government. (The Trump administration has repeatedly blocked access to
the UN for representatives from countries that do not kowtow to its interests, turning
UN visas into a political weapon in blatant violation of the international body's
headquarters agreement .)
Henderson told the Security Council in a pre-recorded video message that he was not the only
OPCW inspector to question the leadership's treatment of the Douma investigation.
"My concern, which was shared by a number of other inspectors, relates to the subsequent
management lockdown and the practices in the later analysis and compilation of a final report,"
Henderson explained.
Soon after the alleged incident in Douma in April 2018, the OPCW FFM team had deployed to
the ground to carry out an investigation, which it noted included environmental samples,
interviews with witnesses, and data collection.
In July 2018, the FFM published its
interim report , stating that it found no evidence of chemical weapons use in Douma. ("The
results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected
in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties," the
report indicated.)
"By the time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we
had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred," Henderson told the Security
Council.
After this inspection that led to the interim report, however, Henderson said the OPCW
leadership decided to create a new team, "the so-called FFM core team, which essentially
resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had been on the team deployed to
locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings and analysis."
Then in March 2019, this new OPCW team released a final report, in which it claimed that
chemical weapons had been used in Douma.
"The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with
what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments," Henderson
remarked at the UN session.
"The report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis in
the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering, and/or
ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what was
understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma [FFM] team, in July 2018,"
Henderson stated.
The former OPCW expert added, "I had followed up with a further six months of engineering
and ballistic studies into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support
for the view that there had not been a chemical attack."
A former OPCW inspection team leader and engineering expert told the UN Security Council
that their investigation in Douma, Syria suggested no chemical attack took place. But their
findings were suppressed and reversed
The US government responded to this historic testimony at the UN session by attacking
Russia, which sponsored the Arria-Formula
meeting.
Acting US representative Cherith
Norman Chalet praised the OPCW, aggressively condemned the "Assad regime," and told the UN
that the "United States is proud to support the vital, life-saving work of the White Helmets"
– a US and UK-backed organization that collaborated extensively with ISIS and al-Qaeda
and have been involved in
numerous executions in Syrian territory occupied by
Islamist extremists .
The US government has a long history of pressuring and manipulating the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the George W. Bush
administration threatened José Bustani, the first director of the OPCW, and pressured
him to resign.
In 2002, as the Bush White House was preparing to wage a war on Iraq, Bustani made an
agreement with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein that would have permitted OPCW inspectors
to come to the country unannounced for weapons investigations. This infuriated the US
government.
Then-Under Secretary of State John
Bolton told Bustani in 2002 that US Vice President Dick " Cheney wants
you out ." Bolton threatened the OPCW director-general, stating, "You have 24 hours to
leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways
to retaliate against you We know where your kids live."
Attacking the credibility of Ian Henderson
While OPCW managers have kept curiously silent amid the scandal over their Douma report, an
interventionist media outlet called Bellingcat has functioned as an outsourced press shop,
aggressively defending the official narrative and attacking its most prominent critics,
including Ian Henderson.
Bellingcat is funded by the US government's
regime-change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and is part of an initiative
bankrolled by the British Foreign Office.
Supporters of the OPCW's apparently doctored final report have relied heavily on Bellingcat
to try to discredit the whistleblowers and growing leaks. Scientific expert Theodor Postol, who
debated Higgins, has noted that
Bellingcat "have no scientific credibility at any level." Postol says he even suspects that
OPCW management may have relied on Bellingcat's highly dubious claims in its own compromised
reporting.
Higgins has no expertise or scientific credentials, and even The
New York Times acknowledged in a highly sympathetic piece that "Higgins attributed his
skill not to any special knowledge of international conflicts or digital data, but to the hours
he had spent playing video games, which, he said, gave him the idea that any mystery can be
cracked."
In his testimony before the UN Security Council, Ian Henderson stressed that he was speaking
out in line with his duties as a scientific expert.
Henderson said he does not even like the term whistleblower and would not use it to describe
himself, because, "I'm a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider
this a legitimate and appropriate forum to explain again these concerns."
Russia's UN representative added that Moscow had also invited the OPCW director-general and
representatives of the organization's Technical Secretariat, but they chose not to participate
in the session.
Video of the UN Security Council session on the OPCW's Douma report
Ian Henderson's testimony begins at 57:30 in this official UN video :
Transcript: Testimony by OPCW whistleblower Ian Henderson at the UN Security Council
"My name is Ian Henderson. I'm a former OPCW inspection team leader, having served for about
12 years. I heard about this meeting and I was invited by the minister, councilor of the
Chinese mission to the UN. Unfortunately due to unforeseen circumstances around my ESTA visa
waiver status, I was not able to travel. I thus submitted a written statement, to which I will
now add a short introduction.
I need to point out at the outset that I'm not a whistleblower; I don't like that term. I'm
a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider this a legitimate and
appropriate forum to explain again these concerns.
Secondly, I must point out that I hold the OPCW in the highest regard, as well as the
professionalism of the staff members who work there. The organization is not broken; I must
stress that. However, the concern I have does relate to some specific management practices in
certain sensitive missions.
The concern, of course, relates to the FFM investigation into the alleged chemical attack on
the 7th of April in Douma, in Syria. My concern, which was shared by a number of other
inspectors, relates to the subsequent management lockdown and the practices in the later
analysis and compilation of a final report.
There were two teams deployed; one team, which I joined shortly after the start of field
deployments, was to Douma in Syria; the other team deployed to country X.
The main concern relates to the announcement in July 2018 of a new concept, the so-called
FFM core team, which essentially resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had
been on the team deployed to locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings
and analysis.
The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with
what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments. And by the
time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we had serious
misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred.
What the final FFM report does not make clear, and thus does not reflect the views of the
team members who deployed to Douma -- in which case I really can only speak for myself at this
stage -- the report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis
in the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering,
and/or ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what
was understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma team, in July 2018.
In my case, I had followed up with a further six months of engineering and ballistic studies
into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support for the view that there
had not been a chemical attack.
This needs to be properly resolved, we believe through the rigors of science and
engineering. In my situation, it's not a political debate. I'm very aware that there is a
political debate surrounding this.
Perhaps a closing comment from my side is that I was also the inspection team leader who
developed and launched the inspections, the highly intrusive inspections, of the Barzah SSRC
facility, just outside Damascus. And I did the inspections and wrote the reports for the two
inspections prior to, and the inspection after the chemical facility, or the laboratory complex
at Barzah SSRC, had been destroyed by the missile strike.
That, however, is another story altogether, and I shall now close. Thank you."
On Wednesday, Jan 22 Donald Trump wrote his name in the Guinness records books setting Presidential record in Twits.
According @FactbaseFeed, an account which tracks Trump's Twitter habits, Trump sent 142 tweets and retweets on Wednesday --
eclipsing his previous single-day presidential record of 123.
According to the US diplomat, President Trump has made it very "clear that any attack on Americans or American interests will
be met with a decisive response, which the president demonstrated on January 2".
And American interests are defined very flexibly, sometimes in conflicting tweets.
The deep state clearly is running the show (with some people unexpected imput -- see Trump
;-)
Elections now serve mainly for the legitimizing of the deep state rule; election of a
particular individual can change little, although there is some space of change due to the power
of executive branch. If the individual stray too much form the elite "forign policy consensus" he
ether will be JFKed or Russiagated (with the Special Prosecutor as the fist act and impeachment
as the second act of the same Russiagate drama)
But a talented (or reckless) individual can speed up some process that are already under way.
For example, Trump managed to speed up the process of destruction of the USA-centered neoliberal
empire considerably. Especially by launching the trade war with China. He also managed to
discredit the USA foreign policy as no other president before him. Even Bush II.
>This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
> Posted by: Circe | Jan 23 2020 17:46 utc | 36
Hmmm, I've been hearing the same siren song every four years for the past fifty. How is it
that people still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of
murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?
Bureaucracies are reactionary and conservative by nature, so any new and more repressive
policy Trumpy wants is readily adapted, as shown by the continuing barbarity of ICE and the
growth of prisons and refugee concentration camps. Policies that go against the grain are
easily shrugged off and ignored using time-tested passive-aggressive tactics.
One of Trump's insurmountable problems is that he has no loyal organization behind him
whose members he can appoint throughout the massive Federal bureaucracy. Any Dummycrat whose
name is not "Biden" has the same problem. Without a real mass-movement political party to
pressure reluctant bureaucrats, no politician of any name or stripe will ever substantially
change the direction of US policy.
But the last thing Dummycrats want is a real mass movement, because they might not be able
to control it. Instead Uncle Sam will keep heading towards the cliff, which may be coming
into view...
The amount of TINA worshipers and status quo guerillas is starting to depress me.
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE to believe A politician will/can change anything and give your consent to
war criminals and traitors?
NO person(s) WILL EVER get to the top in imperial/vassal state politics without being on the
rentier class side, the cognitive dissonans in voting for known liars, war criminals and
traitors would kill me or fry my brain. TINA is a lie and "she" is a real bitch that deserves
to be thrown on the dump off history, YOUR vote is YOUR consent to murder, theft and
treason.
DONT be a rentier class enabler STOP voting and start making your local communities better
and independent instead.
The amount of TINA worshipers and status quo guerillas is starting to depress me. <-
Norway
Of course, There Is Another Way, for example, kvetching. We can boldly show that we are
upset, and pessimistic. One upset pessimists reach critical mass we will think about some
actions.
But being upset and pessimistic does fully justify inactivity. In particular, given the
nature of social interaction networks, with spokes and hubs, dominating the network requires
the control of relatively few nodes. The nature of democracy always allows for leverage
takeover, starting from dominating within small to the entire nation in few steps. As it was
nicely explained by Prof. Overton, there is a window of positions that the vast majority
regards as reasonable, non-radical etc. One reason that powers to be invest so much energy
vilifying dissenters, Russian assets of late, is to keep them outside the Overton window.
Having a candidate elected that the curators of Overton window hate definitely shakes the
situation with the potential of shifting the window. There were some positive symptoms after
Trump was elected, but negatives prevail. "Why not we just kill him" idea entered the window,
together with "we took their oil because we have guts and common sense".
From that point of view, visibility of Tulsi and election of Sanders will solve some
problems but most of all, it will make big changes in Overton window.
Elections now serve mainly the legitimizing of the deep state rule function; election of a
partuclar induvudual can change little, althouth there is some space of change due to the power
of executive branch.
For example, Trump managed to speed up the process od destruction of the USA-centered
neoliberal empire considerably. Especially by lauching the trade war with China. He also
managed to discredit the USA foreign policy as no other president before him. Even Bush
II.
>This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
> Posted by: Circe | Jan 23 2020 17:46 utc | 36
Hmmm, I've been hearing the same siren song every four years for the past fifty. How is it
that people still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of
murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?
Bureaucracies are reactionary and conservative by nature, so any new and more repressive
policy Trumpy wants is readily adapted, as shown by the continuing barbarity of ICE and the
growth of prisons and refugee concentration camps. Policies that go against the grain are
easily shrugged off and ignored using time-tested passive-aggressive tactics.
One of Trump's insurmountable problems is that he has no loyal organization behind him
whose members he can appoint throughout the massive Federal bureaucracy. Any Dummycrat whose
name is not "Biden" has the same problem. Without a real mass-movement political party to
pressure reluctant bureaucrats, no politician of any name or stripe will ever substantially
change the direction of US policy.
But the last thing Dummycrats want is a real mass movement, because they might not be able
to control it. Instead Uncle Sam will keep heading towards the cliff, which may be coming
into view...
To the extent you can trust polls, that's an interesting development. biden is losing grip on
electorate due to impeachment noise., which hurts him directly.
Despite the establishment and media shenanigans designed to hurt Sanders, despite Hillary and
Warren's attempts to turn women against Sanders:
Bernie has just DOUBLED his lead on Biden in New Hampshire 29 to 14 and is now only 3
points behind Biden nationally in choice for President and leads Trump by 2 points in the
general. That figure will rise.
Bernie has the wind at his back. This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
to stop Trump's escalation on Iran, to stop Trump from turning the judiciary irreversibly to
the far right and making it his fascist tool, to make climate change the burning priority
that it is and to take power away from the oligarchs and empower people.
Bernie must make it. He is the only candidate who is genuine and can be trusted and is
VIABLE. Yes, many here want Gabbard but she is not viable in the race since she has not
gained any traction. The only hope I see for Gabbard's political career is if Sanders offers
her a cabinet position later, but not V-P because Gabbard's unpopularity right now will
certainly drag him down. Many want her primaried and then she may not win back her seat in
Congress. If he offers her an important cabinet position, she will regain in stature and
prove that she is presidential material. I see her as UN Ambassador and maybe at DoD. But
right now the V-P choice must be wisely assigned.
Sanders now has momentum and everyone must do their part to help him sustain it. This
opportunity must not be squandered! His defeat of the CORRUPT establishment is FUNDAMENTAL.
The entire planet needs a Sanders presidency to stop military escalation and address the
urgency of climate change. He must be supported all the way and Trump must fall to someone of
Sanders' authentic calibre.
This is the last opportunity we all have to stop the madness and corrupt oligarch control,
and make a global correction towards peace. I believe in this guy; I fear the irreversible
changes happening. I HAVE BEEN RIGHT ON MANY THINGS AND I'M CONVINCED OF THIS: EITHER WE ALL,
EVERYWHERE ON THIS PLANET, SUPPORT THIS MAN OR WE WILL BE POWERLESS
AND ARE DOOMED TO WHAT'S ALREADY UNFOLDING.
She is now trapped and has no space for maneuvering. She now needs to share the path to the
cliff with Pelosi gang to the very end. Not a good position to be in.
Analysis: The Massachusetts senator's forceful call to begin the process of removing Trump
set her apart from the crowded primary field.
While most fellow 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls ducked and dived to find safe ground
-- and party elders solemnly warned against over-reach -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren stepped boldly
out into the open late Friday and called on the House to begin an impeachment process against
President Donald Trump based on special counsel Robert Mueller's report.
The Massachusetts senator and 2020 Democratic presidential contender slammed Trump for
having "welcomed" the help of a "hostile" foreign government and having obstructed the probe
into an attack on an American election.
"To ignore a President's repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation into his own disloyal
behavior would inflict great and lasting damage on this country," Warren tweeted. "The severity
of this misconduct demands that elected officials in both parties set aside political
considerations and do their constitutional duty. That means the House should initiate
impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States."
It was a rare moment in a crowded and unsettled primary: A seized opportunity for a
candidate to cut through the campaign trail cacophony and define the terms of a debate that
will rage throughout the contest.
Pelosi gang is too afraid to point to actual crimes (like Douma false flag, Yemen war, etc),
so they invented this Kabuki theater, as if they can fool already suspicious population.
You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you
can't fool all the people all the time. So said Abraham Lincoln – maybe. But whoever it
was forgot to mention an important corollary: fun as it may be to pull the wool over people's
eyes, you'll writhe in agony for an equal period once the truth emerges and the fraud is
exposed.
...the agony of those responsible for the Russiagate fiasco can only intensify while, for
the rest of us, the fun has just begun. So lean back and enjoy the show. It going to be a
doozy.
Former vice president Joe Biden's extraordinary campaign memo this week imploring U.S. news
media to reject the allegations surrounding his son Hunter's work for a Ukrainian natural gas
company makes several bold declarations.
The memo
by Biden campaign aides Kate Bedingfield and Tony Blinken specifically warned reporters
covering the impeachment trial they would be acting as "enablers of misinformation" if they
repeated allegations that the former vice president forced the firing of Ukraine's top
prosecutor, who was investigating Burisma Holdings, where Hunter Biden worked as a highly
compensated board member.
Biden's memo argues there is no evidence that the former vice president's or Hunter Biden's
conduct raised any concern, and that Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin's investigation was
"dormant" when the vice president forced the prosecutor to be fired in Ukraine.
The memo
calls the allegation a "conspiracy theory" (and, in full disclosure, blames my reporting for
the allegations surfacing last year.)
But the memo omits critical impeachment testimony and other evidence that paint a far
different portrait than Biden's there's-nothing-to-talk-about-here rebuttal.
Here are the facts, with links to public evidence, so you can decide for yourself.
Fact:
Joe Biden admitted to forcing Shokin's firing in March 2016 .
It is irrefutable, and not a conspiracy theory, that Joe Biden bragged in
this 2018 speech to a foreign policy group that he threatened in March 2016 to withhold $1
billion in U.S. aid to Kiev if then-Ukraine's president Petro Poroshenko didn't immediately
fire Shokin.
"I said, 'You're not getting the billion.' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was
about six hours. I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not
fired, you're not getting the money,'" Biden told the 2018 audience in recounting what he told
Poroshenko
"Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the
time," Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event.
Fact: Shokin's prosecutors were
actively investigating Burisma when he was fired.
While some news organizations cited by the Biden memo have reported the investigation was
"dormant" in March 2016, official files released by the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office,
in fact, show there was substantial investigative activity in the weeks just before Joe Biden
forced Shokin's firing.
The corruption investigations into Burisma and its founder began in 2014. Around the same
time, Hunter Biden and his U.S. business partner Devon Archer were
added to Burisma's board , and their Rosemont Seneca Bohais firm began receiving regular
$166,666 monthly payments, which totaled nearly $2 million a year. Both banks
records seized by the FBI in America and Burisma's own
ledgers in Ukraine confirm these payments.
To put the payments in perspective, the annual amounts paid by Burisma to Hunter Biden's and
Devon Archer's Rosemont Seneca Bohais firm were 30 times the average median annual household
income for everyday Americans.
For a period of time in 2015, those investigations were stalled as Ukraine was creating a
new FBI-like law enforcement agency known as the National Anti-Corruption Bureau ((NABU) to
investigate endemic corruption in the former Soviet republic.
There was friction between NABU and the prosecutor general's office for a while. And then in
September 2015, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt demanded more action in the
Burisma investigation. You can read
his speech here . Activity ramped up extensively soon after.
In December 2015, the prosecutor's files show, Shokin's office transferred the evidence it
had gathered against Burisma to NABU for investigation.
In early February 2016, Shokin's office secured a court order allowing
prosecutors to re-seize some of the Burisma founder's property, including his home and luxury
car, as part of the ongoing probe.
Two weeks later, in mid-February 2016, Latvian law enforcement
sent this alert to Ukrainian prosecutors flagging several payments from Burisma to American
accounts as "suspicious." The payments included some monies to Hunter Biden's and Devon
Archer's firm.
Latvian authorities recently confirmed it sent the alert.
Shokin told both me and
ABC News that just before he was fired under pressure from Joe Biden he also was making
plans to interview Hunter Biden.
Fact: Burisma's lawyers in 2016 were pressing U.S. and
Ukrainian authorities to end the corruption investigations.
