DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Agent Smith, you testified that the Russians hacked the DNC computers, is that correct?
FBI AGENT JOHN SMITH: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Upon what information did you base your testimony?
AGENT: Information found in reports analyzing the breach of the computers.
DEF ATT: So, the FBI prepared these reports?
AGENT: (cough) . (shift in seat) No, a cyber security contractor with the FBI.
DEF ATT: Pardon me, why would a contractor be preparing these reports? Do these contractors run the FBI laboratories where
the server was examined?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: No? No what? These contractors don't run the FBI Laboratories?
AGENT: No. The laboratories are staffed by FBI personnel.
DEF ATT: Well I don't understand. Why would contractors be writing reports about computers that are forensically examined in
FBI laboratories?
AGENT: Well, the servers were not examined in the FBI laboratory.
(silence)
DEF ATT: Oh, so the FBI examined the servers on site to determine who had hacked them and what was taken?
AGENT: Uh .. no.
DEF ATT: They didn't examine them on site?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Well, where did they examine them?
AGENT: Well, uh .. the FBI did not examine them.
DEF ATT: What?
AGENT: The FBI did not directly examine the servers.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, the FBI has presented to the Grand Jury and to this court and SWORN AS FACT that the Russians hacked
the DNC computers. You are basing your SWORN testimony on a report given to you by a contractor, while the FBI has NEVER actually
examined the computer hardware?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, who prepared the analysis reports that the FBI relied on to give this sworn testimony?
AGENT: Crowdstrike, Inc.
DEF ATT: So, which Crowdstrike employee gave you the report?
AGENT: We didn't receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: What?
AGENT: We did not receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: Well, where did you find this report?
AGENT: It was given to us by the people who hired Crowdstrike to examine and secure their computer network and hardware.
DEF ATT: Oh, so the report was given to you by the technical employees for the company that hired Crowdstrike to examine their
servers?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Well, who gave you the report?
AGENT: Legal counsel for the company that hired Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: Why would legal counsel be the ones giving you the report?
AGENT: I don't know.
DEF ATT: Well, what company hired Crowdstrike?
AGENT: The Democratic National Committee.
DEF ATT: Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. You are giving SWORN testimony to this court that Russia hacked the servers
of the Democratic National Committee. And you are basing that testimony on a report given to you by the LAWYERS for the Democratic
National Committee. And you, the FBI, never actually saw or examined the computer servers?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Well, can you provide a copy of the technical report produced by Crowdstrike for the Democratic National Committee?
AGENT: No, I cannot.
DEF ATT: Well, can you go back to your office and get a copy of the report?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why? Are you locked out of your office?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: I don't understand. Why can you not provide a copy of this report?
AGENT: Because I do not have a copy of the report.
DEF ATT: Did you lose it?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why do you not have a copy of the report?
AGENT: Because we were never given a final copy of the report.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, if you didn't get a copy of the report, upon what information are you basing your testimony?
AGENT: On a draft copy of the report.
DEF ATT: A draft copy?
AGENT: Yes.
DEF ATT: Was a final report ever delivered to the FBI?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, did you get to read the entire report?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why not?
AGENT: Because large portions were redacted.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, let me get this straight. The FBI is claiming that the Russians hacked the DNC servers. But the FBI never
actually saw the computer hardware, nor examined it? Is that correct?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: And the FBI never actually examined the log files or computer email or any aspect of the data from the servers? Is
that correct?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: And you are basing your testimony on the word of Counsel for the Democratic National Committee, the people who provided
you with a REDACTED copy of a DRAFT report, not on the actual technical personnel who supposedly examined the servers?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Your honor, I have a few motions I would like to make at this time.
PRESIDING JUDGE: I'm sure you do, Counselor. (as he turns toward the prosecutors) And I feel like I am in a mood to grant them.
Brilliant! that sums it up nicely. of course, if the servers were not hacked and were instead "thumbnailed" that leads to a
whole pile of other questions (including asking wiileaks for their source and about the murder of seth rich).
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Agent Smith, you testified that the Russians hacked the DNC computers, is that correct?
FBI AGENT JOHN SMITH: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Upon what information did you base your testimony?
AGENT: Information found in reports analyzing the breach of the computers.
DEF ATT: So, the FBI prepared these reports?
AGENT: (cough) . (shift in seat) No, a cyber security contractor with the FBI.
DEF ATT: Pardon me, why would a contractor be preparing these reports? Do these contractors run the FBI laboratories where
the server was examined?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: No? No what? These contractors don't run the FBI Laboratories?
AGENT: No. The laboratories are staffed by FBI personnel.
DEF ATT: Well I don't understand. Why would contractors be writing reports about computers that are forensically examined in
FBI laboratories?
AGENT: Well, the servers were not examined in the FBI laboratory.
(silence)
DEF ATT: Oh, so the FBI examined the servers on site to determine who had hacked them and what was taken?
AGENT: Uh .. no.
DEF ATT: They didn't examine them on site?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Well, where did they examine them?
AGENT: Well, uh .. the FBI did not examine them.
DEF ATT: What?
AGENT: The FBI did not directly examine the servers.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, the FBI has presented to the Grand Jury and to this court and SWORN AS FACT that the Russians hacked
the DNC computers. You are basing your SWORN testimony on a report given to you by a contractor, while the FBI has NEVER actually
examined the computer hardware?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, who prepared the analysis reports that the FBI relied on to give this sworn testimony?
AGENT: Crowdstrike, Inc.
DEF ATT: So, which Crowdstrike employee gave you the report?
AGENT: We didn't receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: What?
AGENT: We did not receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: Well, where did you find this report?
AGENT: It was given to us by the people who hired Crowdstrike to examine and secure their computer network and hardware.
DEF ATT: Oh, so the report was given to you by the technical employees for the company that hired Crowdstrike to examine their
servers?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Well, who gave you the report?
AGENT: Legal counsel for the company that hired Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: Why would legal counsel be the ones giving you the report?
AGENT: I don't know.
DEF ATT: Well, what company hired Crowdstrike?
AGENT: The Democratic National Committee.
DEF ATT: Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. You are giving SWORN testimony to this court that Russia hacked the servers
of the Democratic National Committee. And you are basing that testimony on a report given to you by the LAWYERS for the Democratic
National Committee. And you, the FBI, never actually saw or examined the computer servers?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Well, can you provide a copy of the technical report produced by Crowdstrike for the Democratic National Committee?
AGENT: No, I cannot.
DEF ATT: Well, can you go back to your office and get a copy of the report?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why? Are you locked out of your office?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: I don't understand. Why can you not provide a copy of this report?
AGENT: Because I do not have a copy of the report.
DEF ATT: Did you lose it?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why do you not have a copy of the report?
AGENT: Because we were never given a final copy of the report.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, if you didn't get a copy of the report, upon what information are you basing your testimony?
AGENT: On a draft copy of the report.
DEF ATT: A draft copy?
AGENT: Yes.
DEF ATT: Was a final report ever delivered to the FBI?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, did you get to read the entire report?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why not?
AGENT: Because large portions were redacted.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, let me get this straight. The FBI is claiming that the Russians hacked the DNC servers. But the FBI never
actually saw the computer hardware, nor examined it? Is that correct?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: And the FBI never actually examined the log files or computer email or any aspect of the data from the servers? Is
that correct?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: And you are basing your testimony on the word of Counsel for the Democratic National Committee, the people who provided
you with a REDACTED copy of a DRAFT report, not on the actual technical personnel who supposedly examined the servers?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Your honor, I have a few motions I would like to make at this time.
PRESIDING JUDGE: I'm sure you do, Counselor. (as he turns toward the prosecutors) And I feel like I am in a mood to grant them.
Brilliant! that sums it up nicely. of course, if the servers were not hacked and were instead "thumbnailed" that leads to a
whole pile of other questions (including asking wiileaks for their source and about the murder of seth rich).
"... Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans, but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon. ..."
"... This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps. Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent shape public perception." ..."
"... During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no one really wanted. ..."
"... When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. ..."
"... Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of war." ..."
"... The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam. ..."
"... Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. ..."
The war on Iraq won't be remembered for how it was waged so much as for how it was sold. It
was a propaganda war, a war of perception management, where loaded phrases, such as "weapons of
mass destruction" and "rogue state" were hurled like precision weapons at the target audience:
us.
To understand the Iraq war you don't need to consult generals, but the spin doctors and PR
flacks who stage-managed the countdown to war from the murky corridors of Washington where
politics, corporate spin and psy-ops spooks cohabit.
Consider the picaresque journey of Tony Blair's plagiarized dossier on Iraq, from a grad
student's website to a cut-and-paste job in the prime minister's bombastic speech to the House
of Commons. Blair, stubborn and verbose, paid a price for his grandiose puffery. Bush, who
looted whole passages from Blair's speech for his own clumsy presentations, has skated freely
through the tempest. Why?
Unlike Blair, the Bush team never wanted to present a legal case for war. They had no
interest in making any of their allegations about Iraq hold up to a standard of proof. The real
effort was aimed at amping up the mood for war by using the psychology of fear.
Facts were never important to the Bush team. They were disposable nuggets that could be
discarded at will and replaced by whatever new rationale that played favorably with their polls
and focus groups. The war was about weapons of mass destruction one week, al-Qaeda the next.
When neither allegation could be substantiated on the ground, the fall back position became the
mass graves (many from the Iran/Iraq war where the U.S.A. backed Iraq) proving that Saddam was
an evil thug who deserved to be toppled. The motto of the Bush PR machine was: Move on. Don't
explain. Say anything to conceal the perfidy behind the real motives for war. Never look back.
Accuse the questioners of harboring unpatriotic sensibilities. Eventually, even the cagey
Wolfowitz admitted that the official case for war was made mainly to make the invasion
palatable, not to justify it.
The Bush claque of neocon hawks viewed the Iraq war as a product and, just like a new pair
of Nikes, it required a roll-out campaign to soften up the consumers. The same techniques (and
often the same PR gurus) that have been used to hawk cigarettes, SUVs and nuclear waste dumps
were deployed to retail the Iraq war. To peddle the invasion, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell
and company recruited public relations gurus into top-level jobs at the Pentagon and the State
Department. These spinmeisters soon had more say over how the rationale for war on Iraq should
be presented than intelligence agencies and career diplomats. If the intelligence didn't fit
the script, it was shaded, retooled or junked.
Take Charlotte Beers whom Powell picked as undersecretary of state in the post-9/11 world.
Beers wasn't a diplomat. She wasn't even a politician. She was a grand diva of spin, known on
the business and gossip pages as "the queen of Madison Avenue." On the strength of two
advertising campaigns, one for Uncle Ben's Rice and another for Head and Shoulder's dandruff
shampoo, Beers rocketed to the top of the heap in the PR world, heading two giant PR houses:
Ogilvy and Mathers as well as J. Walter Thompson.
At the State Department Beers, who had met Powell in 1995 when they both served on the board
of Gulf Airstream, worked at, in Powell's words, "the branding of U.S. foreign policy." She
extracted more than $500 million from Congress for her Brand America campaign, which largely
focused on beaming U.S. propaganda into the Muslim world, much of it directed at teens.
"Public diplomacy is a vital new arm in what will combat terrorism over time," said Beers.
"All of a sudden we are in this position of redefining who America is, not only for ourselves,
but for the outside world." Note the rapt attention Beers pays to the manipulation of
perception, as opposed, say, to alterations of U.S. policy.
Old-fashioned diplomacy involves direct communication between representatives of nations, a
conversational give and take, often fraught with deception (see April Glaspie), but an exchange
nonetheless. Public diplomacy, as defined by Beers, is something else entirely. It's a one-way
street, a unilateral broadcast of American propaganda directly to the public, domestic and
international, a kind of informational carpet-bombing.
The themes of her campaigns were as simplistic and flimsy as a Bush press conference. The
American incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were all about bringing the balm of "freedom" to
oppressed peoples. Hence, the title of the U.S. war: Operation Iraqi Freedom, where cruise
missiles were depicted as instruments of liberation. Bush himself distilled the Beers equation
to its bizarre essence: "This war is about peace."
Beers quietly resigned her post a few weeks before the first volley of tomahawk missiles
battered Baghdad. From her point of view, the war itself was already won, the fireworks of
shock and awe were all after play.
Over at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld drafted Victoria "Torie" Clarke as his director of
public affairs. Clarke knew the ropes inside the Beltway. Before becoming Rumsfeld's
mouthpiece, she had commanded one of the world's great parlors for powerbrokers: Hill and
Knowlton's D.C. office.
Almost immediately upon taking up her new gig, Clarke convened regular meetings with a
select group of Washington's top private PR specialists and lobbyists to develop a marketing
plan for the Pentagon's forthcoming terror wars. The group was filled with heavy-hitters and
was strikingly bipartisan in composition. She called it the Rumsfeld Group and it included PR
executive Sheila Tate, columnist Rich Lowry, and Republican political consultant Rich
Galen.
The brain trust also boasted top Democratic fixer Tommy Boggs, brother of NPR's Cokie
Roberts and son of the late Congressman Hale Boggs of Louisiana. At the very time Boggs was
conferring with top Pentagon brass on how to frame the war on terror, he was also working
feverishly for the royal family of Saudi Arabia. In 2002 alone, the Saudis paid his Qorvis PR
firm $20.2 million to protect its interests in Washington. In the wake of hostile press
coverage following the exposure of Saudi links to the 9/11 hijackers, the royal family needed
all the well-placed help it could buy. They seem to have gotten their money's worth. Boggs'
felicitous influence-peddling may help to explain why the references to Saudi funding of
al-Qaeda were dropped from the recent congressional report on the investigation into
intelligence failures and 9/11.
According to the trade publication PR Week, the Rumsfeld Group sent "messaging advice" to
the Pentagon. The group told Clarke and Rumsfeld that in order to get the American public to
buy into the war on terrorism, they needed to suggest a link to nation states, not just
nebulous groups such as al-Qaeda. In other words, there needed to be a fixed target for the
military campaigns, some distant place to drop cruise missiles and cluster bombs. They
suggested the notion (already embedded in Rumsfeld's mind) of playing up the notion of
so-called rogue states as the real masters of terrorism. Thus was born the Axis of Evil, which,
of course, wasn't an "axis" at all, since two of the states, Iran and Iraq, hated each other,
and neither had anything at all to do with the third, North Korea.
Tens of millions in federal money were poured into private public relations and media firms
working to craft and broadcast the Bush dictat that Saddam had to be taken out before the Iraqi
dictator blew up the world by dropping chemical and nuclear bombs from long-range drones. Many
of these PR executives and image consultants were old friends of the high priests in the Bush
inner sanctum. Indeed, they were veterans, like Cheney and Powell, of the previous war against
Iraq, another engagement that was more spin than combat .
At the top of the list was John Rendon, head of the D.C. firm, the Rendon Group. Rendon is
one of Washington's heaviest hitters, a Beltway fixer who never let political affiliation stand
in the way of an assignment. Rendon served as a media consultant for Michael Dukakis and Jimmy
Carter, as well as Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Whenever the Pentagon wanted to go to war, he
offered his services at a price. During Desert Storm, Rendon pulled in $100,000 a month from
the Kuwaiti royal family. He followed this up with a $23 million contract from the CIA to
produce anti-Saddam propaganda in the region.
As part of this CIA project, Rendon created and named the Iraqi National Congress and tapped
his friend Ahmed Chalabi, the shady financier, to head the organization.
Shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon handed the Rendon Group another big assignment: public
relations for the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan. Rendon was also deeply involved in the planning
and public relations for the pre-emptive war on Iraq, though both Rendon and the Pentagon
refuse to disclose the details of the group's work there.
But it's not hard to detect the manipulative hand of Rendon behind many of the Iraq war's
signature events, including the toppling of the Saddam statue (by U.S. troops and Chalabi
associates) and videotape of jubilant Iraqis waving American flags as the Third Infantry rolled
by them. Rendon had pulled off the same stunt in the first Gulf War, handing out American flags
to Kuwaitis and herding the media to the orchestrated demonstration. "Where do you think they
got those American flags?" clucked Rendon in 1991. "That was my assignment."
The Rendon Group may also have had played a role in pushing the phony intelligence that has
now come back to haunt the Bush administration. In December of 2002, Robert Dreyfuss reported
that the inner circle of the Bush White House preferred the intelligence coming from Chalabi
and his associates to that being proffered by analysts at the CIA.
So Rendon and his circle represented a new kind of off-the-shelf PSYOPs , the privatization
of official propaganda. "I am not a national security strategist or a military tactician," said
Rendon. "I am a politician, and a person who uses communication to meet public policy or
corporate policy objectives. In fact, I am an information warrior and a perception
manager."
What exactly, is perception management? The Pentagon defines it this way: "actions to convey
and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their
emotions, motives and objective reasoning." In other words, lying about the intentions of the
U.S. government. In a rare display of public frankness, the Pentagon actually let slip its plan
(developed by Rendon) to establish a high-level den inside the Department Defense for
perception management. They called it the Office of Strategic Influence and among its many
missions was to plant false stories in the press.
Nothing stirs the corporate media into outbursts of pious outrage like an official
government memo bragging about how the media are manipulated for political objectives. So the
New York Times and Washington Post threw indignant fits about the Office of Strategic
Influence; the Pentagon shut down the operation, and the press gloated with satisfaction on its
victory. Yet, Rumsfeld told the Pentagon press corps that while he was killing the office, the
same devious work would continue. "You can have the corpse," said Rumsfeld. "You can have the
name. But I'm going to keep doing every single thing that needs to be done. And I have."
At a diplomatic level, despite the hired guns and the planted stories, this image war was
lost. It failed to convince even America's most fervent allies and dependent client states that
Iraq posed much of a threat. It failed to win the blessing of the U.N. and even NATO, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Washington. At the end of the day, the vaunted coalition of the willing
consisted of Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and a cohort of former Soviet bloc nations. Even
so, the citizens of the nations that cast their lot with the U.S.A. overwhelmingly opposed the
war.
Domestically, it was a different story. A population traumatized by terror threats and
shattered economy became easy prey for the saturation bombing of the Bush message that Iraq was
a terrorist state linked to al-Qaeda that was only minutes away from launching attacks on
America with weapons of mass destruction.
Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of
threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans,
but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the
American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was
behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon.
Of course, the closest Saddam came to possessing a nuke was a rusting gas centrifuge buried
for 13 years in the garden of Mahdi Obeidi, a retired Iraqi scientist. Iraq didn't have any
functional chemical or biological weapons. In fact, it didn't even possess any SCUD missiles,
despite erroneous reports fed by Pentagon PR flacks alleging that it had fired SCUDs into
Kuwait.
This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps.
Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few
weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent
shape public perception."
During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized
opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the
Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no
one really wanted.
What the Pentagon sought was a new kind of living room war, where instead of photos of
mangled soldiers and dead Iraqi kids, they could control the images Americans viewed and to a
large extent the content of the stories. By embedding reporters inside selected divisions,
Clarke believed the Pentagon could count on the reporters to build relationships with the
troops and to feel dependent on them for their own safety. It worked, naturally. One reporter
for a national network trembled on camera that the U.S. Army functioned as "our protectors."
The late David Bloom of NBC confessed on the air that he was willing to do "anything and
everything they can ask of us."
When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the
war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a
fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain
death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. Of course,
nearly every detail of her heroic adventure proved to be as fictive and maudlin as any
made-for-TV-movie. But the ordeal of Private Lynch, which dominated the news for more than a
week, served its purpose: to distract attention from a stalled campaign that was beginning to
look at lot riskier than the American public had been hoodwinked into believing.
The Lynch story was fed to the eager press by a Pentagon operation called Combat Camera, the
Army network of photographers, videographers and editors that sends 800 photos and 25 video
clips a day to the media. The editors at Combat Camera carefully culled the footage to present
the Pentagon's montage of the war, eliding such unsettling images as collateral damage, cluster
bombs, dead children and U.S. soldiers, napalm strikes and disgruntled troops.
"A lot of our imagery will have a big impact on world opinion," predicted Lt. Jane Larogue,
director of Combat Camera in Iraq. She was right. But as the hot war turned into an even hotter
occupation, the Pentagon, despite airy rhetoric from occupation supremo Paul Bremer about
installing democratic institutions such as a free press, moved to tighten its monopoly on the
flow images out of Iraq. First, it tried to shut down Al Jazeera, the Arab news channel. Then
the Pentagon intimated that it would like to see all foreign TV news crews banished from
Baghdad.
Few newspapers fanned the hysteria about the threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction as sedulously as did the Washington Post. In the months leading up to the war, the
Post's pro-war op-eds outnumbered the anti-war columns by a 3-to-1 margin.
Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass
destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington
Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of
war."
The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly
attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam.
Anything to punish Iran was the message coming from the White House. Donald Rumsfeld himself
was sent as President Ronald Reagan's personal envoy to Baghdad. Rumsfeld conveyed the bold
message than an Iraq defeat would be viewed as a "strategic setback for the United States."
This sleazy alliance was sealed with a handshake caught on videotape. When CNN reporter Jamie
McIntyre replayed the footage for Rumsfeld in the spring of 2003, the secretary of defense
snapped, "Where'd you get that? Iraqi television?"
The current crop of Iraq hawks also saw Saddam much differently then. Take the writer Laura
Mylroie, sometime colleague of the New York Times' Judy Miller, who persists in peddling the
ludicrous conspiracy that Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
How times have changed! In 1987, Mylroie felt downright cuddly toward Saddam. She wrote an
article for the New Republic titled "Back Iraq: Time for a U.S. Tilt in the Mideast," arguing
that the U.S. should publicly embrace Saddam's secular regime as a bulwark against the Islamic
fundamentalists in Iran. The co-author of this mesmerizing weave of wonkery was none other than
Daniel Pipes, perhaps the nation's most bellicose Islamophobe. "The American weapons that Iraq
could make good use of include remotely scatterable and anti-personnel mines and
counterartillery radar," wrote Mylroie and Pipes. "The United States might also consider
upgrading intelligence it is supplying Baghdad."
In the rollout for the war, Mylroie seemed to be everywhere hawking the invasion of Iraq.
She would often appear on two or three different networks in the same day. How did the reporter
manage this feat? She had help in the form of Eleana Benador, the media placement guru who runs
Benador Associates. Born in Peru, Benador parlayed her skills as a linguist into a lucrative
career as media relations whiz for the Washington foreign policy elite. She also oversees the
Middle East Forum, a fanatically pro-Zionist white paper mill. Her clients include some of the
nation's most fervid hawks, including Michael Ledeen, Charles Krauthammer, Al Haig, Max Boot,
Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle, and Judy Miller. During the Iraq war, Benador's assignment was to
embed this squadron of pro-war zealots into the national media, on talk shows, and op-ed
pages.
Benador not only got them the gigs, she also crafted the theme and made sure they all stayed
on message. "There are some things, you just have to state them in a different way, in a
slightly different way," said Benador. "If not, people get scared." Scared of intentions of
their own government.
It could have been different. All of the holes in the Bush administration's gossamer case
for war were right there for the mainstream press to expose. Instead, the U.S. press, just like
the oil companies, sought to commercialize the Iraq war and profit from the invasions. They
didn't want to deal with uncomfortable facts or present voices of dissent.
Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk
show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a
running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired
generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. The network's executives
blamed the cancellation on sagging ratings. In fact, during its run Donahue's show attracted
more viewers than any other program on the network. The real reason for the pre-emptive strike
on Donahue was spelled out in an internal memo from anxious executives at NBC. Donahue, the
memo said, offered "a difficult face for NBC in a time of war. He seems to delight in
presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's
motives."
The memo warned that Donahue's show risked tarring MSNBC as an unpatriotic network, "a home
for liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every
opportunity." So, with scarcely a second thought, the honchos at MSNBC gave Donahue the boot
and hoisted the battle flag.
It's war that sells.
There's a helluva caveat, of course. Once you buy it, the merchants of war accept no
returns.
"... If the CIA/MI6/FBI did attempt to create a sting it need not be as dramatic as the Skripal fakery. What would you dream up if you were tasked by the CIA to propose something? KISS. ..."
But underlying your comment is an assumption of *logic* in this world. If it ever existed it
certainly does not
apply any longer. Look how much mileage the MSM and the anti-Democracy Party got out of the
nothingburger Russiagate.
The MSM doesn't even need to smell real blood, they will run with anything to continue the
coup.
Anything negative that involves Edward Gallagher between now and election day could be
magnified 1 million-fold and
repeated 1000 million times by the MSM and dropped in Trump's lap.
If the CIA/MI6/FBI did attempt to create a sting it need not be as dramatic as the Skripal
fakery.
What would you dream up if you were tasked by the CIA to propose something? KISS.
Turkey, since 2011, has been waging a pro-Sunni proxy war in Syria, in the hope of one day
establishing in Damascus a pro-Turkey, Islamist regime. This ambition has failed, costing
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's Turkey violent political turmoil on both sides of
Turkey's 911-km border with Syria and billions of dollars spent on more than 4 million Syrian
refugees scattered across the Turkish soil.
In Egypt, in 2011-2012, Erdoğan aggressively supported the failed Muslim Brotherhood
government and deeply antagonized the incumbent -- then-general but now president -- Abdel
Fattah al-Sisi. Since Erdoğan's efforts in Syria and Egypt failed, his Sunni Islamist
ambitions have found a new proxy-war theater: Libya.
On December 10,
Erdoğan said he could deploy troops in Libya if the UN-backed Government of National
Accord (GNA) in Tripoli (which Turkey supports) requested it. Erdoğan's talks with GNA's
head, Fayez al-Sarraj, who is fighting a war against the Libyan National Army (LNA) of General
Khalifa Haftar, produced two ostensibly strategic agreements: a memorandum of understanding on
providing the GNA with arms, military training and personnel; and a maritime agreement
delineating exclusive economic zones in the Mediterranean waters.
Greece and Egypt protested immediately while the European Council unequivocally condemned
the controversial accords. Meanwhile, the deals apparently escalated a proxy competition
between Turkey's old (Greece) and new (Egypt and the United Arab Emirates) rivals.
With the al-Sarraj handshake, Erdoğan is apparently aiming to:
minimize Turkey's isolation in the Mediterranean, one which has gradually worsened since
2010, following one diplomatic crisis after another with Israel;
counter strategic cooperation between Cyprus, Greece, Egypt and Israel, including joint
diplomatic, energy and military initiatives;
cut into the emerging Cypriot-Greek-Egyptian-Israeli maritime bloc;
push back against Arab (Egyptian and UAE) pressure on al-Sarraj;
fill the European vacuum in Libya; and
emerge as a deal-breaker in the Mediterranean rather than a deal-maker.
All that ambition requires military hardware as well as diplomatic software. Since 2011, a
year after the Mavi Marmara incident ruptured relations with Israel, Turkey has been investing
billions of dollars in naval technologies, in an apparent effort to build up the hardware it
would one day require.
In the eight years since then, Turkey has built
four Ada-class corvettes; two Landing Ship Tank (LST) vessels; eight fast Landing Craft Tank
(LCT) vessels; 16 military patrol ships; two deep-sea rescue ships; one submarine rescue ship;
and four assault boats.
The jewel in the naval treasury box is a $1 billion Landing Platform Dock (LPD), now being
built under license from Spain's Navantia shipyards, to be operational in 2021. The TCG
Anadolu , Turkey's first amphibious assault ship, will carry a battalion-sized unit of
1,200 troops and personnel, eight utility helicopters and three unmanned aerial vehicles; it
also will transport 150 vehicles, including battle tanks. It also may be able to deploy short
takeoff and vertical landing STOVL F-35 fighter jets. Turkey will be the third operator in the
world of this ship type, after Spain and Australia.
Erdoğan's naval ambitions, however, are not limited just to an emerging fleet of
conventional vessels. In 2016, he said
that the LPD program would hopefully be the first step toward producing a "most elite" aircraft
carrier. He also said he "sees it as a major deficiency that we still do not have a nuclear
vessel."
On December 22, Turkey's first Type 214 class submarine, the TCG Piri Reis , hit the seas
with a ceremony attended by Erdoğan. "Today,"
he said , "we gathered here for the docking of Piri Reis . As of 2020, a submarine will go
into service each year. By 2027, all six of our submarines will be at our seas for
service."
Unsurprisingly the docking ceremony reminded Erdoğan of his Libyan gambit: "We will
evaluate every opportunity in land, sea and air. If needed, we will increase military support
in Libya."
Erdoğan seems to think that his best defense in the Mediterranean power game is an
offense. On December 15, Turkish Naval Forces
intercepted an Israeli research ship, the Bat Galim , in Cypriot waters and escorted it
away, as tension over natural resource exploration continued to rise in the region.
On December 16, Turkey dispatched a surveillance and reconnaissance drone to the
Turkish-controlled north of the divided island of Cyprus. A week before the drone deployment,
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said that Ankara could use its
military forces to halt gas drilling in waters off Cyprus that it claims as its own.
Libya is another risky proxy war theater for Turkey. Its deals with the al-Sarraj government
over troop deployment and maritime borders will become null and void if the Libyan civil war,
begun in 2014, ends with Gen. Haftar's victory. The chief of staff of the LNA, Farag
Al-Mahdawi,
announced that his forces would sink any Turkish ship approaching the Libyan coast. "I have
an order; as soon as the Turkish research vessels arrive, I will have a solution. I will sink
them myself," Al-Mahdawi warned, noting that the order was coming from Haftar. On December 21,
Haftar's forces seized
a Grenada-flagged ship with Turkish crew aboard, on the suspicion that it was carrying arms.
The ship was later released.
The European Union is another factor why Erdoğan, once again, is probably betting on
the wrong horse. Technically speaking, Turkey is a candidate for full EU membership, but it is
an open secret that accession talks have not moved an inch during the past several years, and
with no prospects of progress in sight. Making membership prospects even gloomier, EU foreign
ministers in November
agreed on economic sanctions for Ankara for violating Cyprus' maritime economic zone by
drilling off the island.
The Mediterranean chess game leaves Turkey in alliance with the breakaway Turkish Cypriot
statelet and one of the warring factions in Libya, versus a strategic grouping of Greece,
Cyprus, Egypt (and the UAE), Israel, and the other warring Libyan group.
One emerging power in Libya, however, is not a Western state actor. After controlling Syria
in favor of President Bashar al-Assad and establishing permanent military bases inside and off
the coast of the country, Russia has the potential to step into the Libyan theater with a
bigger proxy and direct force, to establish its second permanent Mediterranean military
presence. As in Syria, where divergent interests did not stop Turkey from becoming a
remote-controlled Russian player, Moscow can once again make use of the Turkish card to
undermine Western interests in Libya.
Also as in Syria, Turkey's Islamist agenda will probably fail in Libya, but by the time
Erdoğan understands that, it might be too late to get out of Moscow's orbit.
Instead of finding the real culprits - ISIS remnants, disgruntled locals, Kurds who want
to regain control over Kirkuk - the U.S. decided that Kata'ib Hizbullah was the group guilty
of the attack....
Yesterday's attacks guarantee that all U.S. troops will have to leave Iraq and will
thereby also lose their supply lines to Syria.
One wonders if that was the real intend of those strikes.
Just like with 9/11 and Iraq where the US government immediately pushed its pre-existing
agenda, so the US doesn't care who really launches attacks on US and US-client positions in
Iraq and Syria but automatically assigns them to Hezbollah and thus to Iran, in accord with
the pre-existing neocon wet dream of provoking a full-scale war with Iran.
If that's the US intent, to escalate against Iran, and if conversely the Iraq government
is serious about kicking out the US military, we'll have the confrontation discussed in the
open thread.
As for the idea that Trump was briar-patching here, wanting a good legalistic pretext to
withdraw troops from Iraq (which would then trigger the practical supply-based pretext to
withdraw them from Syria and not "take the oil" after all), well even if he had such confused
thoughts, we've already seen how spineless he is about trying to assert his will over that of
the neocon bureaucracies, civilian and military. Do we really expect them to agree to vacate
Iraq merely because the legally constituted supposedly sovereign government told them to? It
seems more likely they'll tell the government they're not going anywhere and demand that the
government help them suppress non-governmental resistance to their ongoing presence, or else.
(I don't know if there's yet been a formal order to leave from the Iraqi government, or just
rhetoric in an attempt to save face.)
Thanks sleeply,
But underlying your comment is an assumption of *logic* in this world. If it ever existed it
certainly does not
apply any longer. Look how much mileage the MSM and the anti-Democracy Party got out of the
nothingburger Russiagate.
The MSM doesn't even need to smell real blood, they will run with anything to continue the
coup.
Anything negative that involves Edward Gallagher between now and election day could be
magnified 1 million-fold and
repeated 1000 million times by the MSM and dropped in Trump's lap.
If the CIA/MI6/FBI did attempt to create a sting it need not be as dramatic as the Skripal
fakery.
What would you dream up if you were tasked by the CIA to propose something? KISS.
In the time-honored tradition of Machiavellian statecraft, all of the charges being leveled against Donald Trump to remove him
from office – namely, 'abuse of power' and 'obstruction of congress' –are essentially the same things the Democratic Party has been
guilty of for nearly half a decade : abusing their powers in a non-stop attack on the executive branch. Is the reason because they
desperately need a 'get out of jail free' card?
Due to the non-stop action in Washington of late, few believe that the present state of affairs between the Democrats and Donald
Trump are exclusively due to a telephone call between the US leader and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. That is only
scratching the surface of a story that is practically boundless.
Back in April 2016, before Trump had become the Republican presidential nominee, talk of impeachment was already in the air.
"Donald Trump isn't even the Republican nominee yet,"
wrote Darren Samuelsohn in Politico.
Yet impeachment, he noted, is "already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few
members of Congress."
The timing of Samuelsohn's article is not a little astonishing given what the Department of Justice (DOJ) had discovered just
one month earlier.
In March 2016, the DOJ found that "the FBI had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was completed," as Jeff Carlson
reported in The Epoch Times.
That sort of foreign access to sensitive data is highly improper and was the result of "deliberate decision-making," according
to the findings of an April 2017 FISA court ruling (
footnote
69 ).
On April 18, 2016, then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director Adm. Mike Rogers directed the NSA's Office of Compliance to terminate
all FBI outside-contractor access. Later, on Oct. 21, 2016, the FBI and the DOJ's National Security Division (NSD), and despite they
were aware of Rogers's actions, moved ahead anyways with a request for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign adviser
Carter Page. The request was approved by the FISA court, which, apparently, was still in the dark about the violations.
On Oct. 26, following approval of the warrant against Page, Rogers went to the FISA court to inform them of the FBI's non-compliance
with the rules. Was it just a coincidence that at exactly this time, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Defense
Secretary Ashton B. Carter were suddenly
calling for Roger's removal? The request was eventually rejected. The next month, in mid-November 2016 Rogers, without first
notifying his superiors, flew to New York where he had a private meeting with Trump at Trump Towers.
According to the New York Times,
the meeting – the details of which were never publicly divulged, but may be guessed at – "caused consternation at senior levels
of the administration."
Democratic obstruction of justice?
Then CIA Director John Brennan, dismayed about a few meetings Trump officials had with the Russians, helped to kick-start the
FBI investigation over 'Russian collusion.' Notably, these Trump-Russia meetings occurred in December 2016, as the incoming administration
was in the difficult transition period to enter the White House. The Democrats made sure they made that transition as ugly as possible.
Although it is perfectly normal for an incoming government to meet with foreign heads of state at this critical juncture, a meeting
at Trump Tower between Michael Flynn, Trump's incoming national security adviser and former Russian Ambassador to the US, Sergey
Kislyak, was portrayed as some kind of cloak and dagger scene borrowed from a John le Carré thriller.
Brennan questioning the motives behind high-level meetings between the Trump team and some Russians is strange given that the
lame duck Obama administration was in the process of redialing US-Russia relations back to the Cold War days, all based on the debunked
claim that Moscow handed Trump the White House on a silver platter.
In late December 2016, after Trump had already won the election, Obama slapped Russia with punitive sanctions,
expelled
35 Russian diplomats and closed down two Russian facilities. Since part of Trump's campaign platform was to mend relations with
Moscow, would it not seem logical that the incoming administration would be in damage-control, doing whatever necessary to prevent
relations between the world's premier nuclear powers from degrading even more?
So if it wasn't 'Russian collusion' that motivated the Democrats into action, what was it?
From Benghazi to Seth Rich
Here we must pause and remind ourselves about the unenviable situation regarding Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, who
was being grilled daily over her use of a private computer to
communicate
sensitive documents via email. In all likelihood, the incident would have dropped from the radar had it not been for the deadly
2012 Benghazi attacks on a US compound.
In the course of a House Select Committee investigation into the circumstances surrounding the attacks, which resulted in the
death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US personnel, Clinton handed over some 30,000 emails, while reportedly deleting
32,000 deemed to be of a "personal nature". Those emails remain unaccounted for to this day.
I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.
By March 2015, even the traditionally tepid media was baring its baby fangs, relentlessly
pursuing Clinton over the email question. Since Clinton never made a secret of her presidential ambitions, even political allies
were piling on. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), for example,
said it's time for Clinton "to step up" and explain herself, adding that "silence is going to hurt her."
On July 24, 2015, The New York Times
published a front-page story with the headline "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Clinton's Use of Email." Later, Jennifer Rubin of
the Washington Post candidly
summed up Clinton's rapidly deteriorating status with elections fast approaching: "Democrats still show no sign they are willing
to abandon Clinton. Instead, they seem to be heading into the 2016 election with a deeply flawed candidate schlepping around plenty
of baggage -- the details of which are not yet known."
Moving into 2016, things began to look increasingly complicated for the Democratic front-runner. On March 16, 2016, WikiLeaks
launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails and attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server
while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547-page treasure trove spans the dates from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014.
In May, about one month after Clinton had officially announced her candidacy for the US presidency, the State Department's inspector
general released an 83-page report that was highly critical of Clinton's email practices, concluding that Clinton failed to seek
legal approval for her use of a private server.
"At a minimum," the report determined, "Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business
before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented
in accordance with the Federal Records Act."
The following month brought more bad news for Clinton and her presidential hopes after it was
reported that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had a 30-minute tête-à-tête with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch,
whose department was leading the Clinton investigations, on the tarmac at Phoenix International Airport. Lynch said Clinton decided
to pay her an impromptu visit where the two discussed "his grandchildren and his travels and things like that." Republicans, however,
certainly weren't buying the story as the encounter came as the FBI was preparing to file its recommendation to the Justice Department.
The summer of 2016, however, was just heating up.
I take @LorettaLynch &
@billclinton at their word that their convo
in Phoenix didn't touch on probe. But foolish to create such optics.
On the early morning of July 10, Seth Rich, the director of voter expansion for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was gunned
down on the street in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, DC. Rich's murder, said to be the result of a botched robbery,
bucked the homicide trend in the area for that particular period; murders rates
for the first six months of 2016 were down about 50 percent from the same period in the previous year.
In any case, the story gets much stranger. Just five days earlier, on July 5th, the computers at the DNC were compromised, purportedly
by an online persona with the moniker "Guccifer 2.0" at the behest of Russian intelligence. This is where the story of "Russian hacking"
first gained popularity. Not everyone, however, was buying the explanation.
In July 2017, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, who call themselves Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) sent a memo to President Trump that challenged a January intelligence assessment that expressed "high
confidence" that the Russians had organized an "influence campaign" to harm Hillary Clinton's "electability," as if she wasn't capable
of that without Kremlin support.
"Forensic studies of 'Russian hacking' into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data
was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer," the memo states (The memo's conclusions were based on
analyses of metadata provided by the online persona Guccifer 2.0, who took credit for the alleged hack). "Key among the findings
of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far
exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack."
In other words, according to VIPS, the compromise of the DNC computers was the result of an internal leak, not an external hack.
At this point, however, it needs mentioned that the VIPS memo has sparked dissenting views among its members. Several analysts
within the group have spoken out against its findings, and that internal debate can be read
here . Thus, it would
seem there is no 'smoking gun,' as of yet, to prove that the DNC was not hacked by an external entity. At the same time, the murder
of Seth Rich continues to remain an unsolved "botched robbery," according to investigators. Meanwhile, the one person who may hold
the key to the mystery, Julian Assange, is said to be withering away Belmarsh Prison, a high-security London jail, where he is awaiting
a February court hearing that will decide whether he will be extradited to the United States where he 18 charges.
Here is a question to ponder: If you were Julian Assange, and you knew you were going to be extradited to the United States, who
would you rather be the sitting president in charge of your fate, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Think twice before answering.
"Because you'd be in jail"
On October 9, 2016, in the second televised presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Trump
accused his Democratic opponent of deleting 33,000 emails,
while adding that he would get a "special prosecutor and we're going to look into it " To this, Clinton said "it's just awfully good
that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country," to which Trump deadpanned, without
missing a beat, "because you'd be in jail."
Now if that remark didn't get the attention of high-ranking Democratic officials, perhaps Trump's comments at a Virginia rally
days later, when he promised to "drain the swamp," made folks sit up and take notice.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/slLCjLcgqbc
At this point the leaks, hacks and everything in between were already coming fast and furious. On October 7, John Podesta, Clinton's
presidential campaign manager, had his personal Gmail account hacked, thereby releasing a torrent of inside secrets, including how
Donna Brazile, then a CNN commentator, had fed Clinton debate questions. But of course the crimes did not matter to the mendacious
media, only the identity of the alleged messenger, which of course was 'Russia.'
By now, the only thing more incredible than the dirt being produced on Clinton was the fact that she was still in the presidential
race, and even slated to win by a wide margin. But perhaps her biggest setback came when authorities, investigating
Anthony Weiner's abused laptop into illicit text messages he sent to a 15-year-old girl, stumbled upon thousands of email messages
from Hillary Clinton.
Now Comey had to backpedal on his conclusion in July that although Clinton was "extremely careless" in her use of her electronic
devices, no criminal charges would be forthcoming. He announced an 11th hour investigation, just days before the election. Although
Clinton was also cleared in this case, observers never forgave Comey for his actions,
arguing they cost Clinton the White House.
Now James Comey is back in the spotlight as one of the main characters in the Barr-Durham investigation, which is examining largely
out of the spotlight the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory that dogged the White House for four long years.