Burisma's main U.S. lawyer John Buretta acknowledged in
this February 2017 interview with a Ukraine newspaper that the company remained under
investigation in 2016, until he negotiated for one case to be dismissed and the other to be
settled by payment of a large tax penalty.
Documents released under an open records lawsuit show Burisma legal team was pressuring the
State Department in February 2016 to end the corruption allegations against the gas firm and
specifically invoked Hunter Biden's name as part of the campaign. You can read those documents
here .
In addition, immediately after Joe Biden succeeded in getting Shokin ousted, Burisma's
lawyers sought to meet with his successor as chief prosecutor to settle the case. Here is
the Ukrainian prosecutors' summary memo of one of their meetings with the firm's
lawyers.
Fact: There is substantial evidence Joe Biden and his office knew about the Burisma
probe and his son's role as a board member .
The New York Times reported in
this December 2015 article that the Burisma investigation was ongoing and Hunter Biden's
role in the company was undercutting Joe Biden's push to fight Ukrainian corruption. The
article quoted the vice president's office.
In addition, Hunter Biden acknowledged
in this interview he had discussed his Burisma job with his father on one occasion and that
his father responded by saying he hoped the younger Biden knew what he was doing.
Fact: Federal Ethics rules requires government officials to avoid taking policy actions
affecting close relatives.
Office of
Government Ethics rules require all government officials to recuse themselves from any
policy actions that could impact a close relative or cause a reasonable person to see the
appearance of a conflict of interest or question their impartiality.
"The impartiality rule requires an employee to consider appearance concerns before
participating in a particular matter if someone close to the employee is involved as a party to
the matter," these rules state. "This requirement to refrain from participating (or recuse) is
designed to avoid the appearance of favoritism in government decision-making."
Fact:
Multiple State Department officials testified the Bidens' dealings in Ukraine created the
appearance of a conflict of interest .
In
House impeachment testimony , Obama-era State Department officials declared the
juxtaposition of Joe Biden overseeing Ukraine policy, including the anti-corruption efforts, at
the same his son Hunter worked for a Ukraine gas firm under corruption investigation created
the appearance of a conflict of interest.
In fact, deputy assistant secretary George Kent said he was so concerned by Burisma's
corrupt reputation that he
blocked a project the State Department had with Burisma and tried to warn Joe Biden's
office about the concerns about an apparent conflict of interest.
Likewise, the House Democrats' star impeachment witness, former U.S. Ambassador Marie
Yovanovich, agreed the Bidens' role in Ukraine created an ethic issue. "I think that it
could raise the appearance of a conflict of interest," she
testified. You can read her testimony
here .
Fact: Hunter Biden acknowleged he may have gotten his Burisma job solely because
of his last name .
In
this interview last summer , Hunter Biden said it might have been a "mistake" to serve on
the Burisma board and that it was possible he was hired simply because of his proximity to the
vice president.
"If your last name wasn't Biden, do you think you would've been asked to be on the board of
Burisma?," a reporter asked.
"I don't know. I don't know. Probably not, in retrospect," Hunter Biden answered. "But
that's -- you know -- I don't think that there's a lot of things that would have happened in my
life if my last name wasn't Biden."
Fact: Ukraine law enforcement reopened the Burisma
investigation in early 2019, well before President Trump mentioned the matter to Ukraine's new
president Vlodymyr Zelensky .
This may be the single biggest under-reported fact in the impeachment scandal: four months
before Trump and Zelensky had their infamous phone call, Ukraine law enforcement officials
officially reopened their investigation into Burisma and its founder.
The effort began independent of Trump or his lawyer Rudy Giuliani's legal work. In fact, it
was NABU -- the very agency Joe Biden and the Obama administration helped start -- that
recommended in February 2019 to reopen the probe.
NABU director Artem Sytnyk
made this announcement that he was recommending a new notice of suspicion be opened to
launch the case against Burisma and its founder because of new evidence uncovered by
detectives.
Ukrainian officials said that new evidence included records suggesting a possible money
laundering scheme dating to 2010 and continuing until 2015.
A month later in March 2019, Deputy Prosecutor General Konstantin Kulyk officially filed
this
notice of suspicion re-opening the case.
And Reuters recently quoted Ukrainian officials as saying the
ongoing probe was expanded to allegations of theft of public funds.
The implications of this timetable are significant to the Trump impeachment trial because
the president couldn't have pressured Ukraine to re-open the investigation in July 2019 when
Kiev had already done so on its own, months earlier.
Establishment Democrats are gaslighting people. This is not a qualitative improvement over
what the establishment Republicans do. In fact, it makes the establishment republicans
correct when the gaslighting is pointed out. The Trump Derangement Syndrome and corrupt basis
of the Democrats only helps get Trump re elected. The Democrats have no better plan, and thus
will be responsible if Trump gets re elected.
They're all scumbags, at all levels, and if you ain't used to it by now, you've been
living under a rock. That said, it's nice to have some reporting on it and I hope all levels
of government abuse will get exposed. I'm assuming it's about the same time the little bug
eyed broad takes a job at an oil company...
~"I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be
leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m
leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the
money,’” Biden told the 2018 audience in recounting what he told Poroshenko
“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at
the time,” Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event."
Isn't this the same fuckin thing as???... **** it, nevermind
Yet nobody has been arrested, indicted, or accused of anything except in odd corners of
the internet. Although, there have been a couple of fake show investigations.
So, the only conclusion I can draw is it's legal if the Democrats or Establishment do it.
And anyone who says otherwise needs to be jailed, ruined, or murdered, such as in the case of
Seth Rich.
All members are press, state department, and American oligarchs. Trust ME, I know what
goes on there. Investigate them ALL and keep all of the investigation interviews in an open
public domain.
Force people to distance themselves and quit membership and you can pick them off as they
conspire to reform their separate working groups.
Facts? Democraps don't care about facts, don't you know that already? Democraps only care
about feeeeeelings, and how it makes someone feeeeel... Facts are just those things they just
discard, and then hope that we the Sheeple have short memories. Biden? Guilty as sin. Facts?
Ignore. Same as Cankles, Comey, Strozk, Page, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum. If you're a
Democrap, you get off scot free, then lie about everything.
"... The Americans are the ones who destroyed the country and wreaked havoc on it. They have refused to finish building the electrical system and infrastructure projects. They have bargained for the reconstruction of Iraq in exchange for Iraq giving up 50% of oil imports. So, I refused and decided to go to China and concluded an important and strategic agreement with it. Today, Trump is trying to cancel this important agreement. ..."
"... After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I also refused, and he threatened [that there would be] massive demonstrations to topple me. Indeed, the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event of non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, whereby a third party [presumed to be mercenaries or U.S. soldiers] would target both the demonstrators and security forces and kill them from atop the highest buildings and the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and cancel the China agreement." ..."
"... It could also explain why President Trump is so concerned about China's growing foothold in Iraq, since it risks causing not only the end of the U.S. military hegemony in the country but could also lead to major trouble for the petrodollar system and the U.S.' position as a global financial power. Trump's policy aimed at stopping China and Iraq's growing ties is clearly having the opposite effect, showing that this administration's "gangster diplomacy" only serves to make the alternatives offered by countries like China and Russia all the more attractive. ..."
After the feed was cut, MPs who were present wrote down Abdul-Mahdi's remarks, which were
then given to the Arabic news outlet Ida'at .
Per that transcript , Abdul-Mahdi stated that:
The Americans are the ones who destroyed the country and wreaked havoc on it. They
have refused to finish building the electrical system and infrastructure projects. They have
bargained for the reconstruction of Iraq in exchange for Iraq giving up 50% of oil imports.
So, I refused and decided to go to China and concluded an important and strategic agreement
with it. Today, Trump is trying to cancel this important agreement. "
Abdul-Mahdi continued his remarks, noting that pressure from the Trump administration over
his negotiations and subsequent dealings with China grew substantially over time, even
resulting in death threats to himself and his defense minister:
After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I
also refused, and he threatened [that there would be] massive demonstrations to topple me.
Indeed, the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the
event of non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, whereby a third party [presumed to be
mercenaries or U.S. soldiers] would target both the demonstrators and security forces and
kill them from atop the highest buildings and the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and
submit to his wishes and cancel the China agreement."
"I did not respond and submitted my resignation and the Americans still insist to this day
on canceling the China agreement. When the defense minister said that those killing the
demonstrators was a third party, Trump called me immediately and physically threatened myself
and the defense minister in the event that there was more talk about this third party."
Very few English language outlets
reported on Abdul-Mahdi's comments. Tom Luongo, a Florida-based Independent Analyst and publisher of The Gold
Goats 'n Guns Newsletter, told MintPress that the likely reasons for the "surprising"
media silence over Abdul-Mahdi's claims were because "It never really made it out into official
channels " due to the cutting of the video feed during Iraq's Parliamentary session and due to
the fact that "it's very inconvenient and the media -- since Trump is doing what they want him
to do, be belligerent with Iran, protected Israel's interests there."
"They aren't going to contradict him on that if he's playing ball," Luongo added, before
continuing that the media would nonetheless "hold onto it for future reference .If this comes
out for real, they'll use it against him later if he tries to leave Iraq." "Everything in
Washington is used as leverage," he added.
Given the lack of media coverage and the cutting of the video feed of Abdul-Mahdi's full
remarks, it is worth pointing out that the narrative he laid out in his censored speech not
only fits with the timeline of recent events he discusses but also the tactics known to have
been employed behind closed doors by the Trump administration, particularly after Mike Pompeo
left the CIA to become Secretary of State.
For instance, Abdul-Mahdi's delegation to China ended on September 24, with the protests
against his government that Trump reportedly threatened to start on October 1. Reports of a
"third side" firing on Iraqi protesters were picked up by major media outlets at the time, such
as in this
BBC report which stated:
Reports say the security forces opened fire, but another account says unknown gunmen
were responsible .a source in Karbala told the BBC that one of the dead was a guard at a
nearby Shia shrine who happened to be passing by. The source also said the origin of the
gunfire was unknown and it had targeted both the protesters and security forces .
(emphasis added)"
U.S.-backed protests in other countries, such as in Ukraine in 2014, also saw evidence of a
"
third side " shooting both protesters and security forces alike.
After six weeks of intense protests , Abdul-Mahdi
submitted
his resignation on November 29, just a few days after Iraq's
Foreign Minister praised the new deals, including the "oil for reconstruction" deal, that had
been signed with China. Abdul-Mahdi has since stayed on as Prime Minister in a caretaker role
until Parliament decides on his replacement.
Abdul-Mahdi's claims of the covert pressure by the Trump administration are buttressed by
the use of similar tactics against Ecuador, where, in July 2018, a U.S. delegation at the
United Nations
threatened the nation with punitive trade measures and the withdrawal of military aid if
Ecuador moved forward with the introduction of a UN resolution to "protect, promote and support
breastfeeding."
The New York Times reported at the time that the U.S. delegation was seeking to
promote the interests of infant formula manufacturers. If the U.S. delegation is willing to use
such pressure on nations for promoting breastfeeding over infant formula, it goes without
saying that such behind-closed-doors pressure would be significantly more intense if a much
more lucrative resource, e.g. oil, were involved.
Regarding Abdul-Mahdi's claims, Luongo told MintPress that it is also worth
considering that it could have been anyone in the Trump administration making threats to
Abdul-Mahdi, not necessarily Trump himself. "What I won't say directly is that I don't know it
was Trump at the other end of the phone calls. Mahdi, it is to his best advantage politically
to blame everything on Trump. It could have been Mike Pompeo or Gina Haspel talking to
Abdul-Mahdi It could have been anyone, it most likely would be someone with plausible
deniability .This [Mahdi's claims] sounds credible I firmly believe Trump is capable of making
these threats but I don't think Trump would make those threats directly like that, but it would
absolutely be consistent with U.S. policy."
Luongo also argued that the current tensions between U.S. and Iraqi leadership preceded the
oil deal between Iraq and China by several weeks, "All of this starts with Prime Minister Mahdi
starting the process of opening up the Iraq-Syria border crossing and that was announced in
August. Then, the Israeli air attacks happened in September to try and stop that from
happening, attacks on PMU forces on the border crossing along with the ammo dump attacks near
Baghdad This drew the Iraqis' ire Mahdi then tried to close the air space over Iraq, but how
much of that he can enforce is a big question."
As to why it would be to Mahdi's advantage to blame Trump, Luongo stated that Mahdi "can
make edicts all day long, but, in reality, how much can he actually restrain the U.S. or the
Israelis from doing anything? Except for shame, diplomatic shame To me, it [Mahdi's claims]
seems perfectly credible because, during all of this, Trump is probably or someone else is
shaking him [Mahdi] down for the reconstruction of the oil fields [in Iraq] Trump has
explicitly stated "we want the oil."'
As Luongo noted, Trump's interest in the U.S. obtaining a significant share of Iraqi oil
revenue is hardly a secret. Just last March, Trump
asked Abdul-Mahdi "How about the oil?" at the end of a meeting at the White House,
prompting Abdul-Mahdi to ask "What do you mean?" To which Trump responded "Well, we did a lot,
we did a lot over there, we spent trillions over there, and a lot of people have been talking
about the oil," which was widely interpreted as Trump asking for part of Iraq's oil revenue in
exchange for the steep costs of the U.S.' continuing its now unwelcome military presence in
Iraq.
With Abdul-Mahdi having rejected Trump's "oil for reconstruction" proposal in favor of
China's, it seems likely that the Trump administration would default to so-called "gangster
diplomacy" tactics to pressure Iraq's government into accepting Trump's deal, especially given
the fact that China's deal was a much better offer. While Trump demanded half of Iraq's oil
revenue in exchange for completing reconstruction projects (according to Abdul-Mahdi), the deal
that was signed between Iraq and China would see around
20 percen t of Iraq's oil revenue go to China in exchange for reconstruction. Aside from
the potential loss in Iraq's oil revenue, there are many reasons for the Trump administration
to feel threatened by China's recent dealings in Iraq.
The Iraq-China oil deal – a prelude to something more?
When Abdul-Mahdi's delegation traveled to Beijing last September, the "oil for
reconstruction" deal was only
one of eight total agreements that were established. These agreements cover a range of
areas, including financial, commercial, security, reconstruction, communication, culture,
education and foreign affairs in addition to oil. Yet, the oil deal is by far the most
significant.
Per the agreement, Chinese firms will work on various reconstruction projects in exchange
for roughly 20 percent of Iraq's oil exports, approximately 100,00 barrels per day, for a
period of 20 years. According to Al-Monitor
, Abdul-Mahdi had the following to say about the deal: "We agreed [with Beijing] to set up a
joint investment fund, which the oil money will finance," adding that the agreement prohibits
China from monopolizing projects inside Iraq, forcing Bejing to work in cooperation with
international firms.
The agreement is similar to one negotiated
between Iraq and China in 2015 when Abdul-Mahdi was serving as Iraq's oil minister. That
year, Iraq joined China's Belt and Road Initiative in a deal that also involved exchanging oil
for investment, development and construction projects and saw China awarded several projects as
a result. In a notable similarity to recent events, that deal was put on hold due to "political
and security tensions" caused by unrest and the surge of ISIS in Iraq, that is until
Abdul-Mahdi saw Iraq rejoin the
initiative again late last year through the agreements his government signed with China
last September.
Chinese President Xi Jinping, center left, meet with Iraqi Prime Minister
Adil Abdul-Mahdi, center right, in Beijing, Sept. 23, 2019. Lintao Zhang | AP
Notably, after recent tensions between the U.S. and Iraq over the assassination of Soleimani
and the U.S.' subsequent refusal to remove its troops from Iraq despite parliament's demands,
Iraq quietly announced that it would dramatically increase its oil exports to China to
triple the
amount established in the deal signed in September. Given Abdul-Mahdi's recent claims about
the true forces behind Iraq's recent protests and Trump's threats against him being directly
related to his dealings with China, the move appears to be a not-so-veiled signal from
Abdul-Mahdi to Washington that he plans to deepen Iraq's partnership with China, at least for
as long as he remains in his caretaker role.
Iraq's decision to dramatically increase its oil exports to China came just one day after
the U.S. government
threatened to cut off Iraq's access to its central bank account, currently held at the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, an account that
currently holds $35 billion in Iraqi oil revenue. The account was
set up after the U.S. invaded and began occupying Iraq in 2003 and Iraq currently removes
between $1-2 billion per month to cover essential government expenses. Losing access to its oil
revenue stored in that account would lead to the "
collapse " of Iraq's government, according to Iraqi government officials who spoke to
AFP .
Though Trump publicly promised to rebuke Iraq for the expulsion of U.S. troops via
sanctions, the threat to cut off Iraq's access to its account at the NY Federal Reserve Bank
was delivered privately and directly to the Prime Minister, adding further credibility to
Abdul-Mahdi's claims that Trump's most aggressive attempts at pressuring Iraq's government are
made in private and directed towards the country's Prime Minister.
Though Trump's push this time was about preventing the expulsion of U.S. troops from Iraq,
his reasons for doing so may also be related to concerns about China's growing foothold in the
region. Indeed, while Trump has now lost his desired share of Iraqi oil revenue (50 percent) to
China's counteroffer of 20 percent, the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq may see American
troops replaced with their Chinese counterparts as well, according to Tom Luongo.
"All of this is about the U.S. maintaining the fiction that it needs to stay in Iraq So,
China moving in there is the moment where they get their toe hold for the Belt and Road
[Initiative]," Luongo argued. "That helps to strengthen the economic relationship between Iraq,
Iran and China and obviating the need for the Americans to stay there. At some point, China
will have assets on the ground that they are going to want to defend militarily in the event of
any major crisis. This brings us to the next thing we know, that Mahdi and the Chinese
ambassador discussed that very thing in the wake of the Soleimani killing."
Indeed, according to news reports, Zhang Yao -- China's ambassador to Iraq -- " conveyed
Beijing's readiness to provide military assistance" should Iraq's government request it
soon after Soleimani's assassination. Yao made the offer a day after Iraq's parliament voted to
expel American troops from the country. Though it is currently unknown how Abdul-Mahdi
responded to the offer, the timing likely caused no shortage of concern among the Trump
administration about its rapidly waning influence in Iraq. "You can see what's coming here,"
Luongo told MintPress of the recent Chinese offer to Iraq, "China, Russia and Iran are
trying to cleave Iraq away from the United States and the U.S. is feeling very threatened by
this."
Russia is also playing a role in the current scenario as Iraq initiated talks with Moscow
regarding the
possible purchase of one of its air defense systems last September, the same month that
Iraq signed eight deals, including the oil deal with China. Then, in the wake of Soleimani's
death, Russia
again offered the air defense systems to Iraq to allow them to better defend their air
space. In the past, the U.S.
has threatened allied countries with sanctions and other measures if they purchase Russian
air defense systems as opposed to those manufactured by U.S. companies.
The U.S.' efforts to curb China's growing influence and presence in Iraq amid these new
strategic partnerships and agreements are limited, however, as the U.S. is increasingly relying on China
as part of its Iran policy, specifically in its goal of reducing Iranian oil export to zero.