In early December, Justice Department's independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz,
released the 400-page IG report
that revealed a long list of omissions, mistakes and inconsistencies in the FBI's applications for FISA warrants to conduct surveillance
on Carter Page. Although the report was damning, both Barr and Durham noted it did not go far enough because Horowitz did not have
the access that Durham has to intelligence agency sources, as well as overseas contacts that Barr provided to him.
With AG report due for release in early spring, needless to say some Democrats are very nervous as to its finding. So nervous,
in fact, that they might just be willing to go to the extreme of removing a sitting president to avoid its conclusions.
Whatever the verdict, 2020 promises to be one very interesting year.
"... Twitter blamed a computer glitch after President Trump's retweet of a post containing the name alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella mysteriously disappeared from his timeline. After 'fixing' the issue and restoring the retweet, the user was simply banned from the platform so that nobody could see the tweet, which quickly went viral. ..."
Twitter blamed a computer glitch after President Trump's retweet of a post containing the name alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella
mysteriously disappeared from his timeline. After 'fixing' the issue and restoring the retweet, the user was simply banned from the
platform so that nobody could see the tweet, which quickly went viral.
" Rep. Ratliffe suggested Monday that the "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella committed perjury by making false statements in his
written forms filed with the ICIG and that Adam Schiff is hiding evidence of Ciaramella's crimes to protect him from criminal investigations,"
read the tweet made by by now-banned @surfermom77, which describes herself as living in California and a "100% Trump supporter."
Ciaramella has been outed in several outlets as the 'anonymous' CIA official whose whistleblower complaint over a July 25 phone call
between Trump and with his Ukrainian counterpart is at the heart of Congressional impeachment proceedings.
Trump retweeted the post around midnight Friday. By Saturday morning, it was no longer visible in his Twitter feed.
When contacted by The Guardian 's Lois Beckett for explanation, Twitter blamed an "outage with one of our systems."
Some people reported earlier today that someone had deleted the alleged-whistleblower's name-retweet from Trump's timeline.
Others of us still see *that tweet* on Trump's timeline. When asked for clarification, Twitter said this:
https://t.co/Rftkg3nbus https://t.co/XREAvvxjhf
By Sunday morning, the tweet had been restored to Trump's timeline - however hours later the user, @Surfermom77, was banned from
the platform .
Running cover for Twitter is the Washington Post , which claims " The account shows some indications of automation , including
an unusually high amount of activity and profile pictures featuring stock images from the internet."
Surfermom77 has displayed some hallmarks of a Twitter bot, an automated account. A recent profile picture on the account, for
instance, is a stock photo of a woman in business attire that is available for use online.
Surfermom77 has also tweeted far more than typical users, more than 170,000 times since the account was activated in 2013.
Surfermom77 has posted, on average, 72 tweets a day, according to Nir Hauser, chief technology officer at VineSight, a technology
firm that tracks online misinformation. -
WaPo
Meanwhile, Trump retweeted another Ciaramella reference on Thursday, after the @TrumpWarRoom responded to whistleblower attorney
Mark Zaid's tweet calling for the resignation of Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) from the Senate Whistleblower Caucus after she made
"hostile" comments - after she tweeted in November that "Vindictive Vindman is the "whistleblower's" handler (a reference to impeachment
witness Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman.
"The watchdog group requested conversations between Ciaramella and special counsel Robert Mueller, former FBI agent Peter Strzok,
former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and former FBI attorney Lisa Page."
"... ...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.
President Obama's Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper and his
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director John Brennan oversaw a secret supercomputer
system known as "THE HAMMER," according to former NSA/CIA contractor-turned whistleblower
Dennis Montgomery.
Clapper and Brennan were using the supercomputer system to conduct illegal and
unconstitutional government data harvesting and wiretapping. THE HAMMER was installed on
federal property in Fort Washington, Maryland at a complex which some speculate is a secret CIA
and NSA operation operating at a US Naval facility.
President Trump's allegation that the Obama Administration was wiretapping him is not only
supported by Montgomery's whistleblower revelations about Brennan's and Clapper's computer
system THE HAMMER, but also by statements made this week by William Binney, a former NSA
Technical Director of the World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group, by former
CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson, and by Montgomery's attorney Larry
Klayman.
Computer expert Dennis Montgomery developed software programs that could breach secure
computer systems and collect massive amounts of data.
That system, THE HAMMER, according to the audio tapes, accessed the phone calls, emails and
bank accounts of millions of ordinary Americans.
The tapes also reveal that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court (FISA), Supreme Court
Chief Justice John Roberts, 156 other judges, members of Congress, and Donald J. Trump were
targeted by the HAMMER.
One of the audio tapes made public by Federal Judge G. Murray Snow revealed that Brennan
and Clapper particularly targeted and wiretapped Donald Trump a " zillion
times."
Montgomery also contends that the government can plant files such as child *********** or
state secrets on a target's computer, setting up the owner of that device for blackmail or
framed prosecution.
Former CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson Alleged In 2013 She Was Under Electronic Surveillance
For At Least Two Years And That Three Classified Documents Were Planted On Her "Compromised"
Computer.
The audio tapes were released by Federal Judge G. Murray Snow in Maricopa County, Arizona in
the Justice Department's civil contempt case against Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio.
Attorney Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch, represented Montgomery before federal Judge
Royce C. Lamberth. Klayman, who characterizes his client Montgomery as a "whistleblower," told
Fox News that Montgomery "turned over 600 million plus pages of information to the FBI." Judge
Lamberth was formerly the presiding judge over the FISA court.
After Montgomery produced his documentation, the FBI gave him two immunity agreements: one
in the area of "production" and the other regarding "testimony."
The FBI then took possession of Montgomery's documentation.
Attorney Klayman asserts that this information precipitated James Clapper's resignation.
Clapper had gone before Congress to testify under oath that the NSA, and other intelligence
agencies including the CIA," were not collecting massive amounts of telephonic and Internet
metadata on hundreds of millions of innocent American citizens" according to Klayman.
Whistleblower Edward Snowden's revelations proved otherwise.
Clapper was subsequently found to be untruthful and resigned on November 17, 2016, effective
January 20, 2017, the day Donald Trump was sworn in.
Clapper has not been prosecuted for perjury and we wonder why.
7 minutes ago Thanks Q! I bring up Montgomery all of the time here. The Eff Bee Eye and Dee oh
Jay have all of the documents and are sitting on them. This is how the IC controls everything
in the Swamp.
BOMBSHELL: CIA Whistleblower Leaked Proof Trump Under "Systematic Illegal" Surveillance
Over Two Years Ago: FBI Sat On It by ZeroPointNow Wed, 03/22/2017 - 22:37 0
SHARES
The same day House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes gave a press conference
disclosing that President Trump had been under "
incidental surveillance ," Attorney and FreedomWatch Chairman, Larry Klayman, sent a letter
to the House Committee on Intelligence imploring them to pursue the claims and evidence
presented under oath at a Washington DC FBI Field Office by his client - CIA / NSA
Whistleblower Dennis Montgomery - who Klayman claims "holds the keys to disproving the false
claims... ...that there is no evidence that the president and his men were wiretapped"
When Montgomery attempted to deliver this information through the appropriate channels two
years ago , the former CIA and NSA contractor wasn't given the time of day:
[W]hen Montgomery came forward as a whistleblower to congressional intelligence committees
and various other congressmen and senators, including Senator Charles Grassley , Chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee, who, like Comey, once had a reputation for integrity, he was
"blown off;" no one wanted to even hear what he had to say.
As a result, Montgomery went to attorney and FreedomWatch founder Larry Klayman - who then
approached the FBI:
Under grants of immunity, which I obtained through Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis,
Montgomery produced the hard drives and later was interviewed under oath in a secure room at
the FBI Field Office in the District of Columbia . There he laid out how persons like
then-businessman Donald Trump were illegally spied upon by Clapper, Brennan, and the spy
agencies of the Obama administration.
Montgomery left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of
information , much of which is classified, and sought to come forward legally as a
whistleblower to appropriate government entities, including congressional intelligence
committees, to expose that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal
surveillance on prominent Americans, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other
justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump , and even yours truly.
Working side by side with Obama's former Director of National Intelligence (DIA), James
Clapper, and Obama's former Director of the CIA, John Brennan, Montgomery witnessed "up close
and personal" this "Orwellian Big Brother" intrusion on privacy , likely for potential
coercion, blackmail or other nefarious purposes.
He even claimed that these spy agencies had manipulated voting in Florida during the 2008
presidential election , which illegal tampering resulted in helping Obama to win the White
House.
Given the fact that the FBI had Montgomery's testimony and evidence for over two years,
Klayman traveled to Washington DC last Thursday to meet with Committee Chairman Devin Nunes in
the hopes that he would ask FBI Director Comey why the FBI hadn't pursued Montgomery's
evidence. When Klayman arrived to speak with Nunes, he was "blown off" and instead shared his
information with committee attorney Allen R. Souza - who Klayman requested in turn brief Nunes
on the situation.
During my meeting with House Intelligence Committee counsel Allen R. Sousa I politely
warned him that if Chairman Nunes, who himself had that same day undercut President Trump by
also claiming that there is no evidence of surveillance by the Obama administration, I would
go public with what would appear to be the House Intelligence Committee's complicity in
keeping the truth from the American people and allowing the FBI to continue its apparent
cover-up of the Montgomery "investigation."
And, that is where it stands today. The big question: will House Intelligence Committee
Chairman Nunes do his job and hold FBI Director Comey's feet to the fire about the Montgomery
investigation?
Klayman has detailed all of this in a
NewsMax article , followed up with an official
letter to Chairman Nunes today, requesting that he question Comey on Montgomery's evidence.
Perhaps this explains Nunes' impromptu press conference today admitting that Trump's team was
under "
Incidental Surveillance " before making his way to the White House to discuss with the
President.
So - we know that evidence exists from a CIA / NSA contractor turned whistleblower,
detailing a massive spy operation on 156 judges, the Supreme Court, and high profile Americans
including Donald Trump. See the letter below:
Looks like Page was Strzok handler within FBI and was intimately involved in suppressing
Hillary email investigation. clinton email investigation has signed of CIA pressure on FBI --
that;s why DNS servers were not investigated by FBI directly -- most probably there was nothing
to investigate as malware was implanted by CrowdStrike which also create fake Gussifer 2.0
personality.
She was probably No.3 person in both email investigation and Russiagate -- "eyes and earths"
of McCabe like she admitted herself.
Looks also that she has a central position in unleashing Russiagate witch hunt and in
scapegoating General Flynn. Whether she deliberately changed documents or not to implicate him is
sill not completely clear.
Interview crates a picture of her as a dangerous ruthless operative. More so then Strzok
deposition. The fact that counter intelligence can be used for the purposes of political witch
hunt is deeply disturbing. Of course, MadCow did not ask this female James Bond why they did not
brief Trump campaign. And the fact that they did not brief Trump campaign suggest that they all
were crooks.
Notable quotes:
"... She had significant roles in the Boston marathon case and in the Edward Snowden case ..."
"... So, I was special counsel to the deputy director. He, of course, runs the FBI. He`s like the COO. And so, with respect to both the Clinton investigation but also the other responsibilities of running the bureau, I tried to serve as his sort of good counsel, his eyes and ears. ..."
"... I was definitely part of the group of people who Director Comey was consulting in terms of what to do, and ultimately, I largely supported his decision. ..."
"... The two investigations couldn`t be less similar. In the Clinton investigation, you`re talking about historical events three years prior, her use of a private e-mail server that was public investigation everybody knew about. With respect to the Russia investigation, we`re talking about trying to investigate what an incredibly hostile foreign government may be doing to interfere in our election. We didn`t know what the answer was, and it would have been deeply prejudicial and incredibly unfair to candidate Trump for us to have said anything before we knew what had had happened. ..."
"... MADDOW: What about the text messages that – in which you and Strzok were talking about, your sort of fear that Trump would be elected and he said, no, we won`t let it happen? ..."
"... PAGE: I mean, by we, he`s talking about the collective we, like-minded, thoughtful, sensible people who were not going to vote this person into office. You know, obviously in retrospect, do I wish he hadn`t sent it? Yes. It`s been mutilated to death and it`s been used to bludgeon an institution I love. And it`s meant that I disappointed countless people. ..."
"... And in terms of the litigation of this issue, the question about whether or not this, as the president and his supporters claimed, reflected some inherent political bias by you and Mr. Strzok and that you had key roles to play in these investigations and therefore the investigations are biased. ..."
One person on that list was Peter Strzok who I`m told not long ago was the top
counterintelligence agent at the FBI. Peter Strzok had a sterling career at the FBI, including
key roles in breaking up high profile Russianintelligence operations inside the United States.
He was the leadcounterintelligence agent in the FBI, and he worked on the 2016
Russiainvestigation.
He was fired in 2018 over text messages he had sent which reflected his personal political
views about President Trump, critical of PresidentTrump, and frankly critical of other people
in politics, too. Now, the president hounds him by name as the FBI`s sick loser,
Peter
Strzok, leader of the rigged witch hunt. Investigating this president, specifically
investigating the central question of his campaign`s potential involvement with the Russian
interference in our 2016 election to try to get him into the White House – I mean, that
national security imperative described in passionate terms today in federal court by the judge
who was overseeing more of the criminal trials that have derived from that investigation than
any other. The people who have actually done that work,the people how have actually talked
about it or supported it or criticized it, but actually done the work, they`ve all been lined
up at the proverbial firing line by this president, as he and his supporters, both in Congress
and in the conservative media, have just tried to pick them up off, destroy them one by one,
ending their careers one after the other, deriding them, attacking them.
But the president has reserved particularly and particularly sustained ire for one former
FBI lawyer named Lisa Page. Lisa Page had been a federal prosecutor. She`d worked in the
criminal division and in the national security division at the justice department. She worked
at the FBI. She had significant roles in the Boston marathon case and in the Edward Snowden
case . Early in 2016, Lisa Page was working a special counsel to Deputy FBI
Director
Andrew McCabe. She worked on the Clinton e-mail investigation. That same year, later in 2016,
she would also play a smaller role in the Russia investigation. And when that became the
Mueller investigation, she briefly worked on that team as well.
... ... ...
She said, quote: The sum total of findings by I.G. Horowitz that my personal opinions had
any bearing on the course of either the Clinton or Russia investigations, zero and zero. And
then she concludes, cool, cool. Lisa Page is now suing the FBI and the Justice Department for
what she calls a breach of privacy with them distributing her personal text messages to
reporters in the middle of an open investigation. She`s also suing them for the suffering that
has followed.
... ... ...
MADDOW: First, I want to talk to you about a million different things, butlet me just ask
you if I got anything wrong in terms of sketching what Iunderstand is the broad outlines of
your career there?
PAGE: No, not particularly. I wasn`t – I wouldn`t want to take credit for Boston or
Snowden. I – it`s really how I met Andy McCabe through the Boston bombing and then
through the work post-Snowden and assisting the White House in the post-intelligence reforms.
But I can`t say that I played an investigative role in any one of those.
MADDOW: So you were involved in the response in those instances (ph) –
PAGE: Exactly right.
... ... ...
PAGE: You know, it`s kind of like all good news stories. It`s part good hard work and part
serendipity. Post-Snowden, there were so many reforms coming out of the Obama White House that
I became the point person for that effort for the FBI. Andy at the time was head of the
national security program, so anything that the White House would be proposing would be
different in term of the authorities and how we conducted our business would have affected his
work. And so, we started working very closely together. He found me trustworthy and reliable
and hopefully smart, and so he asked me to join his staff.
MADDOW: By 2016, by the early months of 2016 in that role in the FBI, you found yourself
working on the Clinton e-mail investigation. Can you talk us through what your role was on that
and what that work is like?
PAGER: Sure. So, I was special counsel to the deputy director. He, of course, runs the
FBI. He`s like the COO. And so, with respect to both the Clinton investigation but also the
other responsibilities of running the bureau, I tried to serve as his sort of good counsel, his
eyes and ears. So I tried to keep both a macro view of all the various things that were
happening at the FBI, but also keep my earto the ground with respect to various investigative
steps and what wascoming next.
MADDOW: One of the things that you described in the interview you did this month with "The
Daily Beast" was that you were aware in the context of that investigation that everything
everybody did that had anything to do with that investigation was going to be very closely
scrutinized and was going to be something that was going to be obviously inherently
controversial. When it came to the decision to make public disclosures about the status of that
investigation, Director Comey criticizing Secretary Clinton even as he was announcing there
weren`t going to be prosecutions, did you have any role in that or did you have strong feelings
about that at the time?
PAGE: I did. I did. I was definitely part of the group of people who Director Comey was
consulting in terms of what to do, and ultimately, I largely supported his decision. This
was not a typical investigation. This was not an investigation where the subject was secret and
nobody knew this investigation was underway. Everyone knew that she was under investigation.
Candidate Trump was ceaselessly, you know, asking to lock her up at his rallies. So, the notion
we would say nothing with respect to choosing not to charge her, even though every person on
the team uniformly agreed that there was no prosecutable case, that was true at the Justice
Department, that was true at the FBI. So, we all agreed that we needed to say something. There
may have been varying differences into how much, and how much detail to get into, but there
wasn`t largely disagreement with respect to whether to say something at all.
MADDOW: And you ultimately ended up working on the Russia investigation deeper into 2016.
Obviously, you were one of the people who was involved in the Justice Department and the FBI in
such a way that you knew a lot about both of those cases.
Did you and the other people involved in those two cases struggle at all with this
discontinuity that the Clinton investigation, for the reasons that you just described, was very
public and various steps of that investigation were disclosed to the public, had a huge
political impact, whereas there was a live, very provocative, very disturbing investigation
into President Trump and his campaign as well and that was kept from the public? Did you
struggle with that discontinuity or the fact that therewasn`t a parallel there?
PAGE: Not at all. Not at all. The two investigations couldn`t be less similar. In the
Clinton investigation, you`re talking about historical events three years prior, her use of a
private e-mail server that was public investigation everybody knew about. With respect to the
Russia investigation, we`re talking about trying to investigate what an incredibly hostile
foreign government may be doing to interfere in our election. We didn`t know what the answer
was, and it would have been deeply prejudicial and incredibly unfair to candidate Trump for us
to have said anything before we knew what had had happened.
MADDOW: In terms of the way this played out ultimately, you become a poster child, along
with several of your colleagues, for these claims from the president, and now increasingly from
the current attorney general that the Trump-Russia investigation was cooked up on the basis of
false allegations or even some conspiracy specifically to hurt his chances of getting elected.
Now, of course, the problem there is no one in the country knew about that investigation before
people had the chance to vote on him. And I just – I mean, as an observer, I find that
flabbergasting. How does that strike you and how does that comport with your understanding of
that process given what you just described?
PAGE: There is no one on this set of facts who has any experience in counterintelligence who
would not have made the exact same decision. This is a question about whether Russia is working
with a United States person to interfere in our election. We were obligated to figure out
whether that was true or not, and to figure out who might be in a position to provide that
assistance.
MADDOW: In terms of the critique that I just implicitly made that if there had been some
sort of conspiracy against candidate Trump, that could have just easily been leaked to the
public so people would know about that when they went to the polls, is that a fair
critique?
PAGE: It is a fair critique, but we were extraordinarily careful not to do anything that
would allow this information to get out before we knew what we had.
... ...
MADDOW: In terms of the text messages and allegations that have been made against you,
you`ve sort of explained yourself in putting those text messages in greater context in terms of
what they meant and the way they were used against you. Can you explain to us tonight what was
meant by, for example, the insurance policy text message? So, this is you and Peter Strzok
texting about theprospect that President Trump is going to be elected, the unlikely
process.
PAGE: Right. I mean, it`s an analogy. First of all, it`s not my text, so I`m sort of
interpreting what I believed he meant back three years ago. But we`re using an analogy. We`re
talking about whether or not we should take certain investigative steps or not based on the
likelihood that he`sgoing to be president or not, right?
You have to keep in mind, if President Trump doesn`t become president, the national security
risks if there is somebody in his campaign associated with Russia plummets. You`re not so
worried about what Russia`s doing vis-a-vis a member of his campaign if he`s not president
because you`re not going to have access to classified information, you`re not going to have
access to sources and methods in our national security apparatus.
So, the insurance policy was an analogy. It`s like an insurance policy when you`re 40. You
don`t expect to die when you`re 40, yet you still have an insurance policy.
MADDOW: So don`t just hope that he`s not going be elected and therefore not press forward
with the investigation hoping, but rather press forward with the investigation just in case he
does get in there.
PAGE: Exactly.
MADDOW: What about the text messages that – in which you and Strzok were talking
about, your sort of fear that Trump would be elected and he said, no, we won`t let it
happen?
PAGE: I mean, by we, he`s talking about the collective we, like-minded, thoughtful,
sensible people who were not going to vote this person into office. You know, obviously in
retrospect, do I wish he hadn`t sent it? Yes. It`s been mutilated to death and it`s been used
to bludgeon an institution I love. And it`s meant that I disappointed countless people.
But this is – this is a snapshot in time carrying on a conversation that had happened
earlier in the day that reflected a broad sense of he`s notgoing to be president. We, the
democratic people of this country, are notgoing to let it happen.
MADDOW: And in terms of the litigation of this issue, the question about whether or not
this, as the president and his supporters claimed, reflected some inherent political bias by
you and Mr. Strzok and that you had key roles to play in these investigations and therefore the
investigations are biased. I mean, the inspector general has looked at that, been critical
of these expressions of strong political views, but also said that there was no indication that
political bias affected any decisions in either these investigations, full stop.
You responded to that on Twitter by saying: cool, cool. Like basically good to know but it
won`t make a difference?
PAGE: It won`t make a difference and it`s two years too late, right? It`s been three
straight years of investigation by the inspector general. Dozens of lawyers and investigators
poring over every investigative step that I took, every text and every email, and I realized
what I`ve known from the beginning which is that my personal views had no impact on the course
of either investigation. But to my "cool, cool" point, two days later, you see Lindsey Graham
in the Senate spend 40 minutes reading text messages again. These are three years old. They`re
– they`ve been described as immaterial ultimately by the inspector general and yet we`re
still talking about them.
Lyttennburgh, I can think of a couple of reasons for Erdogan's Libyan adventure. First, he'd
rather have those battle tested jihadis in Libya than on his border or in his country.
Second, he may have his eyes on Mediterranean oil. Lastly, he may see a friendly Libyan
government as an ally or province of his Ottoman Empire dream. No matter what the reason,
he's setting himself up for another confrontation with Russia.
Combating the scourge of US-supported terrorists in Syria at the behest of its government
aside, Russia's involvement elsewhere is diplomatic, including in Libya.
Obama regime-led aggression in 2011 transformed Africa's most developed nation into a
charnel house, a dystopian failed state, endless war raging with no resolution in prospect.
Wherever wars rage, chances are US dirty hands are involved, clearly the case in multiple
countries, including Libya.
Russia is not involved in the country militarily. Claims otherwise are fabricated. Russian
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov strongly denied them, saying:
"I categorically refute speculations of this kind. We are acting in the interest of the
Libyan settlement," adding:
"We are supporting the existing effort, including through the United Nations. We maintain a
dialogue with those who somehow influence the situation."
"We do not think that there is any grounds for such statements, such fiction, but this is
not the first time that US media spread different speculations, wicked rumors, falsehoods
targeting us."
"We have already gotten used to this, and we take it in stride. However, I have to
acknowledge that recurrent hoaxes of this kind exercise a negative influence on the sentiment
of the US domestic public, and the general atmosphere in the United States."
"Unfortunately it does not promote normalization of our ties, although we strive for
it."
A November NYT propaganda piece falsely accused Russia of involvement militarily in Libya --
instead of focusing on how the Obama regime raped and destroyed the country.
Trump hardliners support warlord Khalifa Haftar, a longtime CIA asset, a former US resident,
commander of the so-called Libyan National Army (LNA) -- waging war on the UN-backed
Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA).
Since US-led aggression toppled Muammar Gaddafi in October 2011 and sodomized him to death,
the US continued to wage secret drone war on the country, conducting hundreds of strikes,
continuing since Trump took office.
The Times falsely claimed "Russian mercenaries (and) snipers" are involved in Libya -- no
evidence cited proving what's not so, adding:
Hundreds of "Russian fighters (are) part of a broad campaign by the Kremlin to reassert its
influence across the Middle East and Africa (sic)."
"It has introduced advanced Sukhoi jets, coordinated missile strikes, and precision-guided
artillery, as well as the snipers -- the same playbook that made Moscow a kingmaker in the
Syrian civil war (sic)."
There's nothing remotely "civil" about US aggression in Syria. No evidence suggests Russia
is involved militarily in Libya with heavy or other weapons.
The Kremlin didn't intervene in the country on behalf of anyone. Its involvement is
diplomatic to try resolving the mess US aggression created -- what the Times and other
establishment media cheerled.
Days earlier, Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed false claims
about Kremlin involvement in Libya militarily, saying:
Moscow officials maintain diplomatic contact "with all current Libyan political forces,"
adding:
Congressional hardliners drafted the so-called Libya Stabilization Act -- imposing sanctions
on Russia for its "imaginary military presence in" the country.
The measure falsely accuses Moscow of "military intervention," blaming what doesn't exist on
destabilizing the country, ignoring how US-led NATO smashed Libya, massacring countless
thousands, displacing many more, destroying their livelihoods and well-being
"I wonder how US lawmakers describe the illegal US armed forces presence in Syria or the
reckless actions of the (Obama regime) in Libya to their voters," Zakharova stressed.
The Times propaganda piece barely acknowledged Trump regime support for Haftar, mentioning
it buried well into its article, ignoring its April 2019 piece, headlined:
"... ...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."
by Scott | Dec 27, 2019
| Interviews Lyle J.
Goldstein talks about the need for Russia and Ukraine to get along better, and in general for
Europe to handle more of its military and foreign affairs without the involvement of the U.S.
Much has been made in certain American circles of supposed Russian aggression in Crimea and
Syria, two major pillars of the narrative that Russia is a dangerous enemy that must be met
with strength. But these claims present a very slanted narrative, and are mostly used by those
who want to keep the U.S. military involved in policing the entire world.
That makes default identity politics a "double or nothing" bet. If it's political
successful, it's dragged further and further towards entrenched minority rule by members of the
dominant racial or religous group, and typically towards some form of personal dictatorship. If
it's unsuccessful, the divisions it creates risks a reversal of the previous order. Instead of
being accepted as one element of a diverse community, the formerly dominant group becomes the
object of hostility and derision. The signs of that are certainly evident, particularly in
relation to the culture wars around religion.
Alex SL 12.27.19 at 10:32 am
I am not really sure where a formerly dominant group has
ever become the object of hostility and derision, except maybe when colonial powers were
expulsed? It seems the formerly dominant religions and the "real XYZians" are still treated
with instinctive deference everywhere, even in societies that are now officially secular or
multi-cultural, and regardless of how terrible their dominance was before it was broken.
...It is true that there is now orientation away from tolerance because tolerance depends on
dominance.
Another way to look at this is that the more heated battles in identity politics (broadly
defined) are occurring now because the dominant group is having difficulty with the shift
from noblesse oblige 'granting' of equality to others to the insistence by these others on
complete and total equality.
To oversimplify, when people in whatever oppressed identity group come to ask themselves
'why can't I be on a completely equal footing with those who do well/benefit from, etc. the
current system?' they tend to lose patience with noblesse oblige, and are unwilling to behave
with deference. Deference might seem too much like internalizing one's inferiority or the
rightness of someone else's dominance.. This means that the groups are more likely to demand
things from others rather than wait to receive them.
These things are necessary for full social equality but there will be a lot of hostility
among some within dominant groups, and you're now seeing people commit to whatever version of
social hierarchy they think works best for them. They ignore or are blind to whatever
versions they'd be screwed by. They tend to make common cause on the naturalness of that
social hierarchy, and the importance of social hierarchy generally.
This is one reason why affinities between oppressed identity groups aren't merely
strategic. Having recognized the legitimacy of this type of demand for full equality for
themselves, people with certain identities are probably more likely to recognize it for
others. Certain subcultures within oppressed group develop a set of standard moral
responses–and these types of demands for full equality for others will seem par for the
course. They'll commit themselves to meeting them even for groups whose political interests
aren't clearly aligned with their own. Often though, the political interests are broadly
aligned but this process does create moral affinities, and general commitments to
egalitarianism that the far right ridicules but which follow logically from a broad
commitment for social equality.
Even so, there are fights among groups struggling for different types of social equality.
Sometimes they are actually in one another's way or are viewed as competition for
resources. Sometimes the concern seems more symbolic and maybe motivated by worries that
there isn't enough equality to go around.
The interesting consequence is maybe the only power some people making claims for equality
have is the power of moral suasion. They are depending on the broader acceptance of social
equality, and the logical extension to themselves. So naturally a backlash tries to undermine
their moral standing.
Peter Dorman 12.27.19 at 6:57 pm (no link)
The dynamic JQ describes does occur often, but it is not the whole story. I think two
distinctions can help in separating where it works from where it doesn't.
The first is between symbolic and concrete relative positioning. JQ is describing a realm
in which hierarchies are matters of symbolic exchange: do I relate to you as my inferior,
equal or superior? A lot of social interaction is like this. But there are also concrete
hierarchies in which people exercise power over others or gain relative advantage
irrespective of how their actions are displayed symbolically. In its pure form, for instance,
institutional racism is a hierarchy that is not visible at the individual level but shows up
through the structural dynamics of the institutions people are embedded in. I think of the
interaction between racial segregation in housing, unequal access to credit and the financing
of public schools through local property taxes as an example of this. No single individual
has to be racist in outlook or intent for the system as a whole to reproduce generation after
generation of extreme injustice.
The second is between zero-sum and positive-sum redistributions. Some inequalities are
largely zero-sum, in the sense that the benefits to those on the top are due to the
deprivations of those on the bottom. An example is the gender division of labor in housework,
where more chores for you means more freedom from them for me and vice versa. The Marxist
view of profit works that way too (but not necessarily other views). And then there are
inequalities in which the benefits of the better off group don't depend on the deprivation of
others, such as the risk of being arbitrarily abused or killed by the police. I'm white and
less likely to experience this abuse than someone who isn't, but ending this abuse for them
doesn't put me at any greater risk.
I think identity politics has been excessively divisive (more precise: has engendered
surplus divisiveness) because of the blurring of these two distinctions. Contests over
symbolic status, as JQ points out, have an inherent zero sum aspect, especially as we move to
the meta level of who should have the right to award respect in the first place. To some
extent, these contests are an unavoidable part of social change, and we just have to roll
with them. Unfortunately though, symbolic disputes have tended to crowd out concrete ones,
where it is often possible to find (ahem) Pareto improvements.
Meanwhile, there is very little awareness of the difference between zero and positive sum
situations, as shown by the tendency to call all relative advantages "privilege". A privilege
is an unjust, unearned benefit, typically based on the exclusion of others. (Membership has
its privileges because nonmembers don't get them.) Private equity billionaires who profit
from exorbitant surprise medical bills that bankrupt ordinary people drip with privilege. But
heterosexual couples who benefit from marriage laws did not gain at the expense of non-hetero
couples that were excluded, and changing the laws to benefit the latter does not harm the
former (except perhaps in the world of symbolic hierarchies).
We are awash in sloppy thinking about difference and hierarchy. (There's a lot more than
what I've brought up here.) Why we're in this mess is an interesting question.
I'm not sure that identity politics works this way.
This is the way identity politics would work if it was really a sort of philosophical
argument about the merits of this or that identity.
But what I see is more a sort of tribalism, where for example here in Italy many conservative
parties (especially the Lega) are big on how Italy is a Christian (catholic) country and
Muslim immigrants are going to destroy our culture, but then when the Pope says we should
welcome immigrants they say he should mind his own business, that is not what you would
expect from a firebrand catholic.
the idea of tolerance implies the existence of a dominant group that does the
tolerating
I'm not certain this is true; the history of religious tolerance seems to feature many
cases where no group was a majority, and "we'll argue but not fight, and the government won't
take sides" was designed to be the best available system when everyone was a minority. I'd
say a very key feature of US politics since the 1960's is that the elite have been
increasingly unwilling to tolerate, or provide equal protection of the law to, those who
disagree with them–so principles like "free speech doesn't include malicious
falsehoods" or "the government doesn't take sides between conceptions of the good" only last
until they would protect a previously-normative group that the elite has turned on.
I also think you are missing a key point in the discussion of deference: a normative
identity creates both a Schelling point and some incentive to assimilate, and so builds its
own majority; think of "white" identity in the US.
To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been
important to politics. But neoliberalism's radical individualism has increasingly raised
two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into identity
groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic
identity.
You quote from this guy, and others have written the same thing (e.g. Mark [spit] Lilla).
Their argument, simply put, is that "identity politics" is a fracturing of society into
smaller groups who don't/won't unite.
Having/continually constructing/renewing identities is an inescapable part of being human.
The issue is: what is to constitute the most salient identity? What bundle of markers are to
make up being "American" or "British" or "European"? These things are always contested, but
the pace of change is usually slow. We live in a time when the question is unusually
prominent, so more heavily contested. If, as Chetan says, lots of groups just want to be
"American", then by that want they change "American-ness". If they can't agree on some new
definition, then the US fractures.
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.
So Turkey goes against Uncle Sam and Egypt. Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... Erdogan's eyes set on defeating Benghazi-based General Khalifa Haftar, it appears this arms and jihadist rat line has conveniently been reversed . ..."
"... In a deepening proxy war, Turkey aims to send its Navy to protect Tripoli, while its troops train and coordinate forces of Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj, according to a senior Turkish official. Turkey recently signed a critical maritime deal with oil-rich Libya that serves energy interests of both countries and aims to salvage billions of dollars of business contracts thrown into limbo by the conflict . ..."
"... Remember when the CIA thought it was a good idea to train and fund jihadists in Syria to topple Assad? ..."
"... The conflict in Syria has become a rallying point for jihadists from around the world. More than 20,000 foreign fighters are fighting or have fought in Syria, and most are part of jihadist groups, including Jubhat al Nusra (JAN) and Islamic State (IS). North Africa has provided a large portion of these foreign fighters, from countries as diverse as Morocco and Libya. ..."
Bloomberg has confirmed on Friday the prior rumors that Turkey will be sending mercenaries
to Libya -- where it is propping up the UN-backed government in Tripoli (the GNA) -- are true.
"Turkey is preparing to deploy troops and naval forces to support the
internationally-recognized Libyan government, joining a planned push by Ankara-backed Syrian
rebels to defeat strongman Khalifa Haftar,"
reports Bloomberg .
Though Ankara has yet to confirm or deny the new reports, Erdogan's Turkey has for years
overseen a Libya-to-Turkey-to-Syria arms
"rat line" which saw both heavy weaponry and jihadists fighters transported for the purpose
of toppling Assad. But now with Erdogan's eyes set on defeating Benghazi-based General Khalifa
Haftar, it appears this arms and jihadist rat line has conveniently been reversed
.
This also as President Erdogan
in a speech on Thursday presented plans to send Turkish national troops bolster Tripoli as
well .
Possibly thousands from among the so-called Turkish Free Syrian Army (formerly the FSA),
with most of its fighters currently attacking Syrian Kurds in the ongoing 'Operation Peace
Spring', will now be sent into Libya.
There are reports suggesting Turkey is ready to pay $2,000 a month for each Syrian 'rebel'
willing to go to Libya .
TFSA source told me Turkey will be offering fighters from all TFSA factions $2,000/month
to go to Libya.
And akin to the current proxy war which has seen both the US, Kurds, and Sunni Islamists
backed by Turkey wrangle over Syria's oil rich eastern region, Libya is heating up to be the
latest 'oil and gas prize' -- but with immensely more at stake. As Bloomberg notes:
In a deepening proxy war, Turkey aims to send its Navy to protect Tripoli, while its
troops train and coordinate forces of Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj, according to a senior
Turkish official. Turkey recently signed a critical maritime deal with oil-rich Libya that
serves energy interests of both countries and aims to salvage billions of dollars of business
contracts thrown into limbo by the conflict .
As we
predicted earlier , Libya and the southern Mediterranean is on its way to becoming the next
big Middle East conflict of 2020 , also with Egypt and even Russia warning of further
involvement to block Turkey's increasing role on the ground.
And as the mainstream media finally stops ignoring the looming catastrophe for north Africa
and the region (still in denial as to the fruits of US-NATO "liberated" Libya after Gaddafi was
overthrown and killed), it
must be remembered that in another ironic plot twist, the CIA trained the very FSA 'rebel'
fighters now on their way to Libya .
Gee who would have ever predicted? It's the foreign fighter 'rat line' in reverse.
Remember when the CIA thought it was a good idea to train and fund jihadists in Syria to
topple Assad? Via a 2015
military study :
The conflict in Syria has become a rallying point for jihadists from around the world.
More than 20,000 foreign fighters are fighting or have fought in Syria, and most are part of
jihadist groups, including Jubhat al Nusra (JAN) and Islamic State (IS). North Africa has provided a large portion of these
foreign fighters, from countries as diverse as Morocco and Libya. Who are these North African fighters, and why are they
going to Syria? What do they hope to accomplish there, and do they want to return to their home countries?
Considering the tens of thousands of foreign fighters which poured into Syria starting in
2011 and 2012 in the first place, many of them from Libya, perhaps many are now simply headed
"home" -- ready to further the proxy war chaos at Erdogan's bidding.
NATO IS NOTHING more than an extension of George Soros' arm as it is also an extension
of the Rothschild arm! Most should have gleaned this by now, particularly recognizing the
radical Wahhabism that was included in this band of merry global thugs (Saudi Arabia) to do
the bidding of the globalist satanic cabal. Kind of sad hearing this kind of neive
responses from the gallery...sorry Mr. teolawki but you missed the forest for the
trees.
What is naive is not understanding that Turkey is the current NATO nations gateway for
all manner of illicit and illegitimat activity to foment and perpetuate the forever wars in
the ME. This has been going on since well before Benghazi and has only gotten worse under
Erdogan.
If you have a way to snap your fingers and solve every problem simultaneously, then
please do so. Otherwise it must be undertaken one step at a time. Closing that Turkish
gateway permanently is an excellent start.
"... Splitting Naftogaz into separate companies could allow Soros to take control of one of the new branches and essentially privatize its profits. He already suggested that he indirectly brought in US consulting company, McKinsey, to advise Naftogaz on the privatization " big bang ." ..."
"... The totality of what is revealed in the three hacked documents show that Soros is effectively the puppet-master pulling most of the strings in Kiev. Soros Foundation's Ukraine branch, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) has been involved in Ukraine since 1989. His IRF doled out more than $100 million to Ukrainian NGOs two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, creating the preconditions for Ukraine's independence from Russia in 1991. Soros also admitted to financing the 2013-2014 Maidan Square protests that brought the current government into power. ..."
"... Soros' foundations were also deeply involved in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought the corrupt but pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into power with his American wife who had been in the US State Department ..."
Rarely does the world get a true look inside the corrupt world of Western oligarchs and
the brazen manipulations they use to enhance their fortunes at the expense of the public
good.
The following comes from correspondence of the Hungarian-born billionaire, now naturalized
American speculator, George Soros. The hacker group CyberBerkut has published online letters
allegedly written by Soros that reveal him not only as puppet master of the US-backed Ukraine
regime .
They also reveal his machinations with the US Government and the officials of the European
Union in a scheme where, if he succeeds, he could win billions in the plunder of Ukraine
assets. All, of course, would be at the expense of Ukrainian citizens and of EU
taxpayers.
What the three hacked documents reveal is a degree of behind-the-scene manipulation of the
most minute details of the Kiev regime by the New York billionaire.
In the longest memo, dated March 15, 2015 and marked "Confidential" Soros outlines a
detailed map of actions for the Ukraine regime. Titled, "A short and medium term comprehensive
strategy for the new Ukraine," the memo from Soros calls for steps to "restore the fighting
capacity of Ukraine without violating the Minsk agreement." To do the restoring, Soros blithely
notes that "General Wesley Clark, Polish General Skrzypczak and a few specialists under the
auspices of the Atlantic Council [emphasis added -- f.w.e.] will advise President Poroshenko
how to restore the fighting capacity of Ukraine without violating the Minsk agreement
."
Soros also calls for supplying lethal arms to Ukraine and secretly training Ukrainian army
personnel in Romania to avoid direct NATO presence in Ukraine . The
Atlantic Council is a leading Washington pro-NATO think tank .
Notably, Wesley Clark is also a business associate of Soros in BNK Petroleum which does
business in Poland.
Clark, some might recall, was the mentally-unstable NATO General in charge of the 1999
bombing of Serbia who ordered NATO soldiers to fire on Russian soldiers guarding the Pristina
International Airport. The Russians were there as a part of an agreed joint NATO–Russia
peacekeeping operation supposed to police Kosovo. The British Commander, General Mike Jackson
refused Clark, retorting, "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you ." Now Clark apparently decided to
come out of retirement for the chance to go at Russia directly.
Naked asset grab
In his March 2015 memo Soros further writes that Ukrainian President Poroshenko's "first
priority must be to regain control of financial markets," which he assures Poroshenko that
Soros would be ready to assist in: "I am ready to call Jack Lew of the US Treasury to sound him
out about the swap agreement."
He also calls on the EU to give Ukraine an annual aid sum of €11 billion via a special
EU borrowing facility. Soros proposes in effect using the EU's "AAA" top credit rating to
provide a risk insurance for investment into Ukraine.
Whose risk would the EU insure?
Soros details, "I am prepared to invest up to €1 billion in Ukrainian businesses.
This is likely to attract the interest of the investment community. As stated above, Ukraine
must become an attractive investment destination."
Not to leave any doubt, Soros continues, "The investments will be for-profit but I will
pledge to contribute the profits to my foundations. This should allay suspicions that I am
advocating policies in search of personal gain. "
For anyone familiar with the history of the Soros Open Society Foundations in Eastern Europe
and around the world since the late 1980's, will know that his supposedly philanthropic
"democracy-building" projects in Poland, Russia, or Ukraine in the 1990's allowed Soros the
businessman to literally plunder the former communist countries using Harvard University's
"shock therapy" messiah, and Soros associate, Jeffrey Sachs, to convince the post-Soviet
governments to privatize and open to a "free market" at once, rather than gradually.