China remains Iran's main crude oil and condensate importer, even after it reduced its imports
of Iranian oil significantly following U.S. pressure last year. Yet, the U.S. is now attempting to
pressure China to stop buying Iranian oil completely or face sanctions while also
attempting to privately sabotage the China-Iraq oil deal. It is highly unlikely China will
concede to the U.S. on both, if any, of those fronts, meaning the U.S. may be forced to choose
which policy front (Iran "containment" vs. Iraq's oil dealings with China) it values more in
the coming weeks and months.
Furthermore, the recent signing of the "phase one" trade deal with China revealed another
potential facet of the U.S.' increasingly complicated relationship with Iraq's oil sector given
that the trade deal
involves selling U.S. oil and gas to China at very low cost , suggesting that the Trump
administration may also see the Iraq-China oil deal result in Iraq emerging as a potential
competitor for the U.S. in selling cheap oil to China, the world's top oil importer.
The Petrodollar and the Phantom of the Petroyuan
In his televised statements last week following Iran's military response to the U.S.
assassination of General Soleimani, Trump insisted that the U.S.' Middle East policy is no
longer being directed by America's vast oil requirements. He
stated specifically that:
Over the last three years, under my leadership, our economy is stronger than ever before
and America has achieved energy independence. These historic accomplishments changed our
strategic priorities. These are accomplishments that nobody thought were possible. And
options in the Middle East became available. We are now the number-one producer of oil and
natural gas anywhere in the world. We are independent, and we do not need Middle East
oil . (emphasis added)"
Yet, given the centrality of the recent Iraq-China oil deal in guiding some of the Trump
administration's recent Middle East policy moves, this appears not to be the case. The
distinction may lie in the fact that, while the U.S. may now be less dependent on oil imports
from the Middle East, it still very much needs to continue to dominate how oil is traded and
sold on international markets in order to maintain its status as both a global military
and financial superpower.
Indeed, even if the U.S. is importing less Middle Eastern oil, the petrodollar system --
first forged in the 1970s -- requires that the U.S. maintains enough control over the global
oil trade so that the world's largest oil exporters, Iraq among them, continue to sell their
oil in dollars. Were Iraq to sell oil in another currency, or trade oil for services, as it
plans to do with China per the recently inked deal, a significant portion of Iraqi oil would
cease to generate a demand for dollars, violating the key tenet of the petrodollar
system.
Chinese representatives speak to defense personnel during a weapons expo organized
by the Iraqi defense ministry in Baghdad, March, 2017. Karim Kadim | AP
The takeaway from the petrodollar phenomenon is that as long as countries need oil, they
will need the dollar. As long as countries demand dollars, the U.S. can continue to go into
massive amounts of debt to fund its network of global military bases, Wall Street bailouts,
nuclear missiles, and tax cuts for the rich."
Thus, the use of the petrodollar has created a system whereby U.S. control of oil sales of
the largest oil exporters is necessary, not just to buttress the dollar, but also to support
its global military presence. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the issue of the U.S. troop
presence in Iraq and the issue of Iraq's push for oil independence against U.S. wishes have
become intertwined. Notably, one of the architects of the petrodollar system and the man who
infamously described U.S. soldiers as "dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign
policy", former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, has been advising
Trump and informing his China policy since 2016.
This take was also expressed by economist Michael Hudson,
who recently noted that U.S. access to oil, dollarization and U.S. military strategy are
intricately interwoven and that Trump's recent Iraq policy is intended "to escalate America's
presence in Iraq to keep control of the region's oil reserves," and, as Hudson says, "to back
Saudi Arabia's Wahabi troops (ISIS, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Nusra and other divisions of what are
actually America's foreign legion) to support U.S. control of Near Eastern oil as a buttress of
the U.S. dollar."
Hudson further asserts that it was Qassem Soleimani's efforts to promote Iraq's oil
independence at the expense of U.S. imperial ambitions that served one of the key motives
behind his assassination.
America opposed General Suleimani above all because he was fighting against ISIS and other
U.S.-backed terrorists in their attempt to break up Syria and replace Assad's regime with a
set of U.S.-compliant local leaders – the old British "divide and conquer" ploy. On
occasion, Suleimani had cooperated with U.S. troops in fighting ISIS groups that got "out of
line" meaning the U.S. party line. But every indication is that he was in Iraq to work
with that government seeking to regain control of the oil fields that President Trump has
bragged so loudly about grabbing. (emphasis added)"
Hudson adds that " U.S. neocons feared Suleimani's plan to help Iraq assert control of its
oil and withstand the terrorist attacks supported by U.S. and Saudi's on Iraq. That is what
made his assassination an immediate drive."
While other factors -- such as pressure
from U.S. allies such as Israel -- also played a factor in the decision to kill Soleimani,
the decision to assassinate him on Iraqi soil just hours before he was set to meet with
Abdul-Mahdi in a diplomatic role suggests that the underlying tensions caused by Iraq's push
for oil independence and its oil deal with China did play a factor in the timing of his
assassination. It also served as a threat to Abdul-Mahdi, who has claimed that the U.S.
threatened to kill both him and his defense minister just weeks prior over tensions directly
related to the push for independence of Iraq's oil sector from the U.S.
It appears that the ever-present role of the petrodollar in guiding U.S. policy in the
Middle East remains unchanged. The petrodollar has long been a driving factor behind the U.S.'
policy towards Iraq specifically, as one of the key triggers for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was
Saddam Hussein's decision to sell Iraqi oil in Euros opposed to dollars beginning in the year
2000. Just weeks before the invasion began, Hussein boasted that Iraq's Euro-based oil revenue
account was earning a higher interest rate than
it would have been if it had continued to sell its oil in dollars, an apparent signal to other
oil exporters that the petrodollar system was only really benefiting the United States at their
own expense.
Beyond current efforts to stave off Iraq's oil independence and keep its oil trade aligned
with the U.S., the fact that the U.S. is now seeking to limit China's ever-growing role in
Iraq's oil sector is also directly related to China's publicly known efforts to create its own
direct competitor to the petrodollar, the petroyuan.
Since 2017, China has made its plans for the petroyuan -- a direct competitor to the
petrodollar -- no secret, particularly after China eclipsed the U.S. as the world's largest
importer of oil.
The new strategy is to enlist the energy markets' help: Beijing may introduce a new way to
price oil in coming months -- but unlike the contracts based on the U.S. dollar that currently dominate global
markets, this benchmark would use China's own currency. If there's widespread adoption, as the
Chinese hope, then that will mark a step toward challenging the greenback's status as the
world's most powerful currency .The plan is to price oil in yuan using a gold-backed futures contract in
Shanghai, but the road will be long and arduous."
If the U.S. continues on its current path and pushes Iraq further into the arms of China and
other U.S. rival states, it goes without saying that Iraq -- now a part of China's Belt and Road
Initiative -- may soon favor a petroyuan system over a petrodollar system, particularly as the
current U.S. administration threatens to hold Iraq's central bank account hostage for pursuing
policies Washington finds unfavorable.
It could also explain why President Trump is so concerned about China's growing foothold
in Iraq, since it risks causing not only the end of the U.S. military hegemony in the country but
could also lead to major trouble for the petrodollar system and the U.S.' position as a global
financial power. Trump's policy aimed at stopping China and Iraq's growing ties is clearly having
the opposite effect, showing that this administration's "gangster diplomacy" only serves to make
the alternatives offered by countries like China and Russia all the more attractive.
One can see how all these recent wars and military actions have a financial motive at their
core. Yet the mass of gullible Americans actually believe the reasons given, to "spread
democracy" and other wonderful things. Only a small number can see things for what they really
are. It's very frustrating to deal with the stupidity of the average person on a daily basis.
This is not Trump's policy, it is American policy and the variation is in how he implements
it. Any other person would have fallen in line with it as well. US policy has it's own inner
momentum that can't change course. The US depends upon continuation of the dollar as the
world's reserve currency. Were that to be lost the US likely would descend into chaos without
end. When the USSR came apart it was eventually able to downsize into the Russian state. We
don't have that here; there is no core ethnicity with it's own territory left anymore, it's
just a jumble. For the US it's a matter of survival.
"... In my last post, I said it was time to close down this blog, mostly due to its ineffectiveness, short reach, and choir preaching. I wrote that I might as well pound sand for all the good it did. ..."
"... The US began targeting Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This included "freezing" -- polite-speak for theft -- around $12 billion in Iranian assets, including gold, property, and bank holdings. After Obama agreed to return this filched property and money as part of the nuke deal (minus any real nukes), neocons said he gave away US taxpayer money to international terrorists. This warped lie became part of the narrative, yet another state-orchestrated fake news "alternative fact." ..."
In my last post, I said it was time to close down this blog, mostly due to its
ineffectiveness, short reach, and choir preaching. I wrote that I might as well pound sand for
all the good it did.
A few days later, Trump killed a high level Iranian military leader and I have decided a
post is in order, never mind that a round of tiddlywinks will have about the same influence as
a post here. The wars just keep on coming, no matter what we do.
Let's turn to social media where dimwits, neocon partisans, and clueless Democrats are
running wild after corporate Mafia boss and numero uno Israeli cheerleader Donald Trump ordered
a hit on Gen. Qasem Soleimani and others near Baghdad's international airport on Thursday.
Let's begin with this teleprompter reader and "presenter" from Al Jazeera:
"This is what happens when you put a narcissistic, megalomaniacal, former reality TV star
with a thin skin and a very large temper in charge of the world's most powerful military You
know who else attacks cultural sites? ISIS. The Taliban." – me on Trump/Iran on MSNBC
today: pic.twitter.com/YCRARB2anv
It is interesting how the memory of such people only goes back to the election of Donald
Trump.
The US began targeting Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This included "freezing"
-- polite-speak for theft -- around $12 billion in Iranian assets, including gold, property,
and bank holdings. After Obama agreed to return this filched property and money as part of the
nuke deal (minus any real nukes), neocons said he gave away US taxpayer money to international
terrorists. This warped lie became part of the narrative, yet another state-orchestrated fake
news "alternative fact."
Here's another idiot. He was the boss of the DNC for a while and unsuccessfully ran for
president.
Nice job trump and Pompeo you dimwits. You've completed the neocon move to have Iraq
become a satellite of Iran. You have to be the dumbest people ever to run the US government.
You can add that to being the most corrupt. Get these guys out of here. https://t.co/gQHhHSeiJQ
Once again, history is lost in a tangle of lies and omission. Centuries before John Dean
thought it might be a good idea to run for president, Persians and Shias in what is now Iraq
and Iran were crossing the border -- later drawn up by invading Brits and French -- in
pilgrimages to the shrines of Imam Husayn and Abbas in Karbala. We can't expect an arrogant
sociopath like Mr. Dean to know about Ashura, Shia pilgrimages, the Remembrance of Muharram,
and events dating back to 680 AD.
Shias from Iran pilgrimage to other Iraqi cities as well, including An-Najaf, Samarra,
Mashhad, and Baghdad (although the latter is more important to Sunnis).
Corporate fake news teleprompter reader Stephanopoulos said the Geneva Conventions
(including United Nations Security Council Resolution 2347) outlaw the targeting of cultural
sites, which Trump said he will bomb.
Trump said there are 52 different sites; the number is not arbitrary, it is based on the 52
hostages, many of them CIA officers, taken hostage during Iran's revolution against the
US-installed Shah and his brutal secret police sadists.
Pompeo said Trump won't destroy Iran's cultural and heritage sites. Pompeo, as a dedicated
Zionist operative, knows damn well the US will destroy EVERYTHING of value in Iran, same as it
did in Iraq and later Libya and Syria. This includes not only cultural sites, but civilian
infrastructure -- hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, and mosques.
STEPHANOPOULOS: The Geneva Conventions outlaws attacks on cultural objects & places of
worship. Why is Trump threatening Iran w/ war crimes?
POMPEO: We'll behave lawfully
S: So to be clear, Trump's threat wasn't accurate?
Although I believe Jill Stein is living in a Marxian fantasy world, I agree with her tweet
in regard to the Zionist hit on Soleimani:
Now THIS is grounds for #impeachment
– treachery unleashing the unthinkable for Americans & people the world over: Trump
asked Iraqi prime minister to mediate with #Iran then
assassinated Soleimani – on a mediation mission. https://t.co/f0F9FEMALD
Trump should be impeached -- tried and imprisoned -- not in response to some dreamed-up and
ludicrous Russian plot or even concern about the opportunist Hunter Biden using his father's
position to make millions in uber-corrupt Ukraine, but because he is a war criminal responsible
for killing women and children.
As for the planned forever military occupation of Iraq,
USA Today reports:
Iraq's Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi told lawmakers that a timetable for the withdrawal
of all foreign troops, including U.S. ones, was required "for the sake of our national
sovereignty." About 5,000 American troops are in various parts of Iraq.
The latest:
-- Iraqi lawmakers voted to oust U.S. troops
-- U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS has paused operations
-- Hundreds of thousands mourned General Suleimani in Iran
-- President Trump said the U.S. has 52 possible targets in Iran in case of retaliation
https://t.co/pmUuAQdKlc
No way in hell will Sec. State Pompeo and his Zionist neocon handlers allow this to happen
without a fight. However, it shouldn't be too difficult for the Iraqis to expel 5,000
brainwashed American soldiers from the country, bombed to smithereens almost twenty years ago
by Bush the Neocon Idiot Savant.
Never mind Schumer's pretend concern about another war. This friend of Israel from New York
didn't go on national television and excoriate Obama and his cutthroat Sec. of State Hillary
Clinton for killing 30,000 Libyans.
I'm concerned President Trump's impulsive foreign policy is dragging America into another
endless war in the Middle East that will make us less safe.
Meanwhile, it looks like social media is burning the midnight oil in order to prevent their
platforms being used to argue against Trump's latest Zionist-directed insanity.
It is absolutely crazy that Twitter is auto-locking the accounts of anyone who posts this
"No war on Iran" image, and forcing them to delete the anti-war tweet in order to unlock
their account.
This is complete and utter bullshit, but I'm sure the American people will gobble it down
without question. Trump's advisers are neocons and they are seriously experienced in the art of
promoting and engineering assassination, cyber-attacks, invasions, and mass murder.
Newsmax scribbler John Cardillo thinks he has it all figure out.
"In mid-October Soleimani instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and
other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the country using
sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran "
Imagine this, however improbable and ludicrous: Iran invades America and assassinates
General Hyten or General McConville, both top members of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Now
imagine the response by the "exceptional nation."
We can't leave out the Christian Zionist from Indiana, Mike Pence. Mike wants you to believe
Iran was responsible for 9/11, thus stirring up the appropriate animosity and consensus for
mass murder.
Neither Iran nor Soleimani were linked to the terror attack in the "9/11 Commission
Report." Pence didn't even get the number of hijackers right. https://t.co/QtQZm2Yyh9
Finally, here is the crown jewel of propaganda -- in part responsible for the death of well
over a million Iraqis -- The New York Times showing off its rampant hypocrisy.
In Opinion
The editorial board writes, "It is crucial that influential Republican senators like
Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell remind President Trump of his promise to keep
America out of foreign quagmires" https://t.co/2swusvBWbg
Never mind Judith Miller, the Queen of NYT pro-war propaganda back in the day, spreading
neocon fabricated lies about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. America -- or
rather the United States (the government) -- is addicted to quagmires and never-ending war.
This is simply more anti-Trump bullshit by the NYT editorial board. The newspaper loves war
waged in the name of Israel, but only if jumpstarted by Democrats.
Trump the fool, the fact-free reality TV president will eventually unleash the dogs of war
against Iran, much to the satisfaction of Israel, its racist Zionists, Israel-first neocons in
America, and the chattering pro-war class of "journalists," and "foreign policy experts" (most
former Pentagon employees).
Expect more nonsense like that dispensed by the robot Mike Pence, the former tank commander
now serving as Sec. of State, and any number of neocon fellow travelers, many with coveted blue
checkmarks on Twitter while the truth-tellers are expelled from the conversation and exiled to
the political wilderness.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this
article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global
Research.
If that means Uncle Joe, then Trump may bloody well already uncork the champagne. Remember
that recent Iranian debacle of his, which is already starting being forgotten? That was the
*only* real chance for Democrats to look solid in the Senate when trying to impeach him.
The only way to make Republican senators look dishonest and partisan when defending him. An
unexpected and unprovoked electoral gift to them from Trump (a would-have-been-serious gift
- read Daniel Larison's articles as to how many American voters, no matter their partisan
leanings, are anti-war now). How did the DNC manage that gift? Exactly. By directly
bringing it to the trash bin without a moment of hesitation and keeping on desperately
clinging to the politically stillborn clownery around Ukraine which will allow the
Republican senators to laugh their Democratic colleagues out of the stage and seal Trump's
victory the very moment the said clownery is brought to the upper chamber of the
parliament. Now Democrats look like a poor feller in front of an insurmountable wall, who,
having witnessed a door which magically/quantumly appeared in that wall, screamed "To
battle!/Arriva!/Kovfefe!", slammed the said door shut, industriously broke the handle so
that it could never be opened again in the quantum dimension he exists and resumed his
attempts to - how to put it mildly? - shatter the reinforced concrete with his forehead.
So please spare me the righteous posturing. Be honest at least to yourself and admit
that America's mainstream parties are owned by the same people, hence the only thing you
choose is the ideological agenda on cultural issues you prefer. The battle between them
is as much of a battle between good and evil and of the rule of law against the
lawlessness as the one between Pol Pot and D'Aubuisson Arrieta.
I'm a former Trump voter who could vote for Warren or Sanders but not Biden. Trump has been
the biggest disappointment of my political life, and I'll never forgive him for the failures
on immigration, but Biden and bis family looks to be at least as personally sleazy and
corrupt as the Trumps, if not as outright sickening.
Well, I'm a non-Democrat leftist (except for conservative leanings on social issues and a
vehemently anti-war posture that is a minority view on both the left and right). I have voted
for third-party candidates for President most of my life (and I'm a septuagenarian). For
reasons of foreign policy and economics, I would probably vote for either Sanders or Warren,
at least if they don't get too bonkers on identity politics. But there is no way I would vote
for any of the other Democratic contenders, and there is no way I would vote for Trump.
For what it's worth, I think the whole frenzy to defeat Trump no matter what is overblown.
Except for the Twitter feed, I don't see how Trump has actually governed much differently
from any other contemporary Republican. The difference between Trump and, say Ted Cruz, or
Marco Rubio, is mostly style, not policy.
That last sentence is true. But it is style that really matters to many Democrats. Obama was
their ideal President almost entirely because of his style.
And Trump's style is what attracts his hard core supporters.