The example of Soros in Liberia is instructive for understanding the seemingly seamless
interplay between Soros the shrewd businessman and Soros the philanthropist. In West Africa
George Soros backed a former Open Society employee of his, Liberian President Ellen Johnson
Sirleaf, giving her international publicity and through his influence, even arranging a Nobel
Peace Prize for her in 2011, insuring her election as president. Before her presidency she had
been well-indoctrinated into the Western free market game, studying economics at Harvard and
working for the US-controlled World Bank in Washington and the Rockefeller Citibank in Nairobi.
Before becoming Liberia's President, she worked for Soros directly as chair of his Open Society
Initiative for West Africa ( OSIWA
).
Once in office, President Sirleaf opened the doors for Soros to take over major Liberian
gold and base metals assets along with his partner, Nathaniel Rothschild. One of her first acts
as President was to also invite the Pentagon's new Africa Command, AFRICOM, into Liberia whose
purpose as a Liberian investigation revealed, was to "protect George Soros and Rothschild
mining operations in West Africa rather than champion stability and human rights ."
Naftogaz the target
The Soros memo makes clear he has his eyes on the Ukrainian state gas and energy monopoly,
Naftogaz. He writes, "The centerpiece of economic reforms will be the reorganization of
Naftogaz and the introduction of market pricing for all forms of energy, replacing hidden
subsidies
"
In an earlier letter Soros wrote in December 2014 to both President Poroshenko and Prime
Minister Yatsenyuk, Soros openly called for his Shock Therapy:
"I want to appeal to you to unite behind the reformers in your government and give your
wholehearted support to a radical, 'big bang' type of approach. That is to say,
administrative controls would be removed and the economy would move to market prices rapidly
rather than gradually Naftogaz needs to be reorganized with a big bang replacing the hidden
subsidies
"
Splitting Naftogaz into separate companies could allow Soros to take control of one of
the new branches and essentially privatize its profits. He already suggested that he indirectly
brought in US consulting company, McKinsey, to advise Naftogaz on the privatization "
big bang
."
The Puppet-Master?
The totality of what is revealed in the three hacked documents show that Soros is
effectively the puppet-master pulling most of the strings in Kiev. Soros Foundation's Ukraine
branch, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) has been involved in Ukraine since 1989. His
IRF doled out more than $100 million to Ukrainian NGOs two years before the fall of the Soviet
Union, creating the preconditions for Ukraine's independence from Russia in 1991. Soros also
admitted to financing the 2013-2014 Maidan Square protests that brought the current government
into power.
Soros' foundations were also deeply involved in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought
the corrupt but pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into power with his American wife who had been in
the US State Department . In 2004 just weeks after Soros' International Renaissance
Foundation had succeeded in getting Viktor Yushchenko as President of Ukraine, Michael McFaul
wrote an OpEd for the Washington Post. McFaul, a specialist in organizing color revolutions,
who later became US Ambassador to Russia, revealed:
Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine? Yes. The American agents of
influence would prefer different language to describe their activities -- democratic
assistance, democracy promotion, civil society support, etc. -- but their work, however
labeled, seeks to influence political change in Ukraine. The U.S. Agency for International
Development, the National Endowment for Democracy and a few other foundations sponsored certain
U.S. organizations, including Freedom House, the International Republican Institute, the
National Democratic Institute, the Solidarity Center, the Eurasia Foundation, Internews and
several others to provide small grants and technical assistance to Ukrainian civil society. The
European Union, individual European countries and the Soros-funded International Renaissance
Foundation did the same .
Soros
shapes 'New Ukraine'
Today the CyberBerkut hacked papers show that Soros' IRF money is behind creation of a
National Reform Council, a body organized by presidential decree from Poroshenko which allows
the Ukrainian president to push bills through Ukraine's legislature. Soros writes,
"The framework for bringing the various branches of government together has also emerged.
The National Reform Council (NRC) brings together the presidential administration, the
cabinet of ministers, the Rada and its committees and civil society. The International
Renaissance Foundation which is the Ukrainian branch of the Soros Foundations was the sole
financial supporter of the NRC until now "
Soros' NRC in effect is the vehicle to allow the President to override parliamentary debate
to push through "reforms," with the declared first priority being privatization of Naftogaz and
raising gas prices drastically to Ukrainian industry and households, something the bankrupt
country can hardly afford .
In his letter to Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk, Soros hints that he played a key role in
selection of three key non-Ukrainian ministers -- Natalia Jaresko, an American ex- State
Department official as Finance Minister; Aivras Abromavicius of Lithuania as Economics
Minister, and a health minister from Georgia. Soros in his December 2014 letter, referring to
his proposal for a "big bank" privatization of Naftogaz and price rise, states,
"You are fortunate to have appointed three 'new Ukrainian' ministers and several natives
(sic) who are committed to this approach
."
Elsewhere Soros speaks about de facto creating the impression within the EU that the current
government of Yatsenyuk is finally cleaning out the notorious corruption that has dominated
every Kiev regime since 1991. Creating that temporary reform illusion, he remarks, will
convince the EU to cough up the €11 billion annual investment insurance fund. His March
2015 paper says that, "It is essential for the government to produce a visible demonstration
(sic) during the next three months in order to change the widely prevailing image of Ukraine as
an utterly corrupt country." That he states will open the EU to make the €11 billion
insurance guarantee investment fund .
While saying that it is important to show Ukraine as a country that is not corrupt, Soros
reveals he has little concern when transparency and proper procedures block his agenda. Talking
about his proposals to reform Ukraine's constitution to enable privatizations and other
Soros-friendly moves, he complains,
"The process has been slowed down by the insistence of the newly elected Rada on proper
procedures and total transparency
."
Soros suggests that he intends to create this "visible demonstration" through his
initiatives, such as using the Soros-funded National Reform Council, a body organized by
presidential decree which allows the Ukrainian president to push bills through Ukraine's
legislature.
George Soros is also using his new European Council on Foreign Relations think-tank to lobby
his Ukraine strategy, with his council members such as Alexander Graf Lambsdorff or Joschka
Fischer or Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, not to mention former ECB head, Jean-Claude Trichet no
doubt laying a subtle role.
George Soros, now 84, was born in Hungary as a Jew, George Sorosz. Soros once boasted in a
TV interview that he posed during the war as a gentile with forged papers, assisting the Horthy
government to seize property of other Hungarian Jews who were being shipped to the Nazi death
camps. Soros told the TV moderator, "There was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that
was–well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets–that if I weren't
there–of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would."
This is the same morality apparently behind Soros' activities in Ukraine today. It seems
again to matter not to him that the Ukrainian government he helped bring to power in February
2014 US coup d'etat is riddled with explicit anti-semites and self-proclaimed neo-Nazis from
the Svoboda Party and Pravy Sektor. George Soros is clearly a devotee of
"public-private-partnership." Only here the public gets fleeced to enrich private investors
like Mr. Soros and friends. Cynically, Soros signs his Ukraine strategy memo, "George
Soros–A self-appointed advocate of the new Ukraine, March 12, 2015."
And now we learn that our own State Department was filling Soros coffers with our taxpayer
money to use against us and destroy our republic.
Whenever Democrats scream about cuts in foreign aid, know that they are squealing because
their "cut" of the laundered funds is in jeopardy and they have to answer to Soros for the
rest.
He's contributed a lot of money to the Dem Party to be so insulated from not only
prosecution but from criticism. If and when he gets criticized in a publication or article,
he screams "Anti-Semitism!" He's become good at making everything a win-win for himself.
Preaches socialism out of one side of his mouth to "virtue signal" to the world and then
loots the objects thereof out of the other side of his mouth for the benefit of his alleged
foundations. Why we can't prosecute him for interfering in our elections with his stolen
money is something hard to understand.
Ukraine is *** infested. I would like to know Soros ties to Igor Kolomoisky.
"Once in office, President Sirleaf opened the doors for Soros to take over major Liberian
gold and base metals assets along with his partner, Nathaniel Rothschild. One of her first
acts as President was to also invite the Pentagon's new Africa Command, AFRICOM, into Liberia
whose purpose as a Liberian investigation revealed, was to "protect George Soros and
Rothschild mining operations in West Africa rather than champion stability and human
rights ."
Wherever there are wealthy *** Zionist fascist oligarch sociopaths there is trouble...
I'm finding it hard to think of examples where the formerly norm-giving group becomes
derided or humiliated.
You can probably try to look at the situation in (now independent) republics of the former
USSR. Simplifying previously oppressed group, given a lucky chance, most often strive for
dominance and oppression of other groups including and especially former dominant group. This
is an eternal damnation of ethno/cultural nationalism.
And not only it (look at Mutual Help and The State in Shantytowns.) In them ethnic
comminutes often own protection markets, offer services that hire people and replace the state,
pay off gang leaders. they also provide some community support for particular ethnic group,
enforce the rules of trade within themselves, etc. In GB the abuse of children by ethnic gangs
was sickening ( https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/30/abuse-children-asian-communities
)
In many cases of ethnic/cultural nationalism this looks more like a competition for
resources with the smoke screen of noble intentions/human rights/past oppression/
humiliations/etc
Or you can look at the language policy in the USA and the actual situation in some
areas/institutions of Florida and California and how English speakers feel in those
areas/institutions. Or in some areas of Quebec in Canada.
That actually suggests another meaning of famous Randolph Bourne quote " War is the health
of the state " (said in the midst of the First World War.) It bring the unity unachievable in
peace time or by any other methods, albeit temporarily (from Ch 14. Howard Zinn book A People's
History of the United States ):
the governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled, and young men
died in frightful numbers on the battlefields-often for a hundred yards of land, a line of
trenches.
In the United States, not yet in the war, there was worry about the health of the state.
Socialism was growing. The IWW seemed to be everywhere. Class conflict was intense. In the
summer of 1916, during a Preparedness Day parade in San Francisco, a bomb exploded, killing
nine people; two local radicals, Tom Mooney and Warren Billings, were arrested and would
spend twenty years in prison. Shortly after that Senator James Wadsworth of New York
suggested compulsory military training for all males to avert the danger that "these people
of ours shall be divided into classes." Rather: "We must let our young men know that they owe
some responsibility to this country."
The supreme fulfillment of that responsibility was taking place in Europe. Ten million
were to die on the battlefield; 20 million were to die of hunger and disease related to the
war. And no one since that day has been able to show that the war brought any gain for
humanity that would be worth one human life. The rhetoric of the socialists, that it was an
"imperialist war," now seems moderate and hardly arguable. The advanced capitalist countries
of Europe were fighting over boundaries, colonies, spheres of influence; they were competing
for Alsace-Lorraine, the Balkans, Africa, the Middle East.
Neo-McCarthyism now serves a somewhat similar purpose in the USA. Among other thing (like
absolving Hillary from her fiasco to "deux ex machine" trick instead of real reason -- the
crisis and rejection of neoliberalism by the sizable strata of the USA population) it is an
attempt to unify the nation after 2016.
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
O nce in a blue moon an indispensable book comes out making a clear case for sanity in what
is now a post-MAD world. That's the responsibility carried by " The (Real)
Revolution in Military Affairs ," by Andrei Martyanov (Clarity Press), arguably the most
important book of 2019.
Martyanov is the total package -- and he comes with extra special attributes as a top-flight
Russian military analyst, born in Baku in those Back in the U.S.S.R. days, living and working
in the U.S., and writing and blogging in English.
Right from the start, Martyanov wastes no time destroying not only Fukuyama's and
Huntington's ravings but especially Graham Allison's childish and meaningless Thucydides Trap
argument -- as if the power equation between the U.S. and China in the 21stcentury could be
easily interpreted in parallel to Athens and Sparta slouching towards the Peloponnesian War
over 2,400 years ago. What next? Xi Jinping as the new Genghis Khan?
(By the way, the best current essay on Thucydides is in Italian, by Luciano Canfora ("
Tucidide: La Menzogna, La Colpa, L'Esilio" ). No Trap. Martyanov visibly relishes defining the
Trap as a "figment of the imagination" of people who "have a very vague understanding of real
warfare in the 21st century." No wonder Xi explicitly said the Trap does not exist.)
Martyanov had already detailed in his splendid, previous book, "Losing Military Supremacy:
The Myopia of American Strategic Planning," how "American lack of historic experience with
continental warfare" ended up "planting the seeds of the ultimate destruction of the American
military mythology of the 20thand 21stcenturies which is foundational to the American decline,
due to hubris and detachment of reality." Throughout the book, he unceasingly provides solid
evidence about the kind of lethality waiting for U.S. forces in a possible, future war against
real armies (not the Taliban or Saddam Hussein's), air forces, air defenses and naval
power.
Do the Math
One of the key takeaways is the failure of U.S. mathematical models: and readers of the book
do need to digest quite a few mathematical equations. The key point is that this failure led
the U.S. "on a continuous downward spiral of diminishing military capabilities against the
nation [Russia] she thought she defeated in the Cold War."
In the U.S., Revolution in Military
Affairs (RMA) was introduced by the late Andrew Marshall, a.k.a. Yoda, the former head of
Net Assessment at the Pentagon and the de facto inventor of the "pivot to Asia" concept. Yet
Martyanov tells us that RMA actually started as MTR (Military-Technological Revolution),
introduced by Soviet military theoreticians back in the 1970s.
One of the staples of RMA concerns nations capable of producing land-attack cruise missiles,
a.k.a. TLAMs. As it stands, only the U.S., Russia, China and France can do it. And there are
only two global systems providing satellite guidance to cruise missiles: the American GPS and
the Russian GLONASS. Neither China's BeiDou nor the European Galileo qualify – yet
– as global GPS systems.
Then there's Net-Centric Warfare (NCW). The term itself was coined by the late Admiral
Arthur Cebrowski in 1998 in an
article he co-wrote with John Garstka's titled, "Network-Centric Warfare – Its Origin and
Future."
Deploying his mathematical equations, Martyanov soon tells us that "the era of subsonic
anti-shipping missiles is over." NATO, that brain-dead organism (copyright Emmanuel Macron)
now has to face the supersonic Russian P-800 Onyx and the Kalibr-class M54 in a "highly hostile
Electronic Warfare environment." Every developed modern military today applies Net-Centric Warfare
(NCW), developed by the Pentagon in the 1990s.
Rendering of a future combat systems network. (soldiersmediacenter/Flickr, CC BY 2.0,
Wikimedia Commons)
Martyanov
mentions in his new book something that I learned on my visit to Donbass in March 2015: how
NCW principles, "based on Russia's C4ISR capabilities made available by the Russian military to
numerically inferior armed forces of the Donbass Republics (LDNR), were used to devastating
effect both at the battles of Ilovaisk and Debaltsevo, when attacking the cumbersome Soviet-era
Ukrainian Armed Forces military."
No Escape From the Kinzhal
Martyanov provides ample information on Russia's latest missile – the hypersonic
Mach-10 aero-ballistic Kinzhal, recently tested in the Arctic.
Crucially, as he explains, "no existing anti-missile defense in the U.S. Navy is capable of
shooting [it] down even in the case of the detection of this missile." Kinzhal has a range of
2,000 km, which leaves its carriers, MiG-31K and TU-22M3M, "invulnerable to the only defense a
U.S. Carrier Battle Group, a main pillar of U.S. naval power, can mount – carrier fighter
aircraft." These fighters simply don't have the range.
The Kinzhal was one of the weapons announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin's
game-changing March
1, 2018 speech at the Federal Assembly. That's the day, Martyanov stresses, when the real
RMA arrived, and "changed completely the face of peer-peer warfare, competition and global
power balance dramatically."
Top Pentagon officials such as General
John Hyten, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have admitted on the record there are "no
existing countermeasures" against, for instance, the hypersonic, Mach 27 glide vehicle Avangard
(which renders anti-ballistic missile systems useless), telling the U.S. Senate Armed Services
Committee the only way out would be "a nuclear deterrent." There are also no existing
counter-measures against anti-shipping missiles such as the Zircon and Kinzhal.
Any military analyst knows very well how the Kinzhal destroyed a land target the size of a
Toyota Corolla in Syria after being launched 1,000 km away in adverse weather conditions. The
corollary is the stuff of NATO nightmares: NATO's command and control installations in Europe
are de facto indefensible.
Martyanov gets straight to the point: "The introduction of hypersonic weapons surely pours
some serious cold water on the American obsession with securing the North American continent
from retaliatory strikes."
Kh-47M2 Kinzhal; 2018 Moscow Victory Day Parade. (Kremilin via Wikimedia Commons)
Martyanov is thus unforgiving on U.S. policymakers who "lack the necessary tool-kit for
grasping the unfolding geostrategic reality in which the real revolution in military affairs
had dramatically downgraded the always inflated American military capabilities and continues to
redefine U.S. geopolitical status away from its self-declared hegemony."
And it gets worse: "Such weapons ensure a guaranteed retaliation [Martyanov's italics] on
the U.S. proper." Even the existing Russian nuclear deterrents – and to a lesser degree
Chinese, as paraded recently -- "are capable of overcoming the existing U.S. anti-ballistic
systems and destroying the United States," no matter what crude propaganda the Pentagon is
peddling.
In February 2019, Moscow announced the completion of tests of a nuclear-powered engine for
the Petrel cruise missile. This is a subsonic cruise missile with nuclear propulsion that can
remain in air for quite a long time, covering intercontinental distances, and able to attack
from the most unexpected directions. Martyanov mischievously characterizes the Petrel as "a
vengeance weapon in case some among American decision-makers who may help precipitate a new
world war might try to hide from the effects of what they have unleashed in the relative safety
of the Southern Hemisphere."
Hybrid War Gone Berserk
A section of the book expands on China's military progress, and the fruits of the
Russia-China strategic partnership, such as Beijing buying $3 billion-worth of S-400 Triumph
anti-aircraft missiles -- "ideally suited to deal with the exact type of strike assets the
United States would use in case of a conventional conflict with China."
Beijing parade celebrating the 70th anniversary of the People's Republic, October 2019.
(YouTube screenshot)
Because of the timing, the analysis does not even take into consideration the arsenal
presented in early October at the Beijing parade celebrating the 70thanniversary of the
People's Republic.
That includes, among other things, the "carrier-killer" DF-21D, designed to hit warships at
sea at a range of up to 1,500 km; the intermediate range "Guam Killer" DF-26; the DF-17
hypersonic missile; and the long-range submarine-launched and ship-launched YJ-18A anti-ship
cruise missiles. Not to mention the DF-41 ICBM – the backbone of China's nuclear
deterrent, capable of reaching the U.S. mainland carrying multiple warheads.
Martyanov could not escape addressing the RAND Corporation, whose reason to exist is to
relentlessly push for more money for the Pentagon – blaming Russia for "hybrid war" (an
American invention) even as it moans about the U.S.'s incapacity of defeating Russia in each
and every war game. RAND's war games pitting the U.S. and allies against Russia and China
invariably ended in a "catastrophe" for the "finest fighting force in the world."
Martyanov also addresses the S-500s, capable of reaching AWACS planes and possibly even
capable of intercepting hypersonic non-ballistic targets. The S-500 and its latest middle-range
state of the art air-defense system S-350 Vityaz will be operational in 2020.
His key takeway: "There is no parity between Russia and the United States in such fields as
air-defense, hypersonic weapons and, in general, missile development, to name just a few fields
– the United States lags behind in these fields, not just in years but in generations
[italics mine]."
All across the Global South, scores of nations are very much aware that the U.S. economic
"order" – rather disorder – is on the brink of collapse. In contrast, a
cooperative, connected, rule-based, foreign relations between sovereign nations model is being
advanced in Eurasia – symbolized by the merging of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road
Initiative (BRI), the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO), the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the NDB (the BRICS bank).
The key guarantors of the new model are Russia and China. And Beijing and Moscow harbor no
illusion whatsoever about the toxic dynamics in Washington. My recent conversations with top
analysts in Kazakhstan last month and in Moscow last week once again stressed the futility of
negotiating with people described – with overlapping shades of sarcasm – as
exceptionalist fanatics. Russia, China and many corners of Eurasia have figured out there are
no possible, meaningful deals with a nation bent on breaking every deal.
Indispensable?
No: Vulnerable
Martyanov cannot but evoke Putin's speech to the Federal Assembly in February 2019, after
the unilateral Washington abandonment of the INF treaty, clearing the way for U.S. deployment
of intermediate and close range missiles stationed in Europe and pointed at Russia:
"Russia will be forced to create and deploy those types of weapons against those regions
from where we will face a direct threat, but also against those regions hosting the centers
where decisions are taken on using those missile systems threatening us."
Translation: American Invulnerability is over – for good.
In the short term, things can always get worse. At his traditional, year-end presser in
Moscow, lasting almost four and a half hours, Putin stated that Russia is more than ready to
"simply renew the existing New START agreement", which is bound to expire in early 2021: "They
[the U.S.] can send us the agreement tomorrow, or we can sign and send it to Washington." And
yet, "so far our proposals have been left unanswered. If the New START ceases to exist, nothing
in the world will hold back an arms race. I believe this is bad."