If that means Uncle Joe, then Trump may bloody well already uncork the champagne. Remember
that recent Iranian debacle of his, which is already starting being forgotten? That was the
*only* real chance for Democrats to look solid in the Senate when trying to impeach him. The
only way to make Republican senators look dishonest and partisan when defending him. An
unexpected and unprovoked electoral gift to them from Trump (a would-have-been-serious gift -
read Daniel Larison's articles as to how many American voters, no matter their partisan
leanings, are anti-war now). How did the DNC manage that gift? Exactly. By directly bringing
it to the trash bin without a moment of hesitation and keeping on desperately clinging to the
politically stillborn clownery around Ukraine which will allow the Republican senators to
laugh their Democratic colleagues out of the stage and seal Trump's victory the very moment
the said clownery is brought to the upper chamber of the parliament. Now Democrats look like
a poor feller in front of an insurmountable wall, who, having witnessed a door which
magically/quantumly appeared in that wall, screamed "To battle!/Arriva!/Kovfefe!", slammed
the said door shut, industriously broke the handle so that it could never be opened again in
the quantum dimension he exists and resumed his attempts to - how to put it mildly? - shatter
the reinforced concrete with his forehead.
The author asks an interesting question: what is the urgency to remove Turmp before the
election. Why notwait Novemebr and see if he is removed by voters?
One of the best articles I've seen on both sides of the current scene is Jim Kavanaugh's
"Impeachment: What
Lies Beneath?" Let us note that this essay was first published at the author's website,
The Polemicist, on Dec. 17, 2019.
In the first half of the essay, "The Raw," the author is discussing the remarkable
weakness of the impeachment case and articles; the second half of the essay, "The Cooked,"
begins with the following two paragraphs:
Which makes me wonder. The obviousness of this losing hand, and the fact that the most
politically-seasoned, can't-be-that-stupid Democrats seem determined to play it out, have
my paranoid political Spidey senses all atingle. What are the cards they're not showing?
What lies beneath the thin ice of these Articles of Impeachment?
If the apparent agenda makes no sense, look for the hidden. Something that better
explains why Pelosi, et. al. find it so urgent to replace Trump before the election and why
they think they can succeed in doing that.
There is one thing that I can think of that drives such frantic urgency: War. That would
also explain why Trump's "national security" problem -- embedded in the focus on Ukraine
arms shipments, Russian aggression, etc. -- is the real issue, the whistle to Republican
war dogs.
But if so, the Ukro-Russian motif is itself a screen for another "national security"/war
issue that cannot be stated explicitly. There's no urgency about aggression towards Russia.
There is for Iran.
These paragraphs mirror the structure of the essay altogether: beginning with impeachment
and ending with Iran. In the next paragraph we see Kavanaugh's prognosis, his proposal for
how things might unfold:
So here's my entirely speculative tea-leaf reading: If there's a hidden agenda behind
the urgency to remove Trump, one that might actually garner the votes of Republican
Senators, it is to replace him with a president who will be a more reliable and effective
leader for a military attack on Iran that Israel wants to initiate before next November.
Spring is the cruelest season for launching wars."
This was striking to read on December 17 and even more striking to reflect upon as of
Friday, January 3. Kavanaugh's arguments make a lot of sense, and perhaps it will turn out
that "April is the cruelest month" (as he says at the end of the essay) -- but don't
we have to consider that perhaps Trump has once again outplayed both Democrats and
Republicans, and, even more, the Deep State?
As Trump said in announcing the drone strike that killed Gen. Soleimani, "We took
action last night to stop a war; we did not take action to start a war."
Attacks in/on other countries by the U.S. will not receive praise from me, not any more
than did the U.S.-abetted coup in Bolivia. I will say, though, that I sure wish the party of
the King of Drones, Barack Obama (who openly bragged about being "very good at killing
people") would shut the hell up.
That's not going to happen, of course -- the only thing here that will restrain them is
the role of Israel in this.
Again, there's no mystery to any of this -- but what is a mystery to me is why anybody
listens to the Democrats on this or any other issue.
Undoubtedly there are elements to this situation I don't see or understand -- but what we
all have as a helpful guide is the fact that whatever the Democratic Party leadership says
here, and whatever the conventional Left narrative presents on this situation, absolutely
cannot be trusted.
when he tweeted that 'it
doesn't really matter' if there was such a threat or not.
In a letter to the New York Times the now 100 years old chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg
trials, Benjamin B. Ferencz, warned of the larger effects of such deeds when he
writes :
The administration recently announced that, on orders of the president, the United
States had "taken out" (which really means "murdered") an important military leader of
a country with which we were not at war. As a Harvard Law School graduate who has
written extensively on the subject, I view such immoral action as a clear violation of
national and international law.
The public is entitled to know the truth. The United Nations Charter, the
International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in The Hague are
all being bypassed. In this cyberspace world, young people everywhere are in mortal
danger unless we change the hearts and minds of those who seem to prefer war to
law.
The killing of a Soleimani will also only have a short term effect when it comes to
general deterrence. It was a onetime shot to which others will react. Groups and people
who work against 'U.S. interests' will now do so less publicly. Countries will seek
asymmetric advantages to prevent such U.S. action against themselves. By committing the
crime the U.S. and Trump made the global situation for themselves more complicated.
It is interesting that the commentary closes with a letter by Benjamin Ferencz, perhaps
the last surviving Nuremberg prosecutor. As he indicates, the assassination is a war
crime, and, in my view, even the threat of such an assassination is a serious breach of
international law. Regimes following such a policy have gone rogue, and cabinet ministers
making such a pronouncement that the assassination was carried out as a deterrent are, in
effect, confessing to war crimes. In future the reach of the offending regime may be much
less than it is now, and, if that occurs, the rogue minister better be careful if he
travels outside of his home country.
Posted by: exiled off mainstree | Jan 18 2020 20:00 utc |
5
"By committing the crime the U.S. and Trump made the global situation for themselves more
complicate."
USA is not exactly the sole economic superpower, but as long as the allies, EU, NATO,
major allies in Asia and Latin America, behave like poodles, USA pretty much controls
what is "normal". After Obama campaigns of murder by drone, now Trump raises it to a
higher level, and Europe, the most critical link in the web of alliances, applauds (UK)
or accepts and cooperates. That can be a useful clarification for US establishment.
So the bottom line is that while it is hard to show constructive goals achieved by
raising murder policies to a more brazen level, nothing changes for the worse. Allies
tolerate irrationality, cruelty etc. and to some extend, join the fun.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jan 18 2020 20:06 utc |
8
Pompeo: "In all cases, we have to do this."
In all cases they have to murder? That is psycho killer talk. Notice how comfortable
the American public is with that.
America disconnected from reality years ago. I rather doubt they could even find their
way back if they were to somehow return to their senses.
Posted by: William Gruff | Jan 18 2020 20:07 utc |
9
Deterrence and decapitation strikes ...
Idle speculation on my part, but I am not alone in wondering if the Soleimani
assassination accelerated Putin's restructuring agenda. (I'm not suggesting it was
generated or even influenced in substance by the strike, just that the timing may have
been.) Given the power of the President in Russia, as the CIA itself very well
understands, there is perhaps no more tempting target for an overt military assassination
strike than President Putin.
Of course, deterrence of rational actors is precisely what would prevent this, but I
imagine Russian strategic thinkers have wondered whether or for how long the US remains a
rational actor. Moreover, this would be the sort of thing that a fanatical faction could
pull off. In some Strangelovean bunker somewhere, there may be those who would actually
welcome a last gasp of large-scale warfare before the Eurasian Heartland is lost and the
Petrodollar-fueled global finance empire, nominally sheltered in the US, dies away.
Creative destruction ... a last chance to shuffle the cards, and perhaps reset a
losing game to zero.
Posted by: Paul Damascene | Jan 18 2020 20:20 utc |
13
Maybe I stupidly posted this in the wrong thread?
Trump is simply a third-rate Godfather type gangster, with a touch of the charm and a
lot of the baggage. I think his murder of General Qassem Soleimani was not something he
would have done if he had any choice. It was a very stupid move, and Trump is just not
that stupid. I really think this was demanded by the 'churnitalists'. These churnitalists
are probably the psychos of the predatory arm of the CIA, and their billionaire
allies.
See, it all works like this:
These churnitalists (who supposedly provide us with 'protection', or 'security') are
the real rulers (because everybody who defies them ends up dead). Now just ask your self:
How does rulership actually really work? It's really kind of simple. The only actual way
to establish rulership over other people is to prove, again and again, that you can force
them to do stupid things, for absolutely no reason. This is called 'people-churning', and
all you have to do is just keep churning out low-class 'history' by constantly forcing
the weaker ones to do stupid things. Again and again. This happens constantly in a
churnitalist gangster society. Even in schools and legislatures, and so on. Haven't you
noticed it yet?
About the impeachment of President Donald Trump she engineered with her Democratic majority, Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday: "It's
not personal. It's not political. It's not partisan. It's patriotic."
Seriously, Madam Speaker? Not political? Not partisan?
Why then were all eight House members chosen as managers to prosecute the case against Trump, who ceremoniously escorted the articles
across the Capitol, all Democrats? Why did the articles of impeachment receive not a single Republican vote on the House floor?
The truth: The impeachment of Donald Trump is the fruit of a malicious prosecution whose roots go back to the 2016 election, in
the aftermath of which stunned liberals and Democrats began to plot the removal of the new president.
This coup has been in the works for three years.
First came the crazed charges of Trump's criminal collusion with Vladimir Putin to hack the emails of the DNC and the Clinton
campaign and funnel them to WikiLeaks.
For two years, we heard the cries of "Treason!" from Pelosi's caucus. And despite the Mueller investigation's exoneration of Trump
of all charges of conspiracy with Russia, we still hear the echoes:
Trump is Putin's poodle. Trump is an asset of the Kremlin.
All we want, and what the American people deserve, is a "fair trial," Democrats and their media collaborators now insist. But
can a fair trial proceed from a manifestly deficient and malicious prosecution?
Consider. In this impeachment, we are told, the House serves as the grand jury, and Adam Schiff's Intelligence Committee and Jerry
Nadler's Judiciary Committee serve as the investigators and prosecutors.
But the articles of impeachment on which the Judiciary Committee and the House voted do not contain a single crime required by
the Constitution for impeachment and removal. There is no charge of treason, no charge of bribery or "other high crimes and misdemeanors."
So weak is the case for impeachment that the elite in this city is demanding that the Senate do the work the House failed to do
.
The Senate must subpoena the documents and witnesses the House failed to produce, to make the case for impeachment more persuasive
than it is now.
Not our job, rightly answers Mitch McConnell.
The Senate is supposed to be an "impartial jury."
But while there is a debate over whether Republicans will vote to call witnesses, there is no debate on how the Senate Democrats
intend to vote -- 100% for removal of a president they fear they may not be able to defeat.
Consider Trump's alleged offense: pressing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate Burisma Holdings and Hunter
Biden.
Assume Zelenskiy, without prodding, sent to the U.S., as a friendly act to ingratiate himself with Trump, the Burisma file on
Hunter Biden.
Would that have been a crime?
Why is it then a crime if Trump asked for the file?
The military aid Trump held up for 10 weeks -- lethal aid Barack Obama denied to Kyiv -- was sent. And Zelenskiy never held the
press conference requested, never investigated Burisma, never sent the Biden file.
There is a reason why no crime was charged in the impeachment of Donald Trump. There was no crime committed.
Not political, said Pelosi. Why then did she hold up sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a month, after she
said it was so urgent that Trump be impeached that Schiff and Nadler could not wait for their subpoenas to be ruled upon by the Supreme
Court?
Pelosi is demanding that the Senate get the documents, subpoena and hear the witnesses, and do the investigative work Schiff and
Nadler failed to do.
Does that not constitute an admission that a convincing case was not made? Are not the articles voted by the House inherently
deficient if the Senate has to have more evidence than the House prosecutors could produce to convict the president of "abuse of
power"?
Can we really have a fair trial in the Senate, when half of the jury, the Democratic caucus, is as reliably expected to vote to
remove the president as Republicans are to acquit him? What kind of fair trial is it when we can predict the final vote before the
court hears the evidence?
It is ridiculous to deny that this impeachment is partisan, political and personal. It reeks of politics, partisanship and Trump-hatred.
As for patriotic, that depends on where you stand -- or sit.
But the forum to be entrusted with the decision of "should Trump go?" is not a deeply polarized Senate, but with those the Founding
Fathers entrusted with such decisions -- the American people.
In most U.S. courts, a prosecution case this inadequate, with prosecutors asking the court itself to get more documents and call
more witnesses, and so visibly contaminated with malice toward the accused, would be dismissed outright.
Mitch McConnell should let the House managers make their case, and then call for a vote to dismiss, and treat this indictment
with the contempt it so richly deserves.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided
America Forever.
I want to know all the dirt. I want the Dems to be able to call their witnesses, and I want Trump's team to call their witnesses.
And I want cross examinations. Let's have a real trial so the American people can learn what has been going on. To sweep it all
under the carpet by having Mitch McConnell move for dismissal is to suppress the truth. What is wrong with Pat Buchanan? I always
thought Buchanan was a truth seeker and a truth teller. So very disappointed in him.
Fools and charlatans should not be encouraged. This faux "impeachment" is simply an exercise in pre-election mischief-making by
a Democrat party that simply hopes to damage Trump in the eyes of the voters.
So this is your argument: The Bidens were corrupt so Trump gets a pass on violating the law AS FOUND BY THE NONPARTISAN GAO! Yup,
sounds reasonable to me. MAGA
Government agencies are only as "non-partisan" as the political appointees tasked to run them.
No-one cared when Creepy joe Biden did it openly, but its a crime because some choose to believe that Trump did the same? LOL!!!
No sorry, that won't wash.
Juts because Biden is seeking to be president that doesn't mean he gets some kind of immunity from investigation for corrupt
activities in foreign nations.
If you think that a Dem-funded dodgy dossier on Trump is sufficient to initiate an FBI probe on trump when he is the Repubs
nominee, how can you possibly think that Biden is untouchable given his public admission of squeezing the Ukro gov using foreign
aid as leverage?????
Hilarious. The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.
What pre-election "Trump efforts in Ukraine"? I think you have an inability to follow time-lines.
Manafort was involved in corrupt dealing with shady Oligarchs, but that was before he worked for Trump, and the Bad Orange
Man wasn't in the slightest bit involved.
I still find it hilarious that the libs think Trump committed a crime in his conversation with Zelensky, but its OK for Creepy
Joe (as Veep) to blackmail Poroshenkos regime to get rid of the prosecutor sniffing around Burisa Holdings and thereby threatening
his sons get-rich-quick scheme (and then BRAGGING about it on camera). Un-freakin-believable... :-D
Why won't the Dems and leftwing media leave him alone then? Rep. Al Green (D-Tx) let that cat out of the bag when he told us that
they have to impeach him otherwise he's going to get re-elected. The impeachment gambit is no more complicated than that.
The Left can't stand Trump because of his Supreme Court nominations, his pulling out of the Climate Accord, and his pro-life positions.
That's why they want him stopped and removed from office. That being said, Trump is his own worst enemy because he is so full
of himself that he is incapable of behaving in an adult and judicious way.
Absolutely true. 100% But it doesn't change the fact that Trump tried to blackmail Ukraine into announcing an investigation of
the Bidens by withholding Congressionally mandated aid.
So, KNOWING the Dems were out to get him, he still does that, and is stupid enough to get caught red handed. Your great leader
picks such "winners." Rudy, Lev, and the gang did him right.
If Obama did it, a GOP House and Senate would have run him out of town in a week.
Like, I said, Trump is his own worst enemy. And a lot of Republicans are hypocrites. If Obama behaved as Trump has they'd be all
over him with criticism.
If we could design our own president..he'd be perfect. For us that is. A president is there to do a job. It's laid out
in the Constitution. The job desription says nothing about personality type.
Would I like him to say some things differently, sure. Sometimes I cringe. But nothing that he says affects us negatively (unless
it's in an emotional or psychological way). Your life, family, your career, your bank accounts, are not hurt by DJTs tweets or
sayings or interactions with anyone else in Washington.
So if that's the price to pay to have a leader who works to keep his promises it's a small price, and Americans ought to have
the grace and fortitude to handle the daily news without melting down emotionally or psychologically. A good spirit and a joyful
outlook are good for your soul.
A quote: "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their
senses slowly, one by one."
Charles MacKay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
If that was the case, just not leave him to hang himself. Instead the corrupt libs indulge in big lies and sedition. The witch
hunt is clear and obvious, and it will stiffen Trumps sails as he heads into the 2020 showdown.
What happens to Mr. Trump in the long run is not our business. He's the POTUS. Anything beyond both the scope of and the time
of his presidency is an obsession with his person. Better to leave what's between him and his country out of any ideas of what's
between him and God.
Well spoken Mary. I find it ironic that the American Conservative would publish a "hit piece" about a supposed "hit job." I come
to the American Conservative for thoughtful, insightful ideas, not this. When the president grants himself "absolute immunity,"
which I would expect Pat Buchanan and American Conservative writers and readers to be outrages at, and I read a piece like this,
I wonder how Pat and company can editorialize and comment at a level well below the dignity of this publication?
I think this statement is closer to the truth of the matter:
"I think the votes have been decided. As much as anybody will be pretending to be judicious about this, I don't think that
there's one senator who hasn't decided how they're going to vote... I think if you're pretty much no longer interested in running
for office, or no longer interested in getting Republican votes, you might vote to impeach the president... When it comes to whether
or not you're going to impeach a president of your own party, particularly over a policy difference or whether or not he has lack
of decorum or whatever, I think that's something that a lot of voters will not excuse."
Rand Paul, Regarding the Impeachment Trial, January 16, 2020
Absolutely agree. And those in the GOP who close their eyes and ears to Trump's attempted blackmail/bribery will answer to the
electorate. That's why we need to get this trial going and get it over. Sure would be nice to hear what all the president's men
say about it, but that would only provide the first-hand evidence further proving Trump's guilt.
So there's no way they'll have witnesses. They'll try to blame the Dems for not letting Trump delay the whole thing in Court
and for refusing to have Hunter and Joe testify, even though that is a sideshow to the attempted blackmail/bribery. This is so
obviously a bunch of bull. If the Senate really wanted to hear from Joe and Hunter, they could subpoena them right now, today
into a committee hearing on their supposed Ukraine corruption. They haven't, so we know its just a bunch of smoke. The only question
is how many voters in the middle are going to let them get away with it.
Witnesses to say what? The same sort of hearsay and opinion that dominated the House hearings?
Errr... NO. The case will be judged on what the Dems have submitted in their articles of impeachment. They don't get to turn
this into a sustained lynch attempt or a never-ending talk-show for liberals and their minions who hate Trump and just want to
be heard.
Buchanan was a longtime aide to Richard Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal Nixon. The
people who accept this line of argument contend, in effect, that the purpose of the American Revolution and the US Constitution
was to replace a hereditary monarchy with an elected one.