"Bad" is quite the euphemism. Martyanov prefers to stress how "most of the American elites,
at least for now, still reside in a state of Orwellian cognitive dissonance" even as the real
RMA "blew the myth of American conventional invincibility out of the water."
Martyanov is one of the very few analysts – always from different parts of Eurasia --
who have warned about the danger of the U.S. "accidentally stumbling" into a war against
Russia, China, or both which is impossible to be won conventionally, "let alone through the
nightmare of a global nuclear catastrophe."
Is that enough to instill at least a modicum of sense into those who lord over that massive
cash cow, the industrial-military-security complex? Don't count on it.
* * *
Pepe Escobar, a veteran Brazilian journalist, is the correspondent-at-large for Hong
Kong-based Asia Times . His latest book is
"
2030 ." Follow him on Facebook .
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.
Crimea's breakaway from Ukraine and rejoining Russia is treated in the US-and-allied world as being
justification for the explosive re-emergence in 2014 of America's Cold War NATO alliance as being a
restored war against Russia; and, so, whether or not that 'justification' is truthful is the paramount
geopolitical issue in our era; and it will therefore be discussed and (via the links here) documented
in this article.
Though international law is generally an unenforced mess that is interpretable far
more by partisanship than by any clearly applicable principles, the US Government does quite blatantly
violate it on a routine basis, by means of coups and invasions against countries that never invaded
nor threatened to invade the US; but, if
anything
at all is clear in international law, it is
that Crimea's breaking away from Ukraine and rejoining Russia in 2014 was entirely legitimate, as will
be documented here, by exposing the lies that are adduced on the US side, in order to allege that it's
not
legitimate.
First, however, will be a bit of essential historical background, which is commonly ignored in
arguments by the pro-US-regime liars on this matter: From 1783 to 1954, Crimea was part of Russia.
Crimea was arbitrarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 by the dictator of the Soviet Union,
Nikita Khruschev, who was a Ukrainian and didn't consult the residents of Crimea about this handover
of them to Ukraine. Crimeans were so opposed to being ruled from the foreign-language-speaking and
largely pro-Nazi (and anti-Semitic and anti-Russian) Ukrainians to their north, so that as soon as the
Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the only way that Crimeans would tolerate any continuation of their
formal association with Ukraine was by being declared Ukraine's "autonomous republic" (the only one)
in Ukraine.
This situation of partial Crimean independence continued until Ukraine was conquered (via
coup) by the US regime, in order to be handed over first to the European Union, and then, after the EU
would accept Ukraine, to NATO, which military alliance with the US was extremely unpopular in Ukraine
until the American conquest and the immediately subsequent takeover of Ukraine by pro-US oligarchs,
who were eager to buy more privatized and formerly Soviet state-owned properties, in basically insider
deals with the now US-controlled Ukrainian Government.
Crimeans were terrified and some of them
wrote to friends
in the West regarding the terror and their fears
. All of this information is ignored by the
proponents of the illegality of Crimea's separation from Ukraine, because, clearly, the basic human
rights of Crimeans were then under very palpable and severe threat by the US-imposed forces; and, so,
any 'legal' argument for forcing Crimeans to remain Ukrainians was and is fake. But, still, legal
arguments for forcing Crimeans to be Ukrainians again are presented; and, so, here is a quick
intoroduction to those frauds.
The least politicized of the pro-Western (i.e., pro-US-regime) articles regarding the relevant
international laws on this topic concern the cases of Kurdistan and Catalonia, because in the
US-and-allied international dictatorship (that is, the countries that are ruled by billionares who are
allied with US billionaires), no unanimity exists regarding those two breakaway-movements (Kurds and
Catalonians); so, the legal principles aren't such a threat to the US-and-allied lies about Russia.
Here are highlights from this article, and I
boldface
what I consider key statements
there:
ASIL
[American Society of International Law]
Insights
, v. 22, issue 1
Milena Sterio, 5 January 2018
The theory of self-determination, as justifying the secession of a people from its existing mother
state as a matter of last resort only, in situations where the people is oppressed or where the mother
state's government does not legitimately represent the people's interests, has remained constant
throughout the 20th century development of international law.
Two United Nations'
declarations, in addition to the United Nations Charter itself, have addressed the issue of
self-determination.
Both declarations
envisioned self-determination leading to secession as a matter
of last resort only within the decolonization paradigm: here, both conditions for a right to
self-determination were met insofar as colonized peoples were oppressed and their colonial governments
did not adequately represent their interests. Both declarations also confirmed the importance of the
principle of territorial integrity of existing states, [8] and thus
embraced the idea that
self-determination could lead to the territorial disruption of existing states only in extreme
instances of oppression or colonization
.
Peoples who are oppressed or colonized
, however,
have the right to
external self-determination, which they may exercise through secession from their mother state.[9]
This view of self-determination was confirmed in 1998, in the Canadian Supreme Court opinion regarding
the proposed secession of Quebec from Canada, where the Court held that all peoples are entitled to
various modes of internal self-determination, but that only some peoples, such as those subjected to
conquest, colonization, and perhaps oppression, may acquire the right to external self-determination
through remedial secession.[10] Today, it may be concluded that international law bestows on all
peoples the right to self-determination, but that the right to external self-determination, exercised
through remedial secession, only applies in extreme circumstances, to colonized and severely
persecuted peoples.
While international law embraces the principle of self-determination, it does not contain a
right of secession.[11] It may be argued that international law merely tolerates secession in
instances of external self-determination, where a people is colonized or oppressed (like in the case
of Kosovo). In addition, secession is prohibited under international law if the secessionist entity is
attempting to separate by violating another fundamental norm of international law, such as the
prohibition on the use of force (like in the case of Northern Cyprus).[12] In other instances of
attempted secession, where the relevant people is not oppressed, as in Quebec or Scotland,
international law is neutral on secession -- it does not support a right to secession nor does it
prohibit secession. Instead, the secessionist dispute is left to the realm of domestic law and to
political negotiations between the mother state and the secessionist entity.[13]
--
Following are two influential articles reaffirming the US regime's view, that the breakaway was and
is illegitimate. In
the first
, the lie is simply presumed true that the overthrow of the democratically elected
President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, during 20-26 February 2014, was a domestic democratic
revolution, instead of a foreign-imposed coup. In
the second
, international law, as was just summarized above here, is simply ignored.
Simone F. van den Driest [whose 404-page 2013 Ph.D dissertation, at Netherlands' Tilburg
University, was
"Remedial Secession"
], First Online: 30 November 2015
16k Downloads
Abstract
This article considers the (il)legality of Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine from
the perspective of public international law. It examines whether the right to self-determination or an
alleged right to (remedial) secession could serve as a legal basis for the separation of the Crimean
Peninsula, as the Crimean authorities and the Russian Federation seem to have argued.
The
article explains that beyond the context of decolonization, the right to self-determination does not
encompass a general right to unilateral secession and demonstrates that contemporary international law
does not acknowledge a right to remedial secession. With respect to the case of Crimea, it argues that
even when assuming that such a right does exist, the threshold in this regard is not met. In the
absence of a legal entitlement, the article subsequently turns to the question whether Crimea's
unilateral secession was prohibited under international law. It contends that while the principle of
territorial integrity discourages unilateral secession, it does not actually prohibit it. Nonetheless,
there are situations in which an attempt at unilateral secession is considered to be illegal in view
of the circumstances. It is argued that it is precisely this exception that is relevant in the case of
Crimea.
[Text now:]
The Russian Federation (implicitly) relied on the doctrine of remedial
secession, which is seen to encompass a right to unilateral secession in case of serious injustices
suffered by a people. [which were unquestionably present] President Putin advanced remedial arguments
in his speech of 18 March, contending that
those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in
line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and
Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives [ ]. [N]aturally, we could
not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress
.7
To the same effect, the Russian Federation claimed in the Security Council that there had been
'threats of violence by ultranationalists against the security, lives and legitimate interests of
Russians and all Russian-speaking peoples' in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and that 'the issue is one of
defending our citizens and compatriots, as well as the most import[ant] human right -- the right to
life'.8
The accuracy of these views presented, however, is highly questionable under contemporary
international law [and all the rest of the article discusses none of the allegations that Putin
asserted there
, but only internnational law.
Not even once in this article is
anything like the word "coup" used in relation to the overthrow of Yanukovych
-- the overthrow
that had sparked Crimeans to demand restoration to Russia. Instead the article simply assumes that
there was no coup whatsoever: "The Ukrainian Revolution of 2014, which was initiated by the Euromaidan
movement in the capital of Kiev, had significant effects in Crimea." That's all. However, that
statement was
false:
It was
no
"revolution," and it
clearly was a coup
. Furthermore:
even if it had been a "revolution," it was not "initiated by the Euromaidan movement in the capital of
Kiev --
it was initiated by the Barack Obama Administration in the summer of 2011, and started to be
implemented inside the US Embassy in Kiev on 1 March 2013
. The Euromaidan movement
started on 21 November 2013
.
So, this author is merely assuming that "the Euromaidan movement" wasn't part of a
coup-operation by the US regime.]
CONCLUSION
All in all, it should be concluded that the arguments involving an alleged right to
self-determination and (remedial) secession as advanced by the Crimean and Russian authorities in
attempting to justify the events on the Crimean Peninsula cannot be upheld. On the contrary:
Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine clearly was illegal under international law.
Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review
, 2015-2016, v. 14 [published by General Jonas Žemaitis
Military Academy of Lithuania]
Erika Leonaitė & Dainius Žalimas, both of Vilnius University
it is essential to point out that
a coup d'etat and the issues of constitutionality in
general are matters of national rather than international law. In terms of international law,
importance falls not on the constitutionality of the government, but on its effectiveness, i.e. its
capability to efficiently control the territory of the state and to ensure compliance with
international commitments.
[In other words: any national government that can suppress and
crush a secession movement is adhering to international law, according to these writers.] Even where
the government is unable to carry out effective control (in political science, the concept of a
"failed state" is used to refer to these cases), relations with such a state must be continued based
on the principles of sovereign equality, the prohibition of the use of force [the writers mean "use of
force" by any foreign govertnment, not "use of force" by the given nation's government in order to
suppress and crush any secession movement], respect for territorial integrity, and other fundamental
international legal principles; other states are not released from the obligations with respect to
this state [in other words: foreign nations must never side with nor support a secession movement
within a country. Blatantly false allegations like that are publishable by General Jonas Žemaitis
Military Academy of Lithuania.]
In June 2013 (well before the 'democratic revolution' in Ukraine started), NAVFAC, the US Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, published on its website, a "Project Description" for "Renovation of
School#5, Sevastopol, Ukraine," under the euphemistic title
"EUCOM Humanitarian Assistance Program"
. EUCOM is the US European Command -- it is
purely military, not "humanitarian," at all. The 124-page request for proposals (RFP) showed extensive
photos of the existing school, and also of the toilets, floor-boards, and other US-made products, that
the US regime was requiring to be used in the renovation (by some American corporation, yet to be
determined) of that then-Ukrainian school in Crimea, which at that time was a Ukrainian Government
property, not at all American-owned or operated. So: why were US taxpayers supposed to fund this
'humanitarian' operation, by the U.S. military?
Eric Zuesse
December 23, 2019 |
History
The Lies That Are Used for Denying the Legitimacy of Crimea's Breakaway
Crimea's breakaway from Ukraine and rejoining Russia is treated in the US-and-allied world as
being justification for the explosive re-emergence in 2014 of America's Cold War NATO alliance
as being a restored war against Russia; and, so, whether or not that 'justification' is truthful
is the paramount geopolitical issue in our era; and it will therefore be discussed and (via the
links here) documented in this article.
Though international law is generally an unenforced
mess that is interpretable far more by partisanship than by any clearly applicable principles,
the US Government does quite blatantly violate it on a routine basis, by means of coups and
invasions against countries that never invaded nor threatened to invade the US; but, if
anything
at all is clear in international law, it is that Crimea's breaking away from
Ukraine and rejoining Russia in 2014 was entirely legitimate, as will be documented here, by
exposing the lies that are adduced on the US side, in order to allege that it's
not
legitimate.
First, however, will be a bit of essential historical background, which is commonly ignored
in arguments by the pro-US-regime liars on this matter: From 1783 to 1954, Crimea was part of
Russia. Crimea was arbitrarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 by the dictator of the
Soviet Union, Nikita Khruschev, who was a Ukrainian and didn't consult the residents of Crimea
about this handover of them to Ukraine. Crimeans were so opposed to being ruled from the
foreign-language-speaking and largely pro-Nazi (and anti-Semitic and anti-Russian) Ukrainians to
their north, so that as soon as the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the only way that Crimeans
would tolerate any continuation of their formal association with Ukraine was by being declared
Ukraine's "autonomous republic" (the only one) in Ukraine. This situation of partial Crimean
independence continued until Ukraine was conquered (via coup) by the US regime, in order to be
handed over first to the European Union, and then, after the EU would accept Ukraine, to NATO,
which military alliance with the US was extremely unpopular in Ukraine until the American
conquest and the immediately subsequent takeover of Ukraine by pro-US oligarchs, who were eager
to buy more privatized and formerly Soviet state-owned properties, in basically insider deals
with the now US-controlled Ukrainian Government. Those oligarchs' 'news'-media successfully
propagandized most Ukrainians to switch from being anti-NATO to pro-NATO. However, right at the
time of the coup, Crimeans demonstrated in Kiev against the CIA-organized Maidan demostrations,
and
on the day of the coup,
February 20th, those Crimeans in Kiev were forced by the US-supported nazis to flee there, but
the eight buses carrrying them were blocked en-route, and an unknown number of the fleeing
Crimeans were killed
. Many of the surviving ones were
permanently injured
. Crimeans were
terrified and some of them
wrote to
friends in the West regarding the terror and their fears
. All of this information is ignored
by the proponents of the illegality of Crimea's separation from Ukraine, because, clearly, the
basic human rights of Crimeans were then under very palpable and severe threat by the US-imposed
forces; and, so, any 'legal' argument for forcing Crimeans to remain Ukrainians was and is fake.
But, still, legal arguments for forcing Crimeans to be Ukrainians again are presented; and, so,
here is a quick intoroduction to those frauds.
The least politicized of the pro-Western (i.e., pro-US-regime) articles regarding the
relevant international laws on this topic concern the cases of Kurdistan and Catalonia, because
in the US-and-allied international dictatorship (that is, the countries that are ruled by
billionares who are allied with US billionaires), no unanimity exists regarding those two
breakaway-movements (Kurds and Catalonians); so, the legal principles aren't such a threat to
the US-and-allied lies about Russia. Here are highlights from this article, and I
boldface
what I consider key statements there:
ASIL
[American Society of International Law]
Insights
, v. 22, issue 1
Milena Sterio, 5 January 2018
The theory of self-determination, as justifying the secession of a people from its existing
mother state as a matter of last resort only, in situations where the people is oppressed or
where the mother state's government does not legitimately represent the people's interests, has
remained constant throughout the 20th century development of international law.
Two
United Nations' declarations, in addition to the United Nations Charter itself, have addressed
the issue of self-determination.
Both declarations
envisioned self-determination leading to secession as a
matter of last resort only within the decolonization paradigm: here, both conditions for a right
to self-determination were met insofar as colonized peoples were oppressed and their colonial
governments did not adequately represent their interests. Both declarations also confirmed the
importance of the principle of territorial integrity of existing states, [8] and thus
embraced the idea that self-determination could lead to the territorial disruption of existing
states only in extreme instances of oppression or colonization
.
Peoples who are oppressed or colonized
, however,
have the right to
external self-determination, which they may exercise through secession from their mother
state.[9] This view of self-determination was confirmed in 1998, in the Canadian Supreme Court
opinion regarding the proposed secession of Quebec from Canada, where the Court held that all
peoples are entitled to various modes of internal self-determination, but that only some
peoples, such as those subjected to conquest, colonization, and perhaps oppression, may acquire
the right to external self-determination through remedial secession.[10] Today, it may be
concluded that international law bestows on all peoples the right to self-determination, but
that the right to external self-determination, exercised through remedial secession, only
applies in extreme circumstances, to colonized and severely persecuted peoples.
While international law embraces the principle of self-determination, it does not
contain a right of secession.[11] It may be argued that international law merely tolerates
secession in instances of external self-determination, where a people is colonized or oppressed
(like in the case of Kosovo). In addition, secession is prohibited under international law if
the secessionist entity is attempting to separate by violating another fundamental norm of
international law, such as the prohibition on the use of force (like in the case of Northern
Cyprus).[12] In other instances of attempted secession, where the relevant people is not
oppressed, as in Quebec or Scotland, international law is neutral on secession -- it does not
support a right to secession nor does it prohibit secession. Instead, the secessionist dispute
is left to the realm of domestic law and to political negotiations between the mother state and
the secessionist entity.[13]
--
Following are two influential articles reaffirming the US regime's view, that the breakaway
was and is illegitimate. In
the first
, the lie is simply presumed true that the overthrow of the democratically elected
President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, during 20-26 February 2014, was a domestic democratic
revolution, instead of a foreign-imposed coup. In
the second
, international law, as was just summarized above here, is simply ignored.
Simone F. van den Driest [whose 404-page 2013 Ph.D dissertation, at Netherlands' Tilburg
University, was
"Remedial Secession"
], First Online: 30 November 2015
16k Downloads
Abstract
This article considers the (il)legality of Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine
from the perspective of public international law. It examines whether the right to
self-determination or an alleged right to (remedial) secession could serve as a legal basis for
the separation of the Crimean Peninsula, as the Crimean authorities and the Russian Federation
seem to have argued.
The article explains that beyond the context of decolonization,
the right to self-determination does not encompass a general right to unilateral secession and
demonstrates that contemporary international law does not acknowledge a right to remedial
secession. With respect to the case of Crimea, it argues that even when assuming that such a
right does exist, the threshold in this regard is not met. In the absence of a legal
entitlement, the article subsequently turns to the question whether Crimea's unilateral
secession was prohibited under international law. It contends that while the principle of
territorial integrity discourages unilateral secession, it does not actually prohibit it.
Nonetheless, there are situations in which an attempt at unilateral secession is considered to
be illegal in view of the circumstances. It is argued that it is precisely this exception that
is relevant in the case of Crimea.
[Text now:]
The Russian Federation (implicitly) relied on the doctrine of remedial
secession, which is seen to encompass a right to unilateral secession in case of serious
injustices suffered by a people. [which were unquestionably present] President Putin advanced
remedial arguments in his speech of 18 March, contending that
those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first
in line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea
and Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives [ ]. [N]aturally,
we could not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress
.7
To the same effect, the Russian Federation claimed in the Security Council that there had been
'threats of violence by ultranationalists against the security, lives and legitimate interests
of Russians and all Russian-speaking peoples' in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and that 'the issue
is one of defending our citizens and compatriots, as well as the most import[ant] human
right -- the right to life'.8
The accuracy of these views presented, however, is highly questionable under
contemporary international law [and all the rest of the article discusses none of the
allegations that Putin asserted there
, but only internnational law.
Not even
once in this article is anything like the word "coup" used in relation to the overthrow of
Yanukovych
-- the overthrow that had sparked Crimeans to demand restoration to Russia.
Instead the article simply assumes that there was no coup whatsoever: "The Ukrainian Revolution
of 2014, which was initiated by the Euromaidan movement in the capital of Kiev, had significant
effects in Crimea." That's all. However, that statement was
false:
It was
no
"revolution," and it
clearly
was a coup
. Furthermore: even if it had been a "revolution," it was not "initiated by the
Euromaidan movement in the capital of Kiev --
it was initiated by the Barack Obama Administration in the summer of 2011, and started to be
implemented inside the US Embassy in Kiev on 1 March 2013
. The Euromaidan movement
started on 21 November 2013
.
So, this author is merely assuming that "the Euromaidan movement" wasn't part of a
coup-operation by the US regime.]
CONCLUSION
All in all, it should be concluded that the arguments involving an alleged right to
self-determination and (remedial) secession as advanced by the Crimean and Russian authorities
in attempting to justify the events on the Crimean Peninsula cannot be upheld. On the contrary:
Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine clearly was illegal under international law.
Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review
, 2015-2016, v. 14 [published by General Jonas
Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania]
Erika Leonaitė & Dainius Žalimas, both of Vilnius University
it is essential to point out that
a coup d'etat and the issues of constitutionality
in general are matters of national rather than international law. In terms of international law,
importance falls not on the constitutionality of the government, but on its effectiveness, i.e.
its capability to efficiently control the territory of the state and to ensure compliance with
international commitments.
[In other words: any national government that can suppress
and crush a secession movement is adhering to international law, according to these writers.]
Even where the government is unable to carry out effective control (in political science, the
concept of a "failed state" is used to refer to these cases), relations with such a state must
be continued based on the principles of sovereign equality, the prohibition of the use of force
[the writers mean "use of force" by any foreign govertnment, not "use of force" by the given
nation's government in order to suppress and crush any secession movement], respect for
territorial integrity, and other fundamental international legal principles; other states are
not released from the obligations with respect to this state [in other words: foreign nations
must never side with nor support a secession movement within a country. Blatantly false
allegations like that are publishable by General Jonas Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania.]