I want all the dirt aired as well, but the SENATE is not the proper venue. These traitors need to be indicted, tried, probably
convicted, and sent to Gitmo. I hope McConnell shuts this down good and proper.
So how are we to know who the traitors are if there are no witnesses and cross examinations in the Senate? Are you expecting the
justice department to come down with a bunch of indictments?
Mr. Buchanan has a deep understanding of these matters on both an academic level and from personal experience. It's unfortunate,
but the only conclusion to draw is that the numerous falsehoods in this article are not mistakes, but deliberate attempts to deceive
the reader.
Whatever one's opinion on the behavior of Trump, the Democratic House or the Republican Senate, we should, at a bare minimum,
respect the truth.
1) Impeachment is not a criminal trail. It does not require an underlying crime to be committed, and the rules for impeachment
hearings are not the same as those for criminal or civil trails. Furthermore, the GAO has stated that what Trump is accused of
is indeed a crime.
2) The Mueller report was not an "exoneration of Trump of all charges of conspiracy with Russia." The report literally said
that it was not and Mueller testified to Congress that it was not an exoneration.
3) The claim that "The Senate must subpoena the documents and witnesses the House failed to produce" is absurd. it was the
White House that failed to produce to documents that the House subpoenas demanded. Whether you believe there should be witnesses
(or a trail at all) in the Senate. Implying that House Democrats is somehow concealing these documents is a lazy lie.
I must put aside Mr. Buchanan's comments regarding what the various senators are "really thinking" because I lack the physic
mind-reading abilities that he seems to possess.
However, whatever our opinion on the impeachment and the events that led up to it, can we please stop with the bald-faced lies?
If the Senate decides to dismiss, so be it, but if they publicly swear to God and country that they "will do impartial justice
according to the constitution and laws: so help you God?" then we should do our best to ensure they act that way.
"The Mueller report was not an "exoneration of Trump of all charges of conspiracy with Russia." The report literally said that
it was not and Mueller testified to Congress that it was not an exoneration."
Total rubbish. A lack of evidence IS exoneration. Without evidence, all there is left is a bunch of allegations without proof.
Mueller was given the job to hang trump but he couldn't prove the lie to be fact. He won't admit it so he indulges in innuendo
to give a little complimentary red meat to his team mates.
This "impeachment" is a disgrace, nothing more than a corrupt exercise in partisan party politics. No high crimes. No high
misdemeanors. Nothing but a steaming pile of hearsay, allegations, bias and opinions. Certainly nothing that should ever justify
the removal of a legal and constitutionally elected POTUS.
"Disgrace". Trump has hypnotized his followers to repeat his 5 favorite words mindlessly... in this case it must be the word Trumps
mother kept using to admonish him, it's one of his favorite.
Yes, it was a lack of evidence. The purpose of a special prosecutor is to prosecute. When they have the evidence then they bring
an indictment. If this is not possible for the US President, there would be no purpose for an investigation of a President. And
when a prosecutor fails to bring an indictment the accused is presumed innocent.
There was evidence of collusion. It's in the tapes of the phone calls Gen. Mike Flynn had with the Russian ambassador in December
of 2016. It's just that the collusion was not with Russia but was instead a collusion with another country to get Russia to do
something that would undermine Obama's policy at the U.N. But to reveal those tapes to the public is politically incorrect, and
Robert Mueller wasn't going to go there.
The Mueller Report (The Washington Post edition) page 538 barely touches on it, but you can get the drift.
"Flynn also agreed that he lied to the FBI about another contact with Kislyak, a December 2016 phone call in which Flynn asked
if Russia would delay or vote against a proposed United Nations resolution critical of Israel. Flynn said he made this call at
the direction of a "very senior member" of the presidential transition team," identified later as Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner."
Phil Giraldi, who was terminated at TAC, also did an article on this that you can find on
www.unz.com
. I believe the title of Phil Giraldi's column is "Russiagate is really Israelgate."
Flynn was plea bargaining to save his family from the heavy hand of uncontrolled government prosecutors. He has since withdrawn
the plea so any collusion remains in doubt. This also fits the narrative that the FBI agents did not think Flynn was lying when
they interviewed him.
Well, there is one way to find out for sure, and that would be for the tapes of the Kislyak conversation to be released so we
can hear exactly what Flynn said. It sure can't be classified information as he wasn't yet working for the government during the
transition period in December of 2016. For some reason they don't want those taped phone conversations to be released even in
Judge Emmett Sullivan's courtroom.
No, I found that the report was rather boring, and, of course, there was no proof of any collusion with Russia. The report paints
Trump as a stupid, self serving oaf. I am sure you couldn't bear to even read the report and preferred to get your summary of
it from FOX News.
"The report paints Trump as a stupid, self serving oaf. "
So? Who cares what Mueller and his Democrat minions think? It wasn't the investigations remit to critique Trump as a person
or even as a President.It was to find evidence of collusion and criminal behaviour by Trump and his campaign.
It found NOTHING or the sort. Personal bad behaviour by Manafort in Ukraine doesn't stain trump. Flynn getting caught in a
procedural trap by FBI agents looking entrap him doesn't count (and he is recanting his plea bid now, and good for him).
Unsupported innuendo about bad behaviors mean NOTHING. Trump isn't bound to assist the Witch Hunt against him. He has no obligation
to help those that are concocting fallacies in an attempt to bring down or sabotage his tenure. Refusal to co-operate with your
own lynching by your enemies is not "obstruction". Trump hasn't broken any laws by his refusal to co-operate, and as president,
he has a great amount of privilege in this respect (as all previous presidents have had and exercised when required).
Great big nothing-burger. Accept the truth and get over yourself.
You can all go and ignore the whole Trump impeachment, because it's just smoke to try and
hide the real fire.
Joe Biden's actual blackmail of the Ukrainian government, when he threatened to withhold
$1 billion if the Prosecutor investigating his son, Hunter Biden, wasn't immediately
fired.
Russiagate was to hide Clinton's corruption.
Ukrainegate is to hide Biden's corruption.
You can all go and ignore the whole Trump impeachment, because it's just smoke to try and
hide the real fire.
Joe Biden's actual blackmail of the Ukrainian government, when he threatened to withhold
$1 billion if the Prosecutor investigating his son, Hunter Biden, wasn't immediately
fired.
Russiagate was to hide Clinton's corruption.
Ukrainegate is to hide Biden's corruption.
The US Senate has formally initiated the trial for the removal of US President Donald Trump
from office, which kicked off with House officials reading the charges to the upper chamber and
the swearing-in of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to preside over the process.
Trump's legal team on Saturday released a statement attempting to reject his impeachment by the
House, characterising the charges against the US president as a "dangerous attack" on Americans
and their right to vote.
"We are on strong legal footing. The president has done nothing wrong and we believe that
will be borne out in this process", a source said, ahead of the document's submission to the
Senate scheduled later in the day.
Trump's defence team formally responded to the six-page document containing the articles of
impeachment and stated their opinion on the merits of the two charges - abuse of power and
obstruction of Congress.
"The articles of impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on rights of
the American people to freely choose their president. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt
to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election, now just
months away", the document states.
A spokesman for Trump's legal team suggested that the articles of impeachment are
constitutionally invalid. "They fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let
alone high crimes and misdemeanors", the document said.
The lawyers reportedly stressed that Trump
did nothing wrong and predicted that he would not be removed from office during the
upcoming Senate trial, adding that the defence team planned to argue that the impeachment
articles violate the US constitution.
On Saturday, US lawmakers managing the Senate removal trial filed a brief laying out their
arguments supporting charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress against the US
president.
The Democratic House of Representatives impeachment managers faced a deadline of 5 p.m. EST
(22:00 GMT) on Saturday to file the document before the trial of the US president starts in
the Senate next week. Lawmakers
argued in the brief that Trump must be removed from the Oval Office to safeguard the
integrity of the upcoming presidential election.
On 18 December, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives voted along party lines
to impeach Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for freezing military aid to
Ukraine in exchange for Kiev launching a probe of political rival Joe Biden.
Trump is the third US president to be impeached. Neither of the previous two, Andrew Johnson
in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999 were forced from office. Another US president, Richard Nixon,
resigned in August 1974 before the House could vote on his impeachment, thus avoiding a removal
trial in the Senate.
Trump has
called his impeachment a "witch hunt" designed to overturn the results of the 2016
election.
An unnamed senior Trump administration official told reporters earlier this week that the
president's legal team - made up, in part, of lawyers who formerly worked for deceased
paedophile and sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein - expect a "rapid acquittal" and doubt the removal
trial will last more than two weeks.
The Republican-controlled Senate will almost certainly vote to acquit Trump. No concrete
evidence of wrongdoing was revealed during the House Intelligence Committee's inquiry, and none
of the second-hand witnesses to Trump's infamous phone call with Zelensky revealed any smoking
gun evidence. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has ignored Democrat pleas to admit more
witnesses and more evidence, arguing that the House's case be tried as is.
Meanwhile, Republicans ridiculed Pelosi for sitting on the impeachment articles for four
weeks, despite Democrat claims that Trump posed a "clear and present danger" to national
security, and Pelosi's insistence that removing him was an "urgent concern."
Any doubt that impeachment was a partisan affair was removed by Pelosi on Wednesday night,
when she handed out souvenir pens to reporters after signing the articles, posing in front of a
lectern with a placard reading "#defendourdemocracy" on it. McConnell described the
signing ceremony as "The House's partisan process distilled into one last perfect visual.
Not solemn or serious. A transparently political exercise from beginning to end."
Yesterday, the Speaker celebrated impeachment with souvenir pens, bearing her own golden
signature, brought in on silver platters. The House's partisan process distilled into one
last perfect visual. Not solemn or serious. A transparently political exercise from beginning
to end. pic.twitter.com/AshajRLH2F
McConnell is not above partisan games either, and has openly pledged to work with the White
House to see Trump acquitted.
Which begs the question, what was it all for? If Trump is acquitted, the Democratic Party
has no political capital left to launch another impeachment campaign, even if Trump blatantly
commits the "high crimes and misdemeanors" necessary to trigger an actual, bipartisan
impeachment effort.
Trump then also gets to claim victory, with an acquittal justifying his cries of "witch
hunt" and "presidential harassment," further solidifying his base and embarrassing
the Democrats in front of undecided voters. Pelosi stated on Sunday that regardless of the
trial's outcome, Trump is "impeached for life," but Trump is louder and brasher than
Pelosi, and will milk an acquittal for all it's worth.
Even as the trial against him formally opened on Thursday, the president celebrated the
passage of his US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, his second trade win in two days. His approval
rating also rose
to 51 percent, the highest it's been since he was impeached just over a month ago. All of this
strengthens his argument against the party he's taken to calling "Do Nothing
Democrats."
After the War of Independence from Great Britain, the US had a very different form of
government than the present one. This government functioned under the Articles of
Confederation. This government had been formed in 1775 and had served the rebellious colonies
fairly well throughout the war and into the initial years of peace and separation from the
mother country across the sea.
Some people judged that government to be too loose an arrangement among the constituent
states. A sufficient number of so minded people persuaded the states to convene a convention at
Philadelphia to consider some amendments to the Articles of Confederation and to report these
back as RECOMMENDATIONS to the state legislatures.
That did not happen. Instead the delegates to this convention seized control of the agenda
and wrote a document that created a form of government in which there was an Executive Branch
empowered in many ways to act without the direction given by the Legislative Branch. This
Executive was made to be particularly independent in the conduct of war and and foreign
relations. Some restrictions were established in that the military was to be funded by the
legislature (if it chose to do so). The military was to be designed by the legislature and
officers thereof were to be appointed by the senate on recommendation of the president. In
foreign affairs the appointment of ambassadors and the approval of international treaties were
made the responsibility of the senate as well, but both in war and in foreign relations the
content and conduct of these government affairs were reserved to the Executive Branch. As an
example of this, the Congress of the US had no role in running WW2.. The House of
Representatives did not "sign off" on Operation Overlord or any other plan. The Congress did
make an attempt to control military operations during the Civil War. A Joint Committee on the
Conduct of the War was formed from among the most radical Republicans in both houses, but
Lincoln largely ignored the machinations of this body.
Trump is to be tried for abuse of power and obstructing Congress. In the first instance he
is accused of seeking political advantage by soliciting an investigation of the affairs of Joe
Biden in a telephone call to the president of the Ukraine. His motivations in that call are
unclear and are contested even among those who listened to the call in an official capacity.
Biden was not then a candidate for office. He was a potential candidate. In the second article
Trump is accused of Obstructing Congress. No president has ever been impeached on such a charge
even though an inherent conflict between the Executive and Legislative Branches was built into
the structure of the US Constitution in order to limit the power of both branches. For example;
the president may wish to make some change in government practice that the Congress does not
want. Many presidents have sought to obviate this difficulty by attaching signing statements to
laws passed by Congress. These often say, in effect, "I am signing this but will not execute
the will of Congress." No president has ever been impeached for doing that. Obama did that many
times.
Speaker Pelosi has succeeded indicting Trump on such grounds and now seeks to control the
trial pf the president in the senate through intimidation of members and such devices as
accusing the Majority Leader of the Senate of being a Russian agent of influence "Moscow
Mitch.". Her justification for that is McConnell's unwillingness to obey her.
Pelosi and company are now trying to remove a president on the grounds mentioned above. If
they can do that, they will have succeeded in reverting the power structure within the federal
government, reverting it to something much like the government of the Articles of
Confederation. In that set up the federal government will become driven by the House of
Representatives and will become the sole controlling part of the federal government with the
ability to remove an opposition president through a simple majority vote and a rubber stamp
trial in an intimidated senate. We will then have become a parliamentary democracy with the
Speaker of the House controlling all.
Alan Dershowitz will testify in this wise at Trump's trial. I support his position. pl
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has called for a full investigation into
coordination between Congressional Democrats and members of the media, after articles of
impeachment against President Trump appear to have been deliberately 'slow walked' in order to
coincide with two 'bombshell' developments in the Ukraine story.
" Why did they time this? Why did they wait? " asked Fox Business host Trish Regan.
"First off, Rachel Maddow should be a witness of fact now . She should be brought in,"
replied Bannon - referring to the seemingly coordinated media blitz surrounding
Lev Parnas, an indicted former Rudy Goiliani associate whose undated, hand-written notes
appear to support the claim that President Trump pressured Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden
for corruption.
" We ought to have all the emails and all the text messages between Schiff, between Nancy
Pelosi, Phil Griffin at MSNBC News. We ought to bring the whole thing out. How did this get
dropped? Why have they been working on this for so long? How did this just come about at the
last second? She admitted she's been working on this for months, and the House just got this.
The Republicans didn't even see this when the vote when down," said Bannon, adding "This is now
a complete farce."
" I think there was collusion between MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, Lev Parnas's attorneys, and
the entire process." -Steve Bannon
"So why did this not come forward earlier?" asks Regan.
"You know why, because they wanted to drop their "big reveal," this was going be such a big
bombshell. This is all total hearsay from a guy trying to talk his way into a lesser sentence
because he's already indicted. It's so obvious what he's trying to do."
Adding to the collusion / 'slow walk' theory is the
completion of a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requested by
Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, which found that President Trump's pause of US aid to
Ukraine violated the law. Of note, virtually every previous administration has received a
similar nastygram from the GAO - just not the day after directly related impeachment articles
were delivered to the Senate ahead of a trial.
Watch: Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has called for a full investigation
into coordination between Congressional Democrats and members of the media, after articles of
impeachment against President Trump appear to have been deliberately 'slow walked' in order to
coincide with two 'bombshell' developments in the Ukraine story.
" Why did they time this? Why did they wait? " asked Fox Business host Trish Regan.
"First off, Rachel Maddow should be a witness of fact now . She should be brought in,"
replied Bannon - referring to the seemingly coordinated media blitz surrounding
Lev Parnas, an indicted former Rudy Goiliani associate whose undated, hand-written notes
appear to support the claim that President Trump pressured Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden
for corruption.
" We ought to have all the emails and all the text messages between Schiff, between Nancy
Pelosi, Phil Griffin at MSNBC News. We ought to bring the whole thing out. How did this get
dropped? Why have they been working on this for so long? How did this just come about at the
last second? She admitted she's been working on this for months, and the House just got this.
The Republicans didn't even see this when the vote when down," said Bannon, adding "This is now
a complete farce."
" I think there was collusion between MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, Lev Parnas's attorneys, and
the entire process." -Steve Bannon
"So why did this not come forward earlier?" asks Regan.
"You know why, because they wanted to drop their "big reveal," this was going be such a big
bombshell. This is all total hearsay from a guy trying to talk his way into a lesser sentence
because he's already indicted. It's so obvious what he's trying to do."
Adding to the collusion / 'slow walk' theory is the
completion of a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requested by
Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, which found that President Trump's pause of US aid to
Ukraine violated the law. Of note, virtually every previous administration has received a
similar nastygram from the GAO - just not the day after directly related impeachment articles
were delivered to the Senate ahead of a trial.
David
Reynolds 20 hours ago It's a coup attempt. The Democrats (and other globalists) are
trying to overthrow Trump by any means necessary, because he's totally wrecking the leftist
and globalist agenda. usero misa 19 hours ago
Democrats pulling the same TRICK with this impeachment BS like Justice Kavanaugh's Senate
confirmation hearing. Remember Christine Blasey Ford! Now is Lev Parnas. And like Christine
Ford, Lev Parnas has been secretly coached by the Democrats Legal team, reason for their
delay tactics.
a very good introduction to why this guy is another lair, in all kinds of trouble like
Avanetti and Cohen were...looking for a deal to be presented to stay out of jail. The
interview with Madcow, does not jive with the NYT interview he gave, not does it match up
with what the Ukrainians are saying about this. The Ukrainian Head of Foreign Relations gave
an interview to CNN, and flat out said no one there knows this guy and he never spoke to
anyone including him, and he is NOT to be trusted. But that does not fit in with the
Democrats plan, so they will step in it once again.
Then there is this:
(his) undated, hand-written notes appear to support the claim that President Trump
pressured Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden for corruption.
go read them , If you don't laugh then you are the problem. If the Democrats want more
evidence, look here. If you think this guy was on a double, double secrete mission and met
personally with Trump to receive it, then maybe your meds are wrong.
Here is certified "EVIDENCE" for the Democrats just found in the nearby woods.
"... Why then were all eight House members chosen as managers to prosecute the case against Trump, who ceremoniously escorted the articles across the Capitol, all Democrats? Why did the articles of impeachment receive not a single Republican vote on the House floor? ..."
Why then were all eight House members chosen as managers to prosecute the case against
Trump, who ceremoniously escorted the articles across the Capitol, all Democrats? Why did the
articles of impeachment receive not a single Republican vote on the House floor?
About the impeachment of President Donald Trump she engineered with her Democratic majority,
Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday: "It's not personal. It's not political. It's not partisan. It's
patriotic."
Seriously, Madam Speaker? Not political? Not partisan?