In June 2013 (well before the 'democratic revolution' in Ukraine started), NAVFAC, the US
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, published on its website, a "Project Description" for
"Renovation of School#5, Sevastopol, Ukraine," under the euphemistic title
"EUCOM Humanitarian Assistance Program"
. EUCOM is the US European Command -- it
is purely military, not "humanitarian," at all. The 124-page request for proposals (RFP) showed
extensive photos of the existing school, and also of the toilets, floor-boards, and other
US-made products, that the US regime was requiring to be used in the renovation (by some
American corporation, yet to be determined) of that then-Ukrainian school in Crimea, which at
that time was a Ukrainian Government property, not at all American-owned or operated. So: why
were US taxpayers supposed to fund this 'humanitarian' operation, by the U.S. military?
Though international law is generally an unenforced mess that is interpretable far
more by partisanship than by any clearly applicable principles, the US Government does quite blatantly
violate it on a routine basis, by means of coups and invasions against countries that never invaded
nor threatened to invade the US; but, if
anything
at all is clear in international law, it is
that Crimea's breaking away from Ukraine and rejoining Russia in 2014 was entirely legitimate, as will
be documented here, by exposing the lies that are adduced on the US side, in order to allege that it's
not
legitimate.
First, however, will be a bit of essential historical background, which is commonly ignored in
arguments by the pro-US-regime liars on this matter: From 1783 to 1954, Crimea was part of Russia.
Crimea was arbitrarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 by the dictator of the Soviet Union,
Nikita Khruschev, who was a Ukrainian and didn't consult the residents of Crimea about this handover
of them to Ukraine. Crimeans were so opposed to being ruled from the foreign-language-speaking and
largely pro-Nazi (and anti-Semitic and anti-Russian) Ukrainians to their north, so that as soon as the
Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the only way that Crimeans would tolerate any continuation of their
formal association with Ukraine was by being declared Ukraine's "autonomous republic" (the only one)
in Ukraine. This situation of partial Crimean independence continued until Ukraine was conquered (via
coup) by the US regime, in order to be handed over first to the European Union, and then, after the EU
would accept Ukraine, to NATO, which military alliance with the US was extremely unpopular in Ukraine
until the American conquest and the immediately subsequent takeover of Ukraine by pro-US oligarchs,
who were eager to buy more privatized and formerly Soviet state-owned properties, in basically insider
deals with the now US-controlled Ukrainian Government. Those oligarchs' 'news'-media successfully
propagandized most Ukrainians to switch from being anti-NATO to pro-NATO. However, right at the time
of the coup, Crimeans demonstrated in Kiev against the CIA-organized Maidan demostrations, and
on the day of the coup, February
20th, those Crimeans in Kiev were forced by the US-supported nazis to flee there, but the eight buses
carrrying them were blocked en-route, and an unknown number of the fleeing Crimeans were killed
.
Many of the surviving ones were
permanently
injured
. Crimeans were terrified and some of them
wrote to friends
in the West regarding the terror and their fears
. All of this information is ignored by the
proponents of the illegality of Crimea's separation from Ukraine, because, clearly, the basic human
rights of Crimeans were then under very palpable and severe threat by the US-imposed forces; and, so,
any 'legal' argument for forcing Crimeans to remain Ukrainians was and is fake. But, still, legal
arguments for forcing Crimeans to be Ukrainians again are presented; and, so, here is a quick
intoroduction to those frauds.
The least politicized of the pro-Western (i.e., pro-US-regime) articles regarding the relevant
international laws on this topic concern the cases of Kurdistan and Catalonia, because in the
US-and-allied international dictatorship (that is, the countries that are ruled by billionares who are
allied with US billionaires), no unanimity exists regarding those two breakaway-movements (Kurds and
Catalonians); so, the legal principles aren't such a threat to the US-and-allied lies about Russia.
Here are highlights from this article, and I
boldface
what I consider key statements
there:
ASIL
[American Society of International Law]
Insights
, v. 22, issue 1
Milena Sterio, 5 January 2018
The theory of self-determination, as justifying the secession of a people from its existing mother
state as a matter of last resort only, in situations where the people is oppressed or where the mother
state's government does not legitimately represent the people's interests, has remained constant
throughout the 20th century development of international law.
Two United Nations'
declarations, in addition to the United Nations Charter itself, have addressed the issue of
self-determination.
Both declarations
envisioned self-determination leading to secession as a matter
of last resort only within the decolonization paradigm: here, both conditions for a right to
self-determination were met insofar as colonized peoples were oppressed and their colonial governments
did not adequately represent their interests. Both declarations also confirmed the importance of the
principle of territorial integrity of existing states, [8] and thus
embraced the idea that
self-determination could lead to the territorial disruption of existing states only in extreme
instances of oppression or colonization
.
Peoples who are oppressed or colonized
, however,
have the right to
external self-determination, which they may exercise through secession from their mother state.[9]
This view of self-determination was confirmed in 1998, in the Canadian Supreme Court opinion regarding
the proposed secession of Quebec from Canada, where the Court held that all peoples are entitled to
various modes of internal self-determination, but that only some peoples, such as those subjected to
conquest, colonization, and perhaps oppression, may acquire the right to external self-determination
through remedial secession.[10] Today, it may be concluded that international law bestows on all
peoples the right to self-determination, but that the right to external self-determination, exercised
through remedial secession, only applies in extreme circumstances, to colonized and severely
persecuted peoples.
While international law embraces the principle of self-determination, it does not contain a
right of secession.[11] It may be argued that international law merely tolerates secession in
instances of external self-determination, where a people is colonized or oppressed (like in the case
of Kosovo). In addition, secession is prohibited under international law if the secessionist entity is
attempting to separate by violating another fundamental norm of international law, such as the
prohibition on the use of force (like in the case of Northern Cyprus).[12] In other instances of
attempted secession, where the relevant people is not oppressed, as in Quebec or Scotland,
international law is neutral on secession -- it does not support a right to secession nor does it
prohibit secession. Instead, the secessionist dispute is left to the realm of domestic law and to
political negotiations between the mother state and the secessionist entity.[13]
--
Following are two influential articles reaffirming the US regime's view, that the breakaway was and
is illegitimate. In
the first
, the lie is simply presumed true that the overthrow of the democratically elected
President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, during 20-26 February 2014, was a domestic democratic
revolution, instead of a foreign-imposed coup. In
the second
, international law, as was just summarized above here, is simply ignored.
Simone F. van den Driest [whose 404-page 2013 Ph.D dissertation, at Netherlands' Tilburg
University, was
"Remedial Secession"
], First Online: 30 November 2015
16k Downloads
Abstract
This article considers the (il)legality of Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine from
the perspective of public international law. It examines whether the right to self-determination or an
alleged right to (remedial) secession could serve as a legal basis for the separation of the Crimean
Peninsula, as the Crimean authorities and the Russian Federation seem to have argued.
The
article explains that beyond the context of decolonization, the right to self-determination does not
encompass a general right to unilateral secession and demonstrates that contemporary international law
does not acknowledge a right to remedial secession. With respect to the case of Crimea, it argues that
even when assuming that such a right does exist, the threshold in this regard is not met. In the
absence of a legal entitlement, the article subsequently turns to the question whether Crimea's
unilateral secession was prohibited under international law. It contends that while the principle of
territorial integrity discourages unilateral secession, it does not actually prohibit it. Nonetheless,
there are situations in which an attempt at unilateral secession is considered to be illegal in view
of the circumstances. It is argued that it is precisely this exception that is relevant in the case of
Crimea.
[Text now:]
The Russian Federation (implicitly) relied on the doctrine of remedial
secession, which is seen to encompass a right to unilateral secession in case of serious injustices
suffered by a people. [which were unquestionably present] President Putin advanced remedial arguments
in his speech of 18 March, contending that
those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in
line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and
Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives [ ]. [N]aturally, we could
not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress
.7
To the same effect, the Russian Federation claimed in the Security Council that there had been
'threats of violence by ultranationalists against the security, lives and legitimate interests of
Russians and all Russian-speaking peoples' in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and that 'the issue is one of
defending our citizens and compatriots, as well as the most import[ant] human right -- the right to
life'.8
The accuracy of these views presented, however, is highly questionable under contemporary
international law [and all the rest of the article discusses none of the allegations that Putin
asserted there
, but only internnational law.
Not even once in this article is
anything like the word "coup" used in relation to the overthrow of Yanukovych
-- the overthrow
that had sparked Crimeans to demand restoration to Russia. Instead the article simply assumes that
there was no coup whatsoever: "The Ukrainian Revolution of 2014, which was initiated by the Euromaidan
movement in the capital of Kiev, had significant effects in Crimea." That's all. However, that
statement was
false:
It was
no
"revolution," and it
clearly was a coup
. Furthermore:
even if it had been a "revolution," it was not "initiated by the Euromaidan movement in the capital of
Kiev --
it was initiated by the Barack Obama Administration in the summer of 2011, and started to be
implemented inside the US Embassy in Kiev on 1 March 2013
. The Euromaidan movement
started on 21 November 2013
.
So, this author is merely assuming that "the Euromaidan movement" wasn't part of a
coup-operation by the US regime.]
CONCLUSION
All in all, it should be concluded that the arguments involving an alleged right to
self-determination and (remedial) secession as advanced by the Crimean and Russian authorities in
attempting to justify the events on the Crimean Peninsula cannot be upheld. On the contrary:
Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine clearly was illegal under international law.
Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review
, 2015-2016, v. 14 [published by General Jonas Žemaitis
Military Academy of Lithuania]
Erika Leonaitė & Dainius Žalimas, both of Vilnius University
it is essential to point out that
a coup d'etat and the issues of constitutionality in
general are matters of national rather than international law. In terms of international law,
importance falls not on the constitutionality of the government, but on its effectiveness, i.e. its
capability to efficiently control the territory of the state and to ensure compliance with
international commitments.
[In other words: any national government that can suppress and
crush a secession movement is adhering to international law, according to these writers.] Even where
the government is unable to carry out effective control (in political science, the concept of a
"failed state" is used to refer to these cases), relations with such a state must be continued based
on the principles of sovereign equality, the prohibition of the use of force [the writers mean "use of
force" by any foreign govertnment, not "use of force" by the given nation's government in order to
suppress and crush any secession movement], respect for territorial integrity, and other fundamental
international legal principles; other states are not released from the obligations with respect to
this state [in other words: foreign nations must never side with nor support a secession movement
within a country. Blatantly false allegations like that are publishable by General Jonas Žemaitis
Military Academy of Lithuania.]
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', 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.".
In both cases, reality is turned on its head – for rather we will know how the Senate
intends to conduct its procedure as soon as it has the details, which substantively includes
the impeachment documents themselves, in front of them, and likewise, legislators ought to know
what's in a major piece of legislation before they vote either way on it. Pelosi's assault on
reason, however, isn't without an ever growing tide of resentment from within the progressive
base of the party itself.
We have quickly entered into a new era which increasingly resembles the broken political
processes which have struck many a country, but none in living memory a country like the US.
Now elected officials push judges to prosecute their political opponents, constitutional crises
are manufactured to pursue personal or political vendettas, death threats and rumors of coups
coming from media and celebrities being fed talking points by big and important players from
powerful institutions.
This 'impeachment' show really takes the cake, does it not? We will recall shortly after
Trump was elected, narrator for hire Morgan Freeman made a shocking public service
announcement. It was for all intents and purposes, a PSA notifying the public that a military
coup to remove Trump would be legitimate and in order. Speaking about this PSA, and recounting
what was said, would in any event read as an exaggeration, or some allegorical paraphrasing
made to prove a point. Jogging our memories then, Freeman spoke to tens of millions of viewers
on television and YouTube
saying :
"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."
This really set the tone for the coming years, which have culminated in this manufactured
'impeachment' crisis, really befitting a banana republic.
It would be the height of dishonesty to approach this abuse of the impeachment procedure as
if until this moment, the US's own political culture and processes were in good shape. Now
isn't the time for the laundry list of eroded constitutional provisions, which go in a thousand
and one unique directions. The US political system is surely broken, but as is the case with
such large institutions several hundreds of years old, its meltdown appears to happen in slow
motion to us mere mortals. And so what we are seeing today is the next phase of this
break-down, and really ought to be understood as monumental in this sense. Once again revealed
is the poor judgment of the Democratic Party and their agents, tools, warlords, and
strategists, the same gang who sunk Hillary Clinton's campaign on the rocks of hubris.
Nancy Pelosi also has poor judgment, and these short-sighted and self-interested moves on
her part stand a strong chance of backfiring. Her role in this charade is duly noted. This
isn't said because of any disagreement over her aims, but rather that in purely objective terms
it just so happens that her aims and her actions are out of synch – that is unless she
wants to see Trump re-elected. Her aims are her aims, our intention is to connect these to
their probable results, without moral judgments.
The real problem for the Democrats, the DNC, and any hopes for the White House in 2020, is
that this all has the odor of a massive backfire, and something that Trump has been counting on
happening. When one's opponent knows what is probable, and when they have a track record for
preparing very well for such, it is only a question of what Trump's strategy is and
how this falls into it, not whether there is one.
Imagine being a fly on the wall of the meeting with Pelosi where it was decided to go
forward with impeachment in the House of Representatives, despite not having either sufficient
traction in the Senate or any way to control the process that the Senate uses.
It probably went like this: ' 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. '
Informed citizens are aware that whatever their views towards Trump, nothing he has done
reaches beyond the established precedent set by past presidents. Confused citizens on the other
hand, are believing the manufactured talking points thrown their way, and the idea that a US
president loosely reference a quid pro quo in trying to sort a corruption scandal in dealings
with the president of a foreign country, is some crazy, new, never-before-done and
highly-illegal thing. It is none of those things though.
Unfortunately, not needless to say, the entirety of the direct, physical evidence against
Trump solely consists of the now infamous transcript of the phone call which he had with
Ukrainian president Zelensky. The rest is hearsay, a conspiracy narrative, and entirely
circumstantial. As this author has noted in numerous pieces, Biden's entire candidacy rests
precisely upon his need to be a candidate so that any normal investigation into the wrongdoings
of himself or his son in Ukraine, suddenly become the targeted persecution of a political
opponent of Trump.
Other than this, it is evident that Biden stands little chance – the same polling
institutions which give him a double-digit lead were those which foretold a Clinton electoral
victory. Neither their methods nor those paying and publishing them, have substantively
changed. Biden's candidacy, like the impeachment, is essentially fake. The real contenders for
the party's base are Sanders and Gabbard.
The Democratic Party Activist Base Despises Pelosi as much as Clinton
The Democratic Party has two bases, one controlled by the DNC and the Clintons, and one
which consists of its energized rank-and-file activists who are clearer in their populism,
anti-establishment and ant-corporate agenda. Candidates like Gabbard and Sanders are closest to
them politically, though far from perfect fits. Their renegade status is confirmed by the
difficulties they have with visibility – they are the new silent majority of the party.
The DNC base, on the other hand, relies on Rachel Maddow, Wolf Blitzer, and the likes for their
default talking points, where they have free and pervasive access to legacy media. In the
context of increased censorship online, this is not insignificant.
Among the important reasons this 'impeachment' strategy will lose is that it will not
energize the second and larger base. Even though this more progressive and populist base is
also more motivated, they have faced – as has the so-called alt-light – an
extraordinarily high degree of censorship on social media. Despite all the censorship, the
Democrats' silent majority are rather well-informed people, highly motivated, and tend to be
vocal in their communities and places of work. Their ideas move organically and virally among
the populace.
This silent majority has a very good memory, and they know very well who Nancy Pelosi is,
and who she isn't.
The silent majority remembers that after years of the public backlash against Bush's war
crimes, crimes against humanity, destruction of remaining civil liberties with the Patriot Act,
torture, warrantless search – and the list goes on and on – Democrats managed to
retake the lower house in 2006. If there was a legitimate reason for an impeachment, it would
have been championed by Pelosi against Bush for going to war using false, falsified,
manufactured evidence about WMD in Iraq. At the time, Pelosi squashed the hopes of her own
electorate, reasoning that such moves would be divisive, that they would distract from the
Democrats' momentum to take the White House in '08, that Bush had recently (?) won his last
election, and so on. Of course these were real crimes, and the reasons not to prosecute may
have as much to do with Pelosi's own role in the war industry. Pelosi couldn't really push
against Bush over torture, etc. because she had been on an elite congressional committee
– the House Intelligence Committee – during the Bush years in office which starting in
2003 was dedicated to making sure that torture could and would become normalized and
entirely legal.
It seems Pelosi can't even go anywhere with this impeachment on Trump today, and therefore
doesn't even really plan to submit it to the Senate for the next stage .
The political stunt was pulled, a fireworks show consisting of one lonely rocket that sort of
fizzled off out of sight.
Trump emerges unscathed, and more to the point, we are closer to the election and his base
is even more energized. Pelosi spent the better part of three years inoculating the public
against any significance being attached to any impeachment procedure. Pelosi cried wolf so many
times, and Trump has made good on the opportunities handed to him to get his talking points in
order and to condition his base to receive and process the scandals in such and such way. This
wouldn't have been possible without Pelosi's help. Thanks in part to Pelosi and the DNC, Trump
appears primed for re-election.
Trump energizes his base, and the DNC suppresses and disappoints theirs. That's where the
election will be won or lost.
This may be a good time to pull on my yellow waters, and take a look at Trump's letter to
Pelosi, since his letter is simultaneously a parting shot as the House votes impeachement, and
--
assuming impeachment doesn't die in the House -- the opening gun not only for his trial in
the Senate but for election 2020.
Here is the letter ; if you have time, it's worth reading it to form your own opinions.
One tip to make reading Trump more tolerable is to hear him as a borscht belt comedian like
Rodney Dangerfield or Henny Youngman.
Clifford A. Rieders , who grew up with enduring memories of the borscht belt, commented in
2016:
The humorists spanned the spectrum from Yiddish-speaking Brooklynites to Midwestern
Protestants. Each comedian had a shtick. What exactly is a shtick? A "shtick" was an
approach, an act, a way of relating to people that could be funny, serious, entertaining or
crass, but always memorable in some way. Donald Trump is surging in the polls because he has
a shtick. He is very much like a borscht belt entertainer, memorable because of how he speaks
and the way he presents himself, rather than his content. The experts will have to parse the
substance of Trump's message, if any, but his entertainment value should not be
underestimated. He is making people sit up and take notice, whether he is hated, loved, or
whether he just makes people shrug their shoulders and giggle.
... ... ...
Even more amazingly, the Times leaves this passage, which occurs immediately before the
passage they corrected, uncorrected:
Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt. Against all evidence, and
regardless of the truth, you and your deputies claimed that my campaign colluded with the
Russians -- a grave, malicious, and slanderous lie, a falsehood like no other.
One must assume that the Times does not correct what it believes to be true. Therefore,
RussiaGate -- which the Times assiduously propagated, to its great profit -- is "a grave,
malicious, and slanderous lie"? Alrighty then.
Similarly:
What the Times is looking at is a blueprint for Trump's case to the voters in 2020. And yet
the Times can find only two corrections to make? If I were a liberal Democrat, I would be very,
very worried about 2020.
I'm not going to make an armchair diagnosis of Trump's mental state, or shoot fish in a
barrel with factchecking. Rather, I'm going to look at Trump's letter through the lens of his
schtick , or, using the seventy five-cent word, his rhetoric. (I will be the first to
say that Trump is not a superb technician; for an analysis of an orator who is, see NC
here on Julia Gillard .) First, I will show that Trump's letter falls naturally into two
parts: His defense against the indictment, and his 2020 case against the fitness of Democrats
to govern). Given that the text has such a structure, it's simply not tenable to call it an "
unhinged rant ," which disposes of the first mainstream response. Nor it is especially
useful to fact-check it, especially when the facts are so disputed[1], which disposes of the
second. Unfortunately, I cannot annotate the entire six-page letter, but I will comment on the
rhetoric used in each part. Now let's look at the two parts.
Here is the division point between the two parts. Using direct address (" inter se pugnantia "),
Trump writes:
There is nothing I would rather do than stop referring to your party as the Do-Nothing
Democrats. Unfortunately, I don't know that you will ever give me a chance to do so.
There are two reasons this paragraph marks a division. First, it's the first and only joke (
irony ). Second, it's
the first use of one of Trump's favorite figures: paralipsis , here saying something while pretending that one
does not wish to say it ("unfortunately," my sweet Aunt Fanny).
So, let us turn to the first part, Trump's defense. After some hyperbole about the
Constitution , Trump addresses each claim in the House indictment in turn. On (1) "Abuse of
Power," Trump responds that (A) "I had a totally innocent conversation with the President of
Ukraine," (B) "You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an
impeachable offense", (C) "you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what
Joe Biden has admitted he actually did," and (D) "President Zelensky has repeatedly declared
that I did nothing wrong." On (2), "Obstruction of Congress," Trump responds, (A) "if you make
a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power," (B) "you
have spent three straight years attempting to overturn the will of the American people and
nullify their votes," (C) "Congressman Adam Schiff cheated and lied all the way up to the
present day", and (D) "You and your party are desperate to distract," followed by the
accomplishedments listed in the second Times "correction" above." I've lettered and numbered
the responses because the structure is perfectly clear to those who are willing to look for it.