Why then were all eight House members chosen as managers to prosecute the case against
Trump, who ceremoniously escorted the articles across the Capitol, all Democrats? Why did the
articles of impeachment receive not a single Republican vote on the House floor?
The truth : The impeachment of Donald Trump is the fruit of a malicious prosecution whose
roots go back to the 2016 election, in the aftermath of which stunned liberals and Democrats
began to plot the removal of the new president.
This coup has been in the works for three years.
First came the crazed charges of Trump's criminal collusion with Vladimir Putin to hack the
emails of the DNC and the Clinton campaign and funnel them to WikiLeaks.
For two years, we heard the cries of "Treason!" from Pelosi's caucus. And despite the
Mueller investigation's exoneration of Trump of all charges of conspiracy with Russia, we still
hear the echoes:
Trump is Putin's poodle. Trump is an asset of the Kremlin.
All we want, and what the American people deserve, is a "fair trial," Democrats and their
media collaborators now insist. But can a fair trial proceed from a manifestly deficient and
malicious prosecution?
Consider. In this impeachment, we are told, the House serves as the grand jury, and Adam
Schiff's Intelligence Committee and Jerry Nadler's Judiciary Committee serve as the
investigators and prosecutors.
But the articles of impeachment on which the Judiciary Committee and the House voted do not
contain a single crime required by the Constitution for impeachment and removal. There is no
charge of treason, no charge of bribery or "other high crimes and misdemeanors."
So weak is the case for impeachment that the elite in this city is demanding that the Senate
do the work the House failed to do.
The Senate must subpoena the documents and witnesses the House failed to produce, to make
the case for impeachment more persuasive than it is now.
Not our job, rightly answers Mitch McConnell.
The Senate is supposed to be an "impartial jury."
But while there is a debate over whether Republicans will vote to call witnesses, there is
no debate on how the Senate Democrats intend to vote -- 100% for removal of a president they
fear they may not be able to defeat.
Consider Trump's alleged offense : pressing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to
investigate Burisma Holdings and Hunter Biden.
Assume Zelenskiy, without prodding, sent to the U.S., as a friendly act to ingratiate
himself with Trump, the Burisma file on Hunter Biden.
Would that have been a crime?
Why is it then a crime if Trump asked for the file?
The military aid Trump held up for 10 weeks -- lethal aid Barack Obama denied to Kyiv -- was
sent. And Zelenskiy never held the press conference requested, never investigated Burisma,
never sent the Biden file.
There is a reason why no crime was charged in the impeachment of Donald Trump. There was no
crime committed.
Not political, said Pelosi. Why then did she hold up sending the articles of impeachment to
the Senate for a month, after she said it was so urgent that Trump be impeached that Schiff and
Nadler could not wait for their subpoenas to be ruled upon by the Supreme Court?
Pelosi is demanding that the Senate get the documents, subpoena and hear the witnesses, and
do the investigative work Schiff and Nadler failed to do.
Does that not constitute an admission that a convincing case was not made? Are not the
articles voted by the House inherently deficient if the Senate has to have more evidence than
the House prosecutors could produce to convict the president of "abuse of power"?
Can we really have a fair trial in the Senate, when half of the jury, the Democratic caucus,
is as reliably expected to vote to remove the president as Republicans are to acquit him? What
kind of fair trial is it when we can predict the final vote before the court hears the
evidence?
It is ridiculous to deny that this impeachment is partisan, political and personal. It reeks
of politics, partisanship and Trump-hatred.
As for patriotic, that depends on where you stand -- or sit.
But the forum to be entrusted with the decision of "should Trump go?" is not a deeply
polarized Senate, but with those the Founding Fathers entrusted with such decisions -- the
American people.
In most U.S. courts, a prosecution case this inadequate, with prosecutors asking the court
itself to get more documents and call more witnesses, and so visibly contaminated with malice
toward the accused, would be dismissed outright.
Mitch McConnell should let the House managers make their case, and then call for a vote to
dismiss, and treat this indictment with the contempt it so richly deserves.
The folks who hatched that particular impeachment plan and pitched it to Nancy Pelosi must have been the same idiots in the DNC
who dreamt up the Russiagate scandal and also pursued Paul Manafort to get him off DJT's election campaign team. Dmitri Alperovich /
Crowdstrike, Alexandra Chalupa: we're looking at you.
The real Trump move would be to hit the twitter right before the house impeachment vote and announce that he has
instructed the House Republicans to vote for impeachment.
Notable quotes:
"... At least this mess made it patently clear the Dem obsession with Russia has been all about preserving their Ukraine pickpocketing operation. ..."
I ordered a truckload of pop corn to snack on during the trial in the Senate. Just imagine Joe Biden under cross examination as
he flips 'n flops! "Was that me in the Video, I can't recall."
I can see a Trump marketing consultant designing a campaign centered on the impeachment hearings called "The Swamp Strikes
Back". It might be most effective as a comic strip.
The neocon cabal of Pompeo, Ester and O'bian needs to be fired immediately and investigated
by FBI.
Notable quotes:
"... As for the war powers resolution justification provided by the administration, that legislation was not designed to alter the fundamental constitutional balance, but to restore it, Healy says. Critically, it does not give presidents a free pass to carry out military action for 60 days without congressional approval, as some have suggested. ..."
"... The war powers resolution itself was introduced after Congress discovered Nixon's secret war in Cambodia in 1973. It was designed to allow Congress to terminate any unauthorized actions taken by the executive branch and to require transparency. If the president responds to any "imminent threat" not covered by an existing statute or law authorizing use of force, then the president must within 48 hours report to Congress what actions have been taken. ..."
"... "With the Soleimani strike, the administration is saying they're responding to an imminent threat, but they have not publicly stated what that threat is," said Kate Kizer, policy director at Win Without War, in an interview with TAC. "From reporting, there's not a lot of evidence of an imminent attack. So they should have come to Congress first and said what they were going to do." ..."
"... The Constitution clearly gives the power to declare war to Congress. Article II states that the president can act without Congress only when it is necessary to do so against imminent threats to U.S. territories, possessions, or citizens. ..."
claims
the strike was "authorized" in part by the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF),
which provided the legal basis for the war in Iraq.
"Unless Trump is using his presidential sharpie, it's not at all clear how this 17-year-old
statute authorizes what seems to be a major escalation that could start a whole new war," said
Gene Healy, vice president of the Cato Institute, in an interview with The AmericanConservative.
As for the war powers resolution justification provided by the administration, that
legislation was not designed to alter the fundamental constitutional balance, but to restore
it, Healy says. Critically, it does not give presidents a free pass to carry out military
action for 60 days without congressional approval, as some have suggested.
The war powers resolution itself was introduced after Congress discovered Nixon's secret
war in Cambodia in 1973. It was designed to allow Congress to terminate any unauthorized
actions taken by the executive branch and to require transparency. If the president responds to
any "imminent threat" not covered by an existing statute or law authorizing use of force, then
the president must within 48 hours report to Congress what actions have been taken.
In the case of Soleimani, "the Pentagon statement doesn't mention any imminent attacks,"
notes Healy . Secretary of State Mike "Pompeo says Soleimani was planning
an attack that could have killed hundreds of lives, but he's provided no evidence for that. I
think it's hardly cynical to verify, instead of blindly trusting, given the track record of
this administration and recent past administrations."
"With the Soleimani strike, the administration is saying they're responding to an
imminent threat, but they have not publicly stated what that threat is," said Kate Kizer,
policy director at Win Without War, in an interview with TAC. "From reporting, there's not a
lot of evidence of an imminent attack. So they should have come to Congress first and said what
they were going to do."
That's because there's simply "
no viable argument " that the 2002 AUMF authorizes force against Iran , according to
Brian Egan, a former legal adviser to both the State Department and the NSC,
and Tess Bridgeman, a senior fellow at NYU School of Law and former a ssociate
c ounsel to the p resident.
The 2002 AUMF allows the president to "defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq " and "enforce all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions against Iraq " ( emphasis added
).
"Those are plainly not relevant to the situation" today, Egan and Bridgeman
write.
The Trump administration also said
it does not " need congressional sign off from a legal standpoint" for the
Soleimani strike because of the president's authority as
commander-in-chief under Article II of the Constitution , CNN reported.
The Constitution clearly gives the power to declare war to Congress. Article II states
that the president can act without Congress only when it is necessary to do so against
imminent threats to U.S. territories, possessions, or citizens.
That's why Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Pentagon chief Mark Esper, and Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley were so emphatic Monday that the U.S. was responding
to an "imminent threat." But so far, no evidence of that has been provided.
While a 2018 Office of Legal Council (OLC) opinion offers a very liberal
definition of executive authority and provides
" very little constraint on modern presidential uses of force," it appears to classify the
Soleimani strike as an act of war, since Iran is a nation state that will likely escalate its
military retaliation in response to the killing of their uniformed military member.
Indeed, the U.S. has already
said it will send 3,500 additional troops to the Middle East "after Iran vowed to exact
'severe revenge.'" The U.S. has warned its citizens to leave Iraq, and Iran has
already begun firing at housing for American forces in Iraq: all signs that point to
escalation.
Moreover, targeted political assassinations, like the kind used against Soleimani, have been
banned by executive order since the Ford administration. Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order
12333, which reads: "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government
shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."
Soleimani was "not a rogue outlaw, but a military official of a sovereign government we were
not at war with, making his killing an assassination,"
writes Ben Friedman, policy director at Defense Priorities. "His actions, however evil,
served Iranian policy."
"The idea that the president can, without going to Congress, take out a top level official
of a country we're not in an authorized war with, is crossing a Rubicon," said Healy.
So what happens now?
Congress has several choices to make in the days ahead. It can pass empty, non-binding
resolutions, that require the president's sign-off, like the kind suggested by Kaine and
Pelosi. Or it can repeal the decades-old
AUMFs that have been used to justify continuing U.S. escalations in the Middle East.
Congress could also pass bills like those by Representative Khanna and Senator Sanders to
strip funding for offensive military action against Iran from the NDAA.
It remains to be seen if Congress will choose substantive actions, like defunding
unauthorized wars, over window dressing.
"Unlike with North Korea, it's difficult to imagine any photo op or exchange of love letters
defusing the crisis the president has created. " The only thing that might defuse this crisis
would be the Senate convicting Trump and removing him from office. It would be a good idea if
the House passes another article of impeachment accusing the president of committing an act
of war without Congressional authorization.
Threatening to destroy cultural sites of a country is the sign of a deranged madman. I can't
believe a US president would dare say something like that. It goes against all the principles
America stands for. Nothing will motivate the people of Iran to fight the US more than the
threat of destruction to their cultural sites. If we go to war with Iran, this is a
Republican war. They own it. When are decent Republicans going to stand up and do the right
thing? If they don't, this could be very, very, bad.
The Defense department is already walking back Trump's tweet about bombing Iran culture
sites. Unfortunately, it's too late because the damage to our reputation as the "shining
light on the hill" has already been destroyed. I'm afraid more than now than I have ever been
in my life. Who knows when or where the revenge will occur but I'm fairly certain it will
happen and we'll be more isolated than ever before. It's taken centuries to build goodwill
and our reputation as a beacon of democracy for the world. We gave the keys to the kingdom to
a false prophet and we'll pay for his indiscretions for the rest of my lifetime. God help us
all.
You've sure got it right with "rapture-mad", and the most frightening thing is that the
religious zealotry of Pompeo, Pence, Mulvaney and Barr, inoculates them against any
criticism, because they believe they are serving a "higher"power and any criticism is a
testimony to their faith. In fact, by turning themselves into martyrs, they get to advance in
line for the Rapture. It seems particularly ironic that Evangelicals who support Israel do so
because they see God's plan unfolding there. The Jews, just happen to be sacrificial lambs in
the grand scheme. so they must must be preserved until the time is ripe for their rightful
annihilation, heralding the Second Coming. So, the problem of Pompeo, et al, is not Iran
destroying Israel, it's just that they've determined the timing is off.
As for the "wag the dog" theory, sure, Trump sees no difference between his personal fortunes
and national interests. But worse, the impeachment rests upon evidence that points to a
personal criminality on an international scale, which is the landscape where we find
ourselves. The president pardons convicts like Gallagher and Arpaio because they are cruel or
bloodthirsty. He admires dictators and ignores the law whenever he can, both as a private
individual and a president, and has obstructed a legal investigation into his corruption.
Now, on the international stage, by bypassing Congress, he is ignoring the sovereignty of the
American people, while incoherently threatening war crimes. Trump is fully blossoming into a
man like those he admires, an unrestrained, unprincipled, heavy hitting international tyrant.
I'm so disgusted with those whose job it is to check this man, and have abdicated their
responsibility, because they want to be like him. Reply 230 Recommend Share
I was at a friend's house on election night ready to celebrate Clinton's victory. When the
networks suddenly announced that Trump had won Florida, a professor of international
relations who was with us ominously predicted, "we are going to war with Iran." And here we
are.
America has become a living nightmare. A global power perceived mostly as benevolent by the
world is now a danger to all, including itself. Already having killed the Paris Agreement,
and Iran Nuclear Treaty, not to mention walking away from a nuclear arms treaty with the
Russians, Trump is now ready to wreak real havoc on the world - start a war. Boy will they
forget about impeachment now!
We haven't authorized the assassination of a military leader since the daring mission to kill
Japanese Admiral Yamamoto in 1943. Although he'd been the architect of the Pearl Harbor
attack, and we were at war with Japan, this was a departure so significant that it only
proceeded after lengthy deliberation. And now, this. Your article fills in precisely how this
was so very much not that. But one party is in so cult-deep into this president now that the
lies won't stop. Thousands of Iranian have lost their lives in the past month trying to rid
themselves of this regime. Not only were those deaths rendered in vain by the assassination
of Suleimani, but the Iranian people are also even more yoked to a government they hate. And
wasn't the idea of grassroots-driven change in regime a core strategy behind pulling out of
the nuclear deal? And it's not okay because Suleimani is "evil." That's both subjective and
never a justification for an assassination of a foreign military leader of a nation we're not
at war with. As I noted, it was questionable when it was a military leader of nation we were
at war with. But, most important, what did we gain from this? Following yet another
disasterous military and foreign policy snap decision it only makes the importance of
removing Trump from office more urgent. Come for the Constitutional crime but convict because
the defendant is also manifestly unfit for the office. People are dying because of it and
more will die if he stays. Reply 186 Recommend Share
What, then, for an effective response? Outrage is mere fuel: what is the engine? A full year
seems too long. The Senate seems hopeless. What does that leave? Must we take to the streets
to stop this disaster of a president? All this time spent wondering how this will end makes
me feel like a victim of domestic abuse. What a waste. 1 Reply 180 Recommend Share
McConnell Wrangles Republicans For Speedy Trump Acquittal As Schumer Cries Cover-Up
by Tyler Durden Tue,
01/07/2020 - 15:11 0 SHARES
Most Senate Republicans have lined up behind Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's plan for a
lightning-fast, witness-free impeachment trial which will end with the acquittal of President
Trump - much to the chagrin of Senate Democrats led by Chuck Schumer of New York.
McConnell (R-KY) has been unswayed by former National Security Adviser John Bolton's offer
to testify, as well as the recent emergence of emails suggesting Trump's direct involvement in
his administration's pausing of US aid to Ukraine after asking President Volodomyr Zelensky to
investigate Joe and Hunter Biden ahead of the 2020 US election.
Two Republicans who have on occasion broken with Trump and have criticized McConnell's
statements about the trial -- Alaska's Lisa Murkowski and Maine's Susan Collins -- say they
back his plan to follow the precedent of Bill Clinton's 1999 impeachment trial by delaying
any decision on witnesses.
"I think we need to do what they did the last time they did this unfortunate process, and
that was to go through a first phase and then they reassessed after that," Murkowski
said.
McConnell likely has the votes to force the issue without cooperation from Democrats . -
Bloomberg
McConnell has guaranteed that Senate Democrats won't have the 67 votes required to convict
Trump and remove him from office. Meanwhile, he can simply point to Clinton's impeachment as
precedent on witness testimony, as it would allow Trump's lawyers and White House impeachment
managers to make their arguments and answer questions from Senators before administration
figures such as Bolton and acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney have a chance to speak.
There have been no discussions between McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
(D-NY), who can go pound sand as talks seem unlikely.
"If every Republican senator votes for a rigged trial that hides the truth, the American
people will see that the Republican Senate is part of a large and awful cover-up," said Schumer
in a Tuesday screed on the Senate floor.
Chuck Schumer: "Whoever heard of a trial without witnesses and documents? It's
unprecedented ... Witnesses and documents? Fair trial. No witnesses and no documents?
Cover-up. That simple sentence describes it all." Via ABC pic.twitter.com/eKhKoBjIVP
According to Trump, Bolton 'would know nothing' about the Ukraine situation.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), meanwhile, has yet to reveal when she plans to transmit
the articles of impeachment to the Senate, thereby making Trump's
impeachment official according to House Democratic witness and Harvard Law professor, Dr.
Noah Feldman.
Pelosi's allies argue that the Senate turning down Bolton's offer to testify under subpoena
suggest that Republicans are involved in covering up evidence against Trump.
"McConnell is making very plain he's not interested in the country learning the full extent"
of Trump's misconduct, according to a Tuesday statement by House Intelligence Chairman Adam
Schiff. "And apparently there are any number of senators willing to go along with that
head-in-the-sand strategy," he added.
The only difference between a Dem and a Repub in Congress is the shear ignorance of their
voters. But Trump has exposed his voters to be the biggest dolts of the last century!
If Pelosi could have offed that terrorist Salami to change the subject she would have. She
has seriously misjudged this escapade. I'm sure Schiff and Nadler convinced her they could
use the MSM to split off some republican votes and gain momentum. Their case is so weak they
couldn't even get any the 30+ republicans that are retiring with nothing to lose to split off
and vote with the dems. Where's the popcorn?
This is truly shocking: Trump assassinates diplomatic envoy he
himself arranged for. . If the U.S. lured Soleimani to Iraq with a promise of negotiations
with the Iraqis as mediators and then proceeded to kill him, surely that would be an impeachable
offense. Particularly in view of the failure to brief Congress. If it was Saudi tricked Soleimani
by getting Iraq to "mediate" (Iraq's prime minister was expecting a message by him on the
mediation when he was assassinated), Saudi will get targeted.
The US changed the rules of engagement. They had decided to assassinate Soleimani when he was
in Syria, having just returned from a short journey to Lebanon, before boarding a commercial
flight from Damascus airport to Baghdad. The US killing machine was waiting for him to land in
Baghdad and monitored his movements when he was picked up at the foot of the plane. The US hit
the two cars, carrying Soleimani and the al-Muhandes protection team, when they were still inside
the airport perimeter and were slowing down at the first check-point.
US forces will no longer be safe in Iraq outside protected areas inside the military bases
where they are deployed. A potential danger or hit-man could be lurking at every corner; this
will limit the free movement of US soldiers. Iran would be delighted were the Iraqi groups to
decide to hit the American forces and hunt them wherever they are. This would rekindle memories
of the first clashes between Jaish al-Mahdi and US forces in Najaf in 2004-2005.
Impeachment with GOP support could be just around the corner. And who lost Iraq??? He would
be a dead man walking in that case. I can't see the evangelical crowd saving him. President
Pence. Might have to get use to that.
Here is a link to a twitter account with a good video of massive crowds on the streets of
Mashhad awaiting the arrival of Qassem Suleimani. Very powerful.
There will be no draining of any swamps. Trump-Kushner just another Bibi lackey.
Posted by: Jerry | Jan 5 2020 15:48 utc | 13
1. Draining swamps was a marker of progress in the past. >>Wiki:But in the late
1960s and early 1970s, researchers found that marshes and swamps "were worth billions
annually in wildlife production, groundwater recharge, and for flood, pollution, and erosion
control." This motivated the passage of the 1972 federal Water Pollution Control
Act.<<
2. To recognize this vital role, parties should adopt more acquatic symbols. Caymans are a
bit too similar to alligators, but, say, Alligators vs Snapping Turtles?
Yes, it might just be that this debacle provides the extra impulse to get him removed.
Can't say I can even imagine what that would look like, but there would seem to be a good
argument now that he must be restrained somehow. Somebody needs to tell Pompeous to stop
digging the hole deeper (shutup) too.
McConnell Wrangles Republicans For Speedy Trump Acquittal As Schumer Cries Cover-Up
by Tyler Durden Tue,
01/07/2020 - 15:11 0 SHARES
Most Senate Republicans have lined up behind Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's plan for a
lightning-fast, witness-free impeachment trial which will end with the acquittal of President
Trump - much to the chagrin of Senate Democrats led by Chuck Schumer of New York.
McConnell (R-KY) has been unswayed by former National Security Adviser John Bolton's offer
to testify, as well as the recent emergence of emails suggesting Trump's direct involvement in
his administration's pausing of US aid to Ukraine after asking President Volodomyr Zelensky to
investigate Joe and Hunter Biden ahead of the 2020 US election.
Two Republicans who have on occasion broken with Trump and have criticized McConnell's
statements about the trial -- Alaska's Lisa Murkowski and Maine's Susan Collins -- say they
back his plan to follow the precedent of Bill Clinton's 1999 impeachment trial by delaying
any decision on witnesses.
"I think we need to do what they did the last time they did this unfortunate process, and
that was to go through a first phase and then they reassessed after that," Murkowski
said.
McConnell likely has the votes to force the issue without cooperation from Democrats . -
Bloomberg
McConnell has guaranteed that Senate Democrats won't have the 67 votes required to convict
Trump and remove him from office. Meanwhile, he can simply point to Clinton's impeachment as
precedent on witness testimony, as it would allow Trump's lawyers and White House impeachment
managers to make their arguments and answer questions from Senators before administration
figures such as Bolton and acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney have a chance to speak.
There have been no discussions between McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
(D-NY), who can go pound sand as talks seem unlikely.
"If every Republican senator votes for a rigged trial that hides the truth, the American
people will see that the Republican Senate is part of a large and awful cover-up," said Schumer
in a Tuesday screed on the Senate floor.
Chuck Schumer: "Whoever heard of a trial without witnesses and documents? It's
unprecedented ... Witnesses and documents? Fair trial. No witnesses and no documents?
Cover-up. That simple sentence describes it all." Via ABC pic.twitter.com/eKhKoBjIVP
According to Trump, Bolton 'would know nothing' about the Ukraine situation.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), meanwhile, has yet to reveal when she plans to transmit
the articles of impeachment to the Senate, thereby making Trump's
impeachment official according to House Democratic witness and Harvard Law professor, Dr.
Noah Feldman.
Pelosi's allies argue that the Senate turning down Bolton's offer to testify under subpoena
suggest that Republicans are involved in covering up evidence against Trump.
"McConnell is making very plain he's not interested in the country learning the full extent"
of Trump's misconduct, according to a Tuesday statement by House Intelligence Chairman Adam
Schiff. "And apparently there are any number of senators willing to go along with that
head-in-the-sand strategy," he added.
The idea of launching military action to distract from domestic political troubles has been
a thing at least since the 1997
film "Wag the Dog" (as in, the tail wagging the dog) gave it a name. Republicans accused
President Bill Clinton of it in 1998 when he ordered airstrikes against Sudan and Iraq as
impeachment loomed. Trump alleged (wrongly) that President Barack Obama would "
start a war with Iran " before the 2012 election.
Trump's assassination of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani has, at least for the moment, shifted
attention from the Senate trial. Before the attack, pro-impeachment activists had scheduled a
protest inside the Hart Senate Office Building for Monday, but only 45 demonstrators showed up
for the event, nearly equaled by the 20 journalists and 15 police officers who greeted them.
Though wearing "Remove Trump" and "Trump is Guilty" T-shirts, they were about as disruptive as
a tour group.
... ... ...
Now, Trump has lit the Middle East on fire, with only a halfhearted attempt to justify the
sudden urgency ("This president waited three years. I mean, we've had Soleimani in our sights
for just as long as we've been here," Trump strategist Kellyanne Conway told Fox News on Monday).
Thousands of U.S. troops are hurriedly deploying to the region, Iraq is demanding that U.S.
troops
leave the country , and Iran is threatening retaliation and
renewing its nuclear ambitions .
This is precisely why the impeachment trial -- and Bolton's long-sought testimony -- must go
forward. The same lawlessness and recklessness that led Trump to extort political help from
Ukraine has now brought us, willy-nilly, to the precipice of war, as Trump openly threatens to
commit war crimes. If unchecked, he'll do this again -- and worse.
Looking at Pelosi's statements and methods, it would appear that the process left Democrats
looking extremely partisan to the detriment of getting the business of the country done. That
business included the USMCA, the Mexico-Canada Agreement that redefines a host of matters
previously mishandled by Bill Clinton's tremendously unpopular NAFTA. Why this seems to be the
case – Trump was in the process of getting his USMCA through congress, and with high
support from organized labor. As we consistently explain, Democrats rely on organized labor not
only for votes, but more critically for their entire ground campaigns, especially making phone
calls to other voters, and precinct walking during the campaign and on Election Day. That labor
always opposed NAFTA and generally supports the USMCA is critical. The key line in Pelosi's
post impeachment charade statement, regarding why they were not actually going to send the
articles to the Senate and therefore complete the process of impeaching the president, was that
she said specifically that they needed instead to prioritize passing the USMCA.
Imagine that for a moment. Because of the relationship between labor and the Democrat Party,
it was necessary for Democrats to appear as its champion, even that it was their idea in the
first place. This means that Democrats had the practical wisdom to understand that their
impeachment charade did not appeal to blue collar Democrat voters, but in fact would work
against them. What they needed in part in the impeachment, apart from implementing their
strategy of a thousand cuts, was to energize college educated upper middle-class boomers, which
form the bulk of the Rachel Maddow, and Democrat leaning mainstream media consumer demographic.
While these people control work-place politics and effectively police water-cooler talk, this
back-fires. Voting in the US is secret ballot – and so with this class in control of
people's ability to remain employed, unenthusiastic, rehearsed, regurgitated, manufactured
'orange man bad' utterances are more commonly heard than they are truly believed. People say
one thing at work to keep their job, and then vote another way on Election Day.
But the USMCA fiasco surrounding the impeachment tells us a lot. Eight years of Bill Clinton
and decades of his NAFTA has been symptomatic of the Democrat's anti-labor politics. Democrats
from that time onward invested their political capital into developing socialism. However, they
didn't develop this in the US, but in China – while in the US a crony class grew up and
lined their own pockets from it all. This is something which is perhaps, in a strange turn of
events, quite good for China and many other developing parts of the world including Africa. But
that has come at the expense not of America's wealthy 'bourgeoisie', but rather its own
'working class'. Bill Clinton was supposed to work to reverse 12 years of Reagan-Bush, whose
anti-labor policies amounted to one of the single greatest austerity campaigns in US history.
And yet this was only to be outdone by Clinton's outsourcing and off-shoring of jobs, and
deregulation of the financial sector.
What has shown to matter least of all, and especially where Trump is concerned, are polls.
And even here too, polls – when read correctly – point to a Trump victory.
There are also reasons why left-wing Democrats like documentary film maker Michael Moore
also understand that Trump is likely to win. Needless to say, his fixation therefore on an
impeachment succeeding, and his blanket support for Nancy Pelosi's absurd and failing strategy,
is also why even progressive Democrats like Sanders fail to understand why Trump is unbeatable.
Their placing hopes in impeachment isn't so much that impeachment is viable or likely, but from
a sober and scientific approach, it's only more likely than an electoral defeat of Trump at the
polls given that the party stubbornly insists on promoting Biden and Buttigieg.
"It's the economy, stupid"
Sure, it will always be argued that the improved economy under Trump was in fact either
related to impersonal forces of the global economy unrelated to Trump; sun spots, the invisible
hand, or Obama policies whose fruits we are now only reaping. But voters never go for this
reasoning. Partisans do, but voters don't.
Democrats at best are going to point out that while employment numbers have improved, 'never
before have so many earned so little'. And while that's true, we are dealing with a badly
bruised and insecure American working class. Things right now appear to be going in the right
direction, and so being able to find work even if it's a lower salary than they had before
their several-year unemployed stint, they are literally thanking the heavens, the stars, and
even Trump, that today they have any job at all. And even here, Trump's tax cuts put a few
thousand dollars back in the pockets of households where the average combined income is about
$70k. His even larger, but targeted, tax cuts for the rich in certain areas, due to the
economic growth these cuts in part inspired, resulted in more tax revenues overall.
And yes, we get it –
old black people like Biden . At least mainstream media reports on certain polls, whose
methodologies we can't see, report as much. What did that question actually look like? We think
the push-poll went something like: "In the coming election, would you support Obama's good
friend and Vice President , a gay mayor, a neurotic Jew, a Hindu veteran who may have
PTSD, Pocahontas, or a Chinaman good at math? Obama's VP was Biden. Will you vote for Biden?
Y/N".
But still this figure is misleading, and doesn't relate to Biden's electability, but is
supposed to get past this trope that he's a racist – a meme trending surrounding the
first few debates. Older black voters won't turn swing-states, and older black voters aren't
part of an energized or energizing electorate for new voters. This means that the media's
reportage cycle on this 'factoid' is about virtue signaling to the above mentioned Rachel
Maddow demographic that Biden is ' progressive since black people like him '. Oh,
you don't like Biden? Well black people like Biden. Don't you like black people?
And our jokingly hypothetical poll question aside, the reality isn't far off. This targeted
poll of black voters relates almost entirely back to labor union activism. The DNC controls
organized labor, and Biden is the DNC's choice. Black workers are extraordinarily
over-represented in the public sector, and the public sector is extraordinarily
over-represented in union membership. Older people are more likely to be involved in activism
in their labor union, and as a consequence, older black people trend towards Biden more than
other candidates. This factoid may trend well right now in media, but will have nothing to do
with the outcome of the election except that it will guarantee Trump's victory if Biden is the
Democrat nominee.
And so we have it, our three primary reasons Trump will win: the lack of enthusiasm for the
DNC's picks, the increasing enthusiasm among Trump supporters which will be contagious (again),
and the economic growth which, while favoring the rich, in fact did in this case 'trickle
down'.
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D) has taken flack from the left after voting "present" during
last week's formal House impeachment vote, and now says that the process may only "embolden"
President Trump and increase his chances of reelection (which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned
about before she caved to her party).
"I think impeachment, unfortunately, will only further embolden Donald Trump, increase his
support and the likelihood that he'll have a better shot at getting elected while also seeing
the likelihood that the House will lose a lot of seats to Republicans," said Gabbard in a
Saturday interview with ABC News in Hudson, New Hampshire.
Tulsi Gabbard: "Unfortunately the House impeachment of the President has greatly increased
the likelihood that Donald Trump will remain the President for the next 5 years...
Furthermore the House impeachment has increased the likelihood that Republicans will take
over the House." pic.twitter.com/gQIPssX0nS
Gabbard -- a 2020 president candidate -- noted that the prospect of a second term for
Trump and a Republican-controlled House is a "serious concern" of hers, adding that she's
worried about the potential ramifications that will be left if Trump is acquitted.
She told ABC News that it could leave "lasting damage" on the country as a whole.
The Democratic congresswoman -- who is known to be an outspoken critic of her own party --
was the lone lawmaker to not choose a side on impeachment, and has faced intense criticism
for her choice. - ABC News
Gabbard defended her decision to vote present, calling it an "active protest" against the
"terrible fallout of this zero sum mindset" between Democrats and Republicans. She told ABC
News that her vote was "not a decision of neutrality," and that she was indeed "standing
up for the people of this country and our ability to move forward together.
Observe Tulsi while you can. She is the last of a dying breed -- a relatively moderate
democrat. In today's Glo-Bol-Commiecrat party you have to be completely onboard with their 4
sheets to the wind extremist platform or you are the enemy.
Not to worry folks, if Tulsi is announcing president Trump and a majority in both the
house and senate it is safe to say things are right on track. However, HERE COME THE CIA and
NSA orchestrated false flag distractions and diversions I.e, Iran.. Also expect a much amped
up domestic terrorism by the MKULTRA radical nut jobs they will be using to divert attention.
Also creating a civil war starting in Virginia is examples of the allegiances to the satanic
fraternity by certain governors. These retards will also becoming out of the woodwork.
Not to worry folks, if Tulsi is announcing president Trump and a majority in both the
house and senate it is safe to say things are right on track. However, HERE COME THE CIA and
NSA orchestrated false flag distractions and diversions I.e, Iran.. Also expect a much amped
up domestic terrorism by the MKULTRA radical nut jobs they will be using to divert attention.
Also creating a civil war starting in Virginia is examples of the allegiances to the satanic
fraternity by certain governors. These retards will also becoming out of the woodwork.
I wish you conspiracy twits would drop the MKULTRA nonsense. MKULTRA was an UMBRELLA
PROGRAM that covered hundreds of classified operations, almost NONE of which had anything to
do with anything you people think it did. Head out of ***, please!
Oh, yeah, MKULTRA was totally cool, normal stuff, really. Just the Dulles Brothers and a
bunch of other psychos throwing people out of windows in the name of protecting Amurica from
the dirty Reds.
Glad to know a self-identified former intel person is on here making death threats against
Gabbard, by the way. Guess you have a get out of jail free card, huh? Why don't we find
out?
She is my Congresswoman. Tulsi is not perfect but she is good enough. Both the Democrat
Senator (Schatz and Hirono) don't support her on our only other Democrat Congressperson does
not support her. She is also despised by the national Dem party. This means she is doing
something right.
Leave Tulsi alone. She's the best of the group by far. Some of you sound like all the
George Bush supporters I knew who loved young Bush because he was so "pro-life". Give me a
break. She has socially conservative roots. Unfortunately she has had to take on some of this
progressive **** to be elected in a Democratic District. I have heard her views repeatedly on
abortion, gun rights and immigration. She doesn't worry me at all. I trust her on all these
issues more than Trump or any other establishment republican who I know are owned by the
elites and who will sell us out when they are told to.
This is the real Tulsi. Look at her Christmas eve video--enjoy:
"... ...Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a forgettable non-issue." ..."
...Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre
priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future
military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the
government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a
forgettable non-issue."
"... Despite fond youthful memories of Bill Clinton/Kenneth Starr/Monica Lewinsky jokes on late-night television, my interest in the current impeachment saga can pretty much be summed up as follows: "Get back to me when they launch an impeachment inquiry over Yemen ." Watching the House vote along party lines to impeach President Donald Trump while barely stifling a yawn over the Afghanistan Papers does little to alter my skepticism about this constitutional crisis built for cable news. ..."
"... Progressive commentator Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a forgettable non-issue." ..."
Despite fond youthful memories of Bill Clinton/Kenneth Starr/Monica Lewinsky jokes on
late-night television, my interest in the current impeachment saga can pretty much be summed up
as follows: "Get back to me when they launch an impeachment inquiry over Yemen
." Watching the House vote along party lines to impeach President Donald Trump while barely
stifling a yawn over the
Afghanistan Papers does little to alter my skepticism about this constitutional crisis
built for cable news.
Progressive commentator Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre
priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future
military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the
government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a
forgettable non-issue."
Nobody will be impeached for lying about Afghanistan. There will be no intelligence
community whistleblower setting in motion an impeachment inquiry over weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. In fact, the same Nancy Pelosi who ultimately caved to the Resistance shut
down antiwar Democrats who wanted such hearings into George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But here
John Bolton, an advocate
of preventive presidential war during this very administration, may finally get his wish of
being
greeted as a liberator .
Even as Representative Adam Schiff led the drive to impeach Trump, the California Democrat
voted for a defense bill that lavishes the executive branch with money without restraining
presidential war powers. But this seeming inconsistency is practically the point -- the entire
impeachment inquiry was wrapped in hawkish assumptions and rhetoric as liberal Democrats
unthinkingly stumbled into a Cold War 2.0 mindset that few of them this side of Hillary Clinton
would have willingly embraced absent
frequently overhyped Trump-Russia headlines dating back to the 2016 campaign.
No, Trump isn't Jesus Christ being handed
over by Pontius Pilate. His phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wasn't "
perfect
" and neither side of this partisan morality tale has exactly covered itself in glory. Rudy
Giuliani's escapades seem particularly likely to end badly. One need not even necessarily
defend Trump's conduct to oppose an impeachment inquiry largely predicated on threat inflation.
Arm Ukraine, Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan testified, so they can "fight the Russians
there and we don't have to fight them here." She could have been starring in a Democratic
reboot of Red Dawn decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated.
There's no question Trump to some extent dangled a White House visit and congressionally
authorized aid to Ukraine before Kyiv in pursuit of the talking point that Joe Biden was under
investigation. The only matters in dispute are how determined the effort was, whether Trump's
motives were at least partially publicly spirited, the degree of the Bidens' shadiness, and why
the aid was ultimately disbursed (Byron York
makes the case that it wasn't necessarily because of the whistleblower).
House Democrats began with a presumption of corrupt intent on all counts and a definition of
foreign election interference elastic enough to include Trump utterances about WikiLeaks and
Hillary's deleted emails but not Ukraine's (smaller, less systematic and arguably less
effective than Russia's) 2016 influence
campaign . And while not all investigations are created equal -- if Hunter Biden's business
dealings are to be probed, it should not be as a favor to any president -- the impeachment
inquiry itself is an investigation of a political rival, who was also investigated during his
previous campaign .
If shortcuts were taken in the beginning of the Trump-Russia investigation, the origins of
Trump-Ukraine resemble a template for undermining any seriously antiwar or civil libertarian
president. Trump is not that president himself, of course -- his acquiescence to the Beltway
blob on lethal military aid is precisely what increased his leverage over Ukraine -- but some
plausible and even the
occasional Republican could be. Trump's mild rhetorical dissents on foreign policy are
clearly a factor in why he has reason to be suspicious of his own subordinates (it's also why
it is disingenuous to suggest that replacing Trump with Mike Pence is no different than
replacing Bill Clinton with ideologically identical Al Gore or that people who have worked for
Bush, Cheney or John McCain
would have no reason to oppose Trump).
Many Democrats sincerely believed they were impeaching Trump for the least of his crimes,
like Al Capone and tax evasion, and that Robert Mueller let him escape last time. They are also
making a case against Trump's ability to separate personal and national interests in a way that
speaks to his fitness for the office, with Ukraine merely being their specific example. But in
doing so, they are also ratifying a bipartisan foreign policy consensus that has failed the
American people, and that's bigger than any one president.
W. James Antle III is the editor of The American Conservative.
CNN blasted Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Friday over contradictory stances regarding the
role of Senators during an impeachment.
In a
recent floor speech , Schumer blasted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for
describing himself as "not an impartial juror" when it comes to Trump's upcoming impeachment
trial.
"Let the American people hear it loud and clear, the Republican leader said, proudly, 'I'm
not an impartial juror. I'm not impartial about this at all.' That is an astonishing admission
of partisanship," said Schumer.
Yet, as CNN
's Andrew Kaczynski and Em Steck note, Schumer said during Bill Clinton's 1998 - 1999
impeachment saga that the Senate was "not like a jury box," and that senators, who are not
impartial, had previously formed their opinions heading into the trial .
Schumer had attacked his Senate opponent Al D'Mato for not taking a position on
impeachment during their 1998 debate. D'Mato said he would not take a position until "the
proof is presented" at the Senate trial – calling it "inappropriate." https://t.co/nPMyvjZE6V
pic.twitter.com/tYAc6hkwzd
In fact, as "KFile" notes, Schumer was elected to the Senate in 1998 on the promise that a
vote for him would be a vote not to impeach Clinton .
We have a new story looking at past Chuck Schumer's comments on impeachment. Including
repeatedly arguing the Senate was not a jury in 1999 and him campaigning that he would not
support impeachment or convicting Clinton in 1998. https://t.co/nPMyvjZE6V https://t.co/LPr1BlfD4O
pic.twitter.com/87q7hxKLks
Speaking on CNN's "Larry King Live" in January 1999, Schumer said the trial in the Senate
was not like a jury box.
" We have a pre-opinion ," Schumer said, citing himself and two newly-elected Republican
senators who had voted on impeachment in 1998 as members of the House of Representatives who
said they would vote in the Senate. " This is not a criminal trial, but this is something
that the Founding Fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of
politics ."
" So therefore, anybody taking an oath tomorrow can have a pre-opinion; it's not a jury
box ," King asked Schumer.
"Many do," Schumer responded. "And then they change. In fact, it's also not like a jury
box in the sense that people will call us and lobby us. You don't have jurors called and
lobbied and things like that. I mean, it's quite different than a jury. And we're also the
judge."
A day later, the Republican National Committee attacked Schumer in a press release for
previous comments in the House saying there was no basis for impeachment. - CNN
Then-RNC chairman Jim Nicholson said of Schumer "No self-respecting jury would allow
somebody who's already formed an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused," adding "but
Chuck Schumer has loudly proclaimed that he's pre-judged the case. He's already announced that
he's decided the President shouldn't be impeached , much less removed from office."
Schumer responded days later, telling NBC 's "Meet the Press": "The Founding Fathers --
whose wisdom just knocks my socks off every day, it really does -- set this process up to be in
the Senate, not at the Supreme Court, not in some judicial body ."
"Every day, for instance, hundreds of people call us up and lobby us on one side and the
other. You can't do that with a juror," he added. "The standard is different. It's supposed to
be a little bit judicial and a little bit legislative-political. That's how it's been.
Meanwhile, Schumer said in a 1998 Op-Ed that he would be voting to acquit Clinton , and that
he'd made up his mind that September.
"My decision will not come as a surprise," Schumer
wrote . "I will be voting to acquit the president on both counts. I had to make my decision
in September as a member of the Judiciary Committee in the House, and while I was in the middle
of the campaign."
Responding to CNN 's recent report (yet failing to explain the 'impartial juror' hypocrisy),
Schumer's office said that his statements came after the conclusion of the Starr investigation,
"which included testimony from key witnesses including President Clinton, had concluded and
been made public for months and as Sen. Schumer was in the anomalous position of having already
voted on impeachment in both the House Judiciary Committee and on the House floor."
"As is reflected in these quotes, Schumer believed then and still believes now that all of
the facts must be allowed to come out and then a decision can be made -- in stark contrast to
the Republicans today in both the House and Senate who have worked to prevent all the facts and
evidence from coming out." 43 minutes ago (Edited) CNN is a CIA / Ziocon loudspeaker. I think
they are furiously backpedaling and trying to undo the Anti-Trump necromancy of the past few
years. Why? because they realize that Orange Donald is really Zion Don, and that MAGA is being
served up as a watery bone broth, meanwhile MIGA is prime rib and is being served up on a daily
basis from the White House.
This is like the debate about the fundamental question "How many angels can dance on the head
of a pin?"
Notable quotes:
"... has President Trump been impeached, or did the House vote merely represent an authorization or intention to impeach -- which becomes an actual impeachment only when the articles are transmitted? ..."
Speaker Pelosi's unconstitutional decision to delay transmission of the articles of
impeachment to the Senate in order to gain partisan advantage raises the following question:
has President Trump been impeached, or did the House vote merely represent an authorization
or intention to impeach -- which becomes an actual impeachment only when the articles are
transmitted? This highly technical constitutional issue is being debated by two of my
former Harvard Law School colleagues -- Professors Laurence Tribe and Noah Feldman -- both
liberal Democrats who support President Trump's impeachment.
Tribe believes that Trump has been impeached and that it would be perfectly proper to
leave it at that : by declining to transmit the articles of impeachment, the Democrats get a
win-win. President Trump remains impeached but he gets no opportunity to be tried and
acquitted by the Senate. This cynical, partisan ploy is acceptable to Tribe because it brings
about the partisan result he prefers: Trump bears forever the stigma of impeachment without
having the opportunity to challenge that stigma by a Senate acquittal. Under the Tribe
scenario, the House Democrats get to "obstruct" the Senate and "abuse" their power (to borrow
terms from the articles of impeachment).
Feldman disagrees with Tribe, arguing -- quite correctly -- that impeachment and a removal
trial go together. If a president is impeached, he must be tried. Impeachment, in his view,
is not merely a vote; it is the first step in a constitutionally mandated two-step process.
He goes so far as to say that if the articles of impeachment are not forwarded to the Senate
for trial, there has been no valid impeachment.
Trump can be impeached as a war criminal just for his false flag Douma attack (along with
members of his administration). But Neoliberal Dems and frst of all Pelosi are war criminals too,
with Pelosi aiding and abetting war criminal Bush.
So this is a variation of the theme of Lavrentiy Beria most famous quote: "Show me a
man and I will find you a crime"
I think tose neolib Dems who supported impeachment disqualified themselves from the running.
That includes Warren, who proved to be a very weak, easily swayed politician. It is quote
probably that they increased (may be considerably) chances of Trump reelection, but pushing
independents who were ready to abandon him, back into Trump camp. Now Trump is able to present
himself as a victim of neoliberal Dems/neocons witch hunt.
The only real check left is impeachment. It is rarely invoked and (until very recently) has
atrophied as a credible threat. But that doesn't make it any less
indispensable.
The problem was exacerbated by the Clinton impeachment fiasco, which history has proved
foolhardy. (I supported it at the time, but I was a government lawyer then, not a public
commentator.) Republicans were sufficiently spooked by the experience that they seemed to
regard impeachment as obsolete. Faithless Execution countered that this was the wrong
lesson to take from the affair. Clinton's impeachment was a mistake because (a) his conduct,
though disgraceful and indicative of unfitness, did not implicate the core responsibilities of
the presidency; and more significantly, (b) the public, though appalled by the behavior,
strongly opposed Clinton's removal. The right lesson was that impeachment must be reserved for
grave misconduct that involves the president's essential Article II duties; and that because
impeachment is so deeply divisive, it should never be launched in the absence of a public
consensus that transcends partisan lines.
This is why, unlike many opponents of President Trump's impeachment, I have never questioned
the legitimacy of the Democratic-controlled House's investigations of misconduct allegations
against the president. I believe the House must act as a body (investigations should not be
partisan attacks under the guise of House inquiries), and it must respect the lawful and
essential privileges of the executive branch; but within those parameters, Congress has the
authority and responsibility to expose executive misconduct.
Moreover, while egregious misconduct will usually be easy to spot and grasp, that will not
always be the case. When members of Congress claim to see it, they should have a fair
opportunity to expose and explain it. To my mind, President Obama was the kind of chief
executive that the Framers feared, but this was not obvious because he was not committing
felonies. Instead, he was consciously undermining our constitutional order. He usurped the
right to dictate law rather than execute it. His extravagant theory of executive discretion to
"waive" the enforcement of laws he opposed flouted his basic constitutional duty to execute the
laws faithfully. He and his underlings willfully and serially deceived Congress and the public
on such major matters as Obamacare and the Benghazi massacre. They misled Congress on, and
obstructed its investigation of, the outrageous Fast and Furious "gun-walking" operation, in
connection with which a border patrol agent was murdered. With his Iran deal, the president
flouted the Constitution's treaty process and colluded with a hostile foreign power to withhold
information from Congress, in an arrangement that empowered (and paid cash ransom to) the
world's leading sponsor of anti-American terrorism.
My critics fairly noted that I opposed Obama politically, and therefore contended that I was
masquerading as a constitutional objection what was really a series of policy disputes. I don't
think that is right, though, for two reasons.
First, my impeachment argument was not that Obama was pursuing policies I deeply opposed. I
was very clear that elections have consequences, and the president had every right to press his
agenda. My objection was that he was imposing his agenda lawlessly, breaking the limitations
within which the Framers cabined executive power, precisely to prevent presidents from becoming
tyrants. If allowed to stand, Obama precedents would permanently alter our governing framework.
Impeachment is there to protect our governing framework.
Second, I argued that, my objections notwithstanding, Obama should not be impeached in the
absence of a public consensus for his removal. Yes, Republicans should try to build that case,
try to edify the public about why the president's actions threatened the Constitution and its
separation of powers. But they should not seek to file articles of impeachment simply because
they could -- i.e., because control of the House theoretically gave them the numbers to do it.
The House is not obliged to file impeachment articles just because there may be impeachable
conduct. Because impeachment is so divisive, the Framers feared that it could be triggered on
partisan rather than serious grounds. The two-thirds supermajority requirement for Senate
conviction guards against that: The House should not impeach unless there is a reasonable
possibility that the Senate would remove -- which, in Obama's case, there was not.
I also tried to focus on incentives. If impeachment were a credible threat, and Congress
began investigating and publicly exposing abuses, a sensible president would desist in the
misconduct, making it unnecessary to proceed with impeachment. On the other hand, a failed
impeachment effort would likely embolden a rogue president to continue abusing power. If your
real concern is executive lawlessness, then impeaching heedlessly and against public opinion
would be counterproductive.
I've taken the same tack with President Trump.
The objections to Trump are very different from those to Obama. He is breaking not laws but
norms of presidential behavior and decorum. For the most part, I object to this. There are lots
of things about our government that need disruption, but even disruptive presidents should be
mindful that they hold the office of Washington and Lincoln and aspire to their dignity, even
if their greatness is out of reach.
That said, impeachment is about serious abuse of the presidency's core powers, not behavior
that is intemperate or gauche. Critics must be mindful that the People, not the pundits, are
sovereign, and they elected Donald Trump well aware of his flaws. That he turns out to be as
president exactly what he appeared to be as a candidate is not a rationale for impeaching
him.
The president's misconduct on Ukraine is small potatoes. Democrats were right to expose it,
and we would be dealing with a more serious situation if the defense aid appropriated by
Congress had actually been denied, rather than inconsequentially delayed. If Democrats had
wanted to make a point about discouraging foreign interference in American politics
(notwithstanding their long record of encouraging it), that would have been fine. They could
have called for the president's censure, which would have put Republicans on the defensive.
Ukraine could have been incorporated as part of their 2020 campaign that Trump should be
defeated, despite a surging economy and relative peace.
Conducting an impeachment inquiry is one thing, but for the House to take the drastic step
of impeaching the president is abusive on this record. Yes, it was foolish of Trump to mention
the Bidens to President Zelensky and to seek Ukraine's help in investigating the Bidens. There
may well be corruption worth probing, but the president ought to leave that to researchers in
his campaign. If there is something that a government should be looking into, leave that to the
Justice Department, which can (and routinely does) seek foreign assistance when necessary. The
president, however, should have stayed out of it. Still, it is absurd to posit, as Democrats
do, that, by not staying out of it, the president threatened election integrity and U.S.
national security. Such outlandish arguments may make Ukraine more of a black eye for Democrats
than for the president.
But whoever ultimately bears the brunt of the impeachment push, I have to ask myself a hard
question: Is this the world I was asking for when I wrote a book contending that, for our
system to work as designed, impeachment has to be a credible threat? I don't think so . . . but
I do worry about it.
Back to the Clinton impeachment. I tried to make the point that that impeachment effort --
against public opinion, and based on misconduct that, while dreadful, was not central to the
presidency -- has contributed significantly to the poisonous politics we have today. Democrats
have been looking for payback ever since, and now they have it -- in a way that is very likely
to make impeachment more routine in the future.
I don't see how our constitutional system can work without a viable impeachment remedy. But
I may have been wrong to believe that we could be trusted to invoke the remedy responsibly. I
used to poke fun at pols who would rather hide under their desks than utter the dreaded I-word.
Turns out they knew something I didn't.
...& overwhelming," but this Scam Impeachment was neither. Also, very unfair with no
Due Process, proper representation, or witnesses. Now Pelosi is demanding everything the
Republicans weren't allowed to have in the House. Dems want to run majority Republican
Senate. Hypocrites!
Donald J. Trump 7:12 PM - 25 Dec 2019
Why should Crazy Nancy Pelosi, just because she has a slight majority in the House, be
allowed to Impeach the President of the United States? Got ZERO Republican votes, there was
no crime, the call with Ukraine was perfect, with "no pressure." She said it must be
"bipartisan...
The #Dems ' war on democracy ratcheting up as they refuse to send the articles of
impeachment to the Senate for a proper trial. GOP Congressman @RepMarkGreen says ' #NancyPelosi is a
tyrannical person OUT OF CONTROL!' #TrishRegan
It would be impossible for Trump to re-energize his base in any other way. Pelosi acts as
covert agent for Trump re-election? Peloci calculation that she can repar "Mueller effect" of
2018 with this impeachment proved to be gross miscalculation.
Warren who stupidly and enthusiastically jumped into this bandwagon will be hurt. She is such
a weak politician that now it looks like she does not belong to the club. Still in comparison
with Trump she might well be an improvement as she has Trump-like economic program, which Trump
betrayed and neutered. And her foreign policy can't be worse then Trump foreign policy. It is
just impossible.
I am convinced that the Dems are not actually interested or focused on defeating Trump, or
they would adopt an effective strategy. The question I keep wrestling with is, what is the point
to the strategy that is so ineffective?
Notable quotes:
"... The fact that the impeachment is dead in the water, by Pelosi's own admission , is evident in Trump's being adamant that indeed it must be sent to the Senate – where he knows he'll be exonerated. But even if it doesn't go to the Senate, what we're left with still appears as a loss for Democrats. Both places are his briar patch. This makes all of this a win-win for team Trump. ..."
"... fake impeachment procedure ..."
"... For in a constitutional republic like the United States, what makes an impeachment possible is when the representatives and the voters are in communion over the matter. This would normally be reflected in a mid-term election, like say for example the mid-term Senatorial race in 2018 where Democrats failed to take control. Control of the Senate would reflect a change of sentiment in the republic, which in turn and not coincidentally, would be what makes for a successful impeachment. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi is evidently extraordinarily cynical. Her politics appears to be 'they deserve whatever they believe'. ..."
"... little else can explain the reasoning behind her claim that she will 'send the impeachment to the Senate' as soon as she 'has assurances and knows how the Senate will conduct the impeachment', except that it came from the same person who told the public regarding Obamacare that we have to 'We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.". ..."
"... "We have been attacked. We are at war. Imagine this movie script: A former KGB spy, angry at the collapse of his motherland, plots a course for revenge – taking advantage of the chaos, he works his way up through the ranks of a post-soviet Russia and becomes president. ..."
"... He establishes an authoritarian regime, then he sets his sights on his sworn enemy – the United States. And like the KGB spy that he is, he secretly uses cyber warfare to attack democracies around the world. Using social media to spread propaganda and false information, he convinces people in democratic societies to distrust their media, their political processes, even their neighbors. And he wins." ..."
"... We'll say we impeached him, because we did, and we'll say he was impeached. We'll declare victory, and go home. This will make him unelectable because of the stigma of impeachment. ..."
And so it came to pass, that in the deep state's frenzy of
electoral desperation, the 'impeachment' card was played. The hammer has fallen. Nearly the
entirety of the legacy media news cycle has been dedicated to the details, and not really
pertinent details, but the sorts of details which presume the validity of the charges against
Trump in the first place. Yes, they all beg the question. What's forgotten here is that the use
of this process along clearly partisan lines, and more – towards clearly partisan aims
– is a very serious symptom of the larger undoing of any semblance of stability in the US
government.
The fact that the impeachment is dead in the water,
by Pelosi's own admission , is evident in Trump's being adamant that indeed it must be sent
to the Senate – where he knows he'll be exonerated. But even if it doesn't go to the
Senate, what we're left with still appears as a loss for Democrats. Both places are his briar
patch. This makes all of this a win-win for team Trump.
Only in a country that produces so much fake news at the official level, could there be a
fake impeachment procedure made purely for media consumption, with no real or tangible
possible victory in sight.
For in a constitutional republic like the United States, what makes an impeachment
possible is when the representatives and the voters are in communion over the matter. This
would normally be reflected in a mid-term election, like say for example the mid-term
Senatorial race in 2018 where Democrats failed to take control. Control of the Senate would
reflect a change of sentiment in the republic, which in turn and not coincidentally, would be
what makes for a successful impeachment.
Don't forget, this impeachment is fake
Nancy Pelosi is evidently extraordinarily cynical. Her politics appears to be 'they
deserve whatever they believe'. And her aim appears to be the one who makes them believe
things so that they deserve what she gives them. For little else can explain the reasoning
behind her claim that she will 'send the impeachment to the Senate' as soon as she 'has
assurances and knows how the Senate will conduct the impeachment', e
(@DrJillStein) 