(There is a minor Twitter controversy over whether Trump wrote the letter himself, but I would
say he, like any President, has people for that. I think that Trump, for whatever reason, had a
lot more input into part two, for reasons I will show.)
A second feature of the first part is that it's virtually devoid of rhetorical devices:
Tricolon and
anaphora are the
only ones used frequently ("[1] no crimes, [2] no misdemeanors, and [3]
no offenses"; "[1] you are violating your oaths of office, [2] you
are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and [3] you are declaring
open war on American Democracy"; "[1]misquoted, [2]mischaracterized, and [3]fraudulently
misrepresented").
Now let's turn to the second part. Unlike the first part, it can't be represented with an
outline structure. Indeed, it might be considered to be grist for Trump's improvisations and
A/B testing on the trail. From
my post describing Trump's visit to Bangor :
I want to focus on how [Trump] made [his] points: He didn't just emit them in
bulleted-list form. Rather, he treated them as waypoints. He'd state the point, clearly and
loudly, and then begin to move away from it in ever-widening circles, riffing jazzily on
anecdotes, making jokes, introducing other talking points ("We're gonna build the wall"),
introducing additional anecdotes, until finally popping the topical stack and circling back
to the next waypoint, which he would then state, clearly and loudly; rinse, repeat. The
political class considers or at least claims Trump's speeches are random and disorganized,
but they aren't; any speech and debate person who's done improvisation knows what's going
on.
You can just see Trump cutting up bits of part two, revising some, discarding others,
re-arranging them, and so on.
The primary rhetorical device in the second part is tu quoque , colloquially "The pot calling the
kettle black." Here it is combined with anaphora (and a dash of tricolon and alliteration ):
You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the
ones subverting America's Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing Justice.
You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish
[1] p ersonal, [2] p olitical, and [3]p p artisan gain.
And here Trump combines tu quoque with straight up [A] ad hominem plus [B] mesarchia , [C] tricolon, [D] hyperbole , and [E]
ad populum .
(I have to change the notating system for this one because the devices are so numerous and
interlocked.)
Perhaps most insulting of all is [A]your false display of solemnity. You apparently have
so little respect for the American People that you expect them to believe that [B] you
are approaching this impeachment [C]somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly. [D]No
intelligent person believes what you are saying. Since the moment I won the election, the
Democrat Party has been possessed by Impeachment Fever. There is no reticence. This is not a
somber affair. [B] You are making a mockery of impeachment and you are
scarcely concealing [C]your hatred of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of
patriotic Americans. [E]The voters are wise, and they are seeing straight through this
[C]empty, hollow, and dangerous game you are playing.
Now, tu quoque is indeed a logical fallacy with respect to claims . But is it
a fallacy with respect to the right to govern, which is one way for Trump to structure the 2020
campaign?[1]
...A rhetorical analysis of Trump's letter shows that he will be a formidable opponent in
2020, and that he's crazy like a fox. Trump has form. His schtick has worked, and may well work
again.
It will come as a great shock to the dem establishment, a shock i tell you, that the
reporting they ignored coming from aaron mate and the other tinny (to their ears) voices to
their left was the
revealed truth
and could be wielded like a mighty club against them by trump
only not in the people's interest, because of course not, he's a republican
but anyway, who could have known? /s
as to Trump's charge of Do Nothing Democrats, the Democratic House has passed an entire
agenda of good things that the Senate has not acted upon. Also, is there ANY evidence to
suggest that African American unemployment is at an all time low? A favorite Trump technique
is to issue an obviously false statement as if it were true.
Overall rate, and rates by ethnicity have been declining since 2011, so record or near
record lows are recorded during the Trump years. YMMV as to how much Trump economic policies
have contributed to and/or not impeded the trend.
They have passed a few interesting bills. But how much time have they spent talking about
those bills, and other issues on which they want to move ahead for the people? Compared to
the media time sucked up by TrumpRussia, Impeachment, and the rest of the sh*tshow. I don't
watch any TV news, but to judge from headlines and other coverage I'll guess very little.
Thanks for the analysis. I'm not sure that the bit about the false display of solemnity is
an ad hominem. It seems to me that it would count as a fallacy if he were arguing that the
case against him is flawed for the reason that those making that case are bad people (people
who feign solemnity). But that's not how I read it.
I read it as an attempt to work up anger against his accusers. At one point in the
Rhetoric, Aristotle claims that people become angry with someone when they think they have
been slighted by that person. One way of slighting people is to take them for fools. This is
an insult. If Trump were right and Democrats really were feigning solemnity while gleefully
engaged in a narrowly self-interested effort to overturn an election, then Democrats would be
taking voters for fools. Many voters would find this insulting. Also, Aristotle thought that
angry people are moved to take revenge. This amounts to a desire to bring the insulting party
low. Bringing low, in this case, would surely involve voting against Democrats, punishing
them by keeping them out or throwing them out of high office.
I suppose, then, that this particular passage looks to me like good rhetoric as opposed to
fallacious argument. Or at least partly good. He seems to know what he's doing where pathos
is concerned.
Lambert describes President Trump's style as schtick but another way is to consider it as
a wrestling character named "President Trump." Remember President Trump was involved with the
WWE and had the owners wife Linda McMahon in his cabinet and she is now running a pro-Trump
super PAC.
Having grown up watching professional wrestling President Trump's campaign rallies are
exactly like a wrestling show. He is playing a character and has to be quick thinking and
able to ad-lib to manipulate the crowd's emotions. The crowd also has to become part of the
show as well and overreact to signal to the performer (in this case who happens to be the
President) they are engaged with the show. The baby face (Trump) is cheered loudly and the
heels (Democrats/media) are booed in an exaggerated manner.
This character development and ad-libbing/a b testing is then always in use when dealing
with the media and when tweeting. Since the President is a caricature his followers aren't
bothered by his incorrect statements and when the Democrats/media point out his
mis-statements it doesn't register because everyone knows wrestling is fake.
A rhetorical analysis of Trump's letter shows that he will be a formidable opponent in
2020, and that he's crazy like a fox.
Make America Great Again. Trump trademarked that saying 1 week after the 2012 election. He
isn't crazy he's sly like a fox.
I've been around for a while and my attitude is that all of these "prexies", with the
exception maybe of Ike, have been lying sacks of shit. Now while they all facilitated mass
thievery by their friends and associates (as the mob would say), they could have at least had
the good form to be funny. But no! They were all so earnest and sanctimonious. Kind of like
my parish priest handing out the wafers.
I probably spent way too many hours warming various bar-stools next to a variety of
knuckleheads, so I'm going to give Trump his due, OK? The guy has given me more chuckles,
laughs, guffaws and all around hilarity than six decades worth of well dressed socio-paths.
And as a bonus, a big bonus, he has greatly discomforted all of the smartest grifters in the
room. Whenever I see the guy, Im in the Catskills.
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?
They are perhaps infiltrated by malicious actors, or positioning for something bigger? The
clarity of the critique mentioned above by Aaron Mate to me isn't mysterious or difficult to
find.
How about this:they are preparing for election 2024? I'm not joking.
Rodney Dangerfield? Don Rickles? Our political culture has truly been debased by popular
culture into a stand-up competition. Trump's base knows that he's channeling New Wave/Punk
comedians Sam Kinison and Bobcat Goldthwait.
Whose schtick eventually erased Kinison and the Bobcat's out-of-control nihilism from the
popular culture? The laid-back Jerry Seinfeld as written by Larry David -- yet another reason
to support Bernie Sanders over the other wooden Dem contenders. Did you see the "debate" on
SNL last weekend? Get them on a stage together and Bernie's schtick will slay Trump's
"... Currently the United States is assisting Ukraine against Russia by providing some non-lethal military equipment as well as limited training for Kiev's army. It has balked at getting more involved in the conflict, rightly so. ..."
"... The Ukrainians were not buying any of that. Their point of view is that Russia is seeking to revive the Soviet Union and will inevitably turn on the Baltic States and Poland, so it is necessary to stop evil dictator Vladimir Putin now. They inevitably produced the Hitler analogy, citing the example of 1938 and Munich as well as the subsequent partition of Poland in 1939 to make their case. When I asked what the United States would gain by intervening they responded that in return for military assistance, Washington will have a good and democratic friend in Ukraine which will serve as a bulwark against further Russian expansion. ..."
"... But Obama chose to stay home as punishment for Putin, which I think was a bad choice suggesting that he is being strongly influenced by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the other neocons who seem to have retained considerable power in his administration. ..."
"... Obama told a crowd gathered outside the Nike footwear company in Oregon that the deal is necessary because "if we don't write the rules, China will " ..."
"... Obama takes as a given that he will be able to "write the rules." This is American hubris writ large and I am certain that many who are thereby designated to follow Washington's lead are as offended by it as I am. Bad move Barack. ..."
Currently the United States is assisting Ukraine against Russia by providing some non-lethal military equipment as well as
limited training for Kiev's army. It has balked at getting more involved in the conflict, rightly so. With that in mind,
I had a meeting with a delegation of Ukrainian parliamentarians and government officials a couple of weeks ago. I tried to explain
to them why many Americans are wary of helping them by providing lethal, potentially game changing military assistance in what Kiev
sees as a struggle to regain control of Crimea and other parts of their country from militias that are clearly linked to Moscow.
I argued that while Washington should be sympathetic to Ukraine's aspirations it has no actual horse in the race, that the imperative
for bilateral relations with Russia, which is the only nation on earth that can attack and destroy the United States, is that they
be stable and that all channels for communication remain open.
I also observed that the negative perception of Washington-driven
democracy promotion around the world has been in part shaped by the actual record on interventions since 2001, which has not been
positive. Each exercise of the military option has wound up creating new problems, like the mistaken policies in Libya, Iraq and
Syria, all of which have produced instability and a surge in terrorism. I noted that the U.S. does not need to bring about a new
Cold War by trying to impose democratic norms in Eastern Europe but should instead be doing all in its power to encourage a reasonable
rapprochement between Moscow and Kiev. Providing weapons or other military support to Ukraine would only cause the situation to escalate,
leading to a new war by proxies in Eastern Europe that could rapidly spread to other regions.
The Ukrainians were not buying any of that. Their point of view is that Russia is seeking to revive the Soviet Union and will
inevitably turn on the Baltic States and Poland, so it is necessary to stop evil dictator Vladimir Putin now. They inevitably produced
the Hitler analogy, citing the example of 1938 and Munich as well as the subsequent partition of Poland in 1939 to make their case.
When I asked what the United States would gain by intervening they responded that in return for military assistance, Washington will
have a good and democratic friend in Ukraine which will serve as a bulwark against further Russian expansion.
I explained that Russia does not have the economic or military resources to dominate Eastern Europe and its ambitions appear to
be limited to establishing a sphere of influence that includes "protection" for some adjacent areas that are traditionally Russian
and inhabited by ethnic Russians. Crimea is, unfortunately, one such region that was actually directly governed by Moscow between
1783 and 1954 and it is also militarily vitally important to Moscow as it is the home of the Black Sea Fleet. I did not point that
out to excuse Russian behavior but only to suggest that Moscow does have an argument to make, particularly as the United States has
been meddling in Eastern Europe, including Ukraine where it has "invested" $5 billion, since the Clinton Administration.
I argued that if resurgent Russian nationalism actually endangered the United States there would be a case to be made for constricting
Moscow by creating an alliance of neighbors that would be able to help contain any expansion, but even the hawks in the U.S. Congress
are neither prepared nor able to demonstrate a genuine threat. Fear of the expansionistic Soviet Union after 1945 was indeed the
original motivation for creating NATO. But the reality is that Russia is only dangerous if the U.S. succeeds in backing it into a
corner where it will begin to consider the kind of disruption that was the norm during the Cold War or even some kind of nuclear
response or demonstration. If one is focused on U.S. interests globally Russia has actually been a responsible player, helping in
the Middle East and also against international terrorism.
So there was little to agree on apart from the fact that the Ukrainians have a right to have a government they choose for themselves
and also to defend themselves. And we Americans have in the Ukrainians yet another potential client state that wants our help. In
return we would have yet another dependency whose concerns have to be regarded when formulating our foreign policy. One can sympathize
with the plight of the Ukrainians but it is not up to Washington to fix the world or to go around promoting democracy as a potential
solution to pervasive regional political instability.
Obviously a discussion based on what are essentially conflicting interests will ultimately go nowhere and so it did in this case,
but it did raise the issue of why Washington's relationship with Moscow is so troubled, particularly as it need not be so. Regarding
Ukraine and associated issues, Washington's approach has been stick-and-carrot with the emphasis on the stick through the imposition
of painful sanctions and meaningless though demeaning travel bans. I would think that reversing that formulation to emphasize rewards
would actually work better as today's Russia is actually a relatively new nation in terms of its institutions and suffers from insecurity
about its place in the world and the respect that it believes it is entitled to receive.
Russia
recently celebrated the 70 th anniversary of the end of World War Two in Europe. The celebration was boycotted by
the United States and by many Western European nations in protest over Russian interference in Ukraine. I don't know to what extent
Obama has any knowledge of recent history, but the Russians were the ones who were most instrumental in the defeat of Nazi Germany,
losing 27 million citizens in the process. It would have been respectful for President Obama or Secretary of State John Kerry to
travel to Moscow for the commemoration and it would likely have produced a positive result both for Ukraine and also to mitigate
the concern that a new Cold War might be developing. But Obama chose to stay home as punishment for Putin, which I think was
a bad choice suggesting that he is being strongly influenced by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the other neocons
who seem to have retained considerable power in his administration.
And I also would note a couple of other bad choices made during the past several weeks. The Trans-Pacific multilateral trade agreement
that is currently working its way through Congress and is being aggressively promoted by the White House might be great for business
though it may or may not be good for the American worker, which, based on previous agreements, is a reasonable concern. But what
really disturbs me is the Obama explanation of why the pact is important. Obama
told a crowd gathered outside the Nike footwear company in Oregon that the deal is necessary because "if we don't write the rules,
China will "
Fear of the Yellow Peril might indeed be legitimate but it would be difficult to make the case that an internally troubled China
is seeking to dominate the Pacific. If it attempts to do so, it would face strong resistance from the Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipinos
and Koreans among others. But what is bothersome to me and probably also to many in the Asian audience is that Obama takes as
a given that he will be able to "write the rules." This is American hubris writ large and I am certain that many who are thereby
designated to follow Washington's lead are as offended by it as I am. Bad move Barack.
And finally there is Iran as an alleged state sponsor of terrorism. President Obama claims that he is working hard to achieve
a peaceful settlement of the alleged threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. But if that is so why does he throw obstacles irrelevant
to an agreement out to make the Iranian government more uncomfortable and therefore unwilling or unable to compromise? In an
interview with Arabic
newspaper Asharq al-Awsat Obama called Tehran a terrorism supporter, stating that "it [Iran] props up the Assad regime in
Syria. It supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It aids the Houthi rebels in Yemen so countries in the region
are rights to be deeply concerned " I understand that the interview was designed to reassure America's friends in the Gulf that the
United States shares their concerns and will continue to support them but the timing would appear to be particularly unfortunate.
The handling of Russia, China and Iran all exemplify the essential dysfunction in American foreign policy. The United States should
have a mutually respectful relationship with Russia, ought to accept that China is an adversary but not necessarily an enemy unless
we make it so and it should also finally realize that an agreement with Iran is within its grasp as long as Washington does not overreach.
It is not clear that any of that is well understood and one has to wonder precisely what kind of advice Obama is receiving when fails
to understand the importance of Russia, insists on "writing the rules" for Asia, and persists in throwing around the terrorist label.
If the past fifteen years have taught us anything it is that the "Washington as the international arbiter model" is not working.
Obama should wake up to that reality before Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush arrives on the scene to make everything worse.
Tom Welsh, May 19, 2015 at 7:02 am GMT • 100 Words
All of this misses the point, IMHO. There is really no need to explain that Russia has no plans to conquer Europe, China has
no plans to take over the Pacific, etc. Anyone with a little historical knowledge and some common sense can see that plainly.
What is happening is that the USA has overweening aspirations to control (and then suck dry) the entire world – and Europe, Russia
and China are next on its hit list.
So it naturally accuses those nations of aspiring to what it plans to do. Standard operating procedure.
The Priss Factor, May 19, 2015 at 7:19 am GMT • 100 Words
"The Ukrainians were not buying any of that. Their point of view is that Russia is seeking to revive the Soviet Union and will
inevitably turn on the Baltic States and Poland, so it is necessary to stop evil dictator Vladimir Putin now."
I can understand Ukrainian animus against Russia due to history and ethnic tensions.
But that is ridiculous. They can't possibly believe it. I think they're repeating Neocon talking points to persuade American
that the fate of the world is at stake.
It's really just a local affair.
And Crimea would still belong to Ukraine if the crazies in Ukraine hadn't conspired with Neocons like Nuland to subvert and
overthrow the regime.
"... Some, such as General David Petraeus , seem to sincerely believe that the U.S. was on the right track and could have made progress if only those pesky civilians in the Beltway hadn't pulled the rug out from under them by announcing a premature withdrawal. ..."
When Will the Afghan War Architects Be Held Accountable?
Even after the release of the Afghanistan Papers, our elites are still determined to escape
without blame. CERNOBBIO, ITALY - SEPTEMBER 06: Chairman of the KKR Global Institute David
Howell Petraeus attends the Ambrosetti International Economic Forum 2019 "Lo scenario
dell'Economia e della Finanza" on September 6, 2019 in Cernobbio, Italy. (Photo by Pier Marco
Tacca/Getty Images)
Almost two weeks after the Washington Post 's Craig Whitlock published his six-part
series on the trials, tribulations, and blunders of Washington's 19-year-long social science
experiment in Afghanistan, those involved in the war effort are desperately pointing fingers as
to who is to blame. An alternative narrative has emerged among this crop of elite policymakers,
military officers, and advisers that while American policy in Afghanistan has been horrible,
the people responsible for it really did believe it would all work out in the end. Call it the
"we were stupid" defense.
There were no lies or myths propagated by senior U.S. officials, we are told, just honest
assessments that later proved to be wrong. Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, who
has advised U.S. commanders on Afghanistan war policy, wrote that "no, there has not been a
campaign of disinformation, intentional or subliminal." Former defense secretary Jim Mattis,
who led CENTCOM during part of the war effort, called the Post 's reporting "not really
news" and was mystified that the unpublished interviews from the U.S. special inspector general
were generating such shock. Others have faulted the Post for publishing the material to
begin with, claiming that public disclosure would scare future witnesses from cooperating and
threaten other fact-finding inquiries (the fact that the newspaper was legally permitted to
publish the transcripts after winning a court case against the government is apparently
irrelevant in the minds of those making this argument).
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
All of these claims and counter-claims should be seen for what they truly are: the flailings
of a policymaking class so arrogant and unaccountable that it can't see straight. That they're
blaming the outrage engendered by the Afghanistan Papers on anything other than themselves is
Exhibit A that our narcissistic policy elite is cocooned in their own reality.
Analysts have been pouring over the Afghanistan interview transcripts for over a week in
order to determine how the war went wrong. Some of the main lessons learned have long been
evident. The decision to impose a top-down democratic political order on a country that
operated on a system of patronage and tribal systems from the bottom-up was bound to be
problematic. Throwing tens of billions of dollars of reconstruction assistance into a nation
that had no experience managing that kind of money -- or spending it properly -- helped fuel
the very nationwide corruption Washington would come to regret. Paying off warlords to fight
the Taliban and keep order while pressuring those very same warlords into following the rules
was contradictory. The mistakes go on and on and on: as Lieutenant General Douglas Lute said,
"We didn't have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking."
One of the most salient findings about this ghastly two-decade-long misadventure surfaced
after the Afghanistan Papers were released: the commentariat will stop at nothing to absolve
themselves of the slightest responsibility for the disaster they supported. The outright
refusal of the pundit class to own up to its errors is as disturbing as it is infuriating. And
even when they do acknowledge that errors were committed, they tend to minimize their own role
in those mistakes, explaining them away as unfortunate consequences of fixed withdrawal
deadlines, inter-agency tussling, Afghanistan's poor foundational state, or the inability of
the Afghans to capitalize on the opportunities Washington provided them. Some,
such as General David Petraeus , seem to sincerely believe that the U.S. was on the right
track and could have made progress if only those pesky civilians in the Beltway hadn't pulled
the rug out from under them by announcing a premature withdrawal.
It's always somebody else's fault.
Whether out of arrogance, ego, or fear of not being taken seriously in Washington's foreign
policy discussions, the architects of the war refuse to admit even the most obvious mistakes.
Instead they duck and weave like a quarterback escaping a full-on defensive rush, attempting
yet again to fool the American public.
But the public has nothing to apologize for. It is those who are making excuses who have
exercised disastrous judgment on Afghanistan. And they owe the country an apology.
Daniel R. DePetris is a columnist for the Washington Examiner and a contributor
to The American Conservative.
In May 2016, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, famously proclaimed that, "If
we [Republicans] nominate Trump, we will get destroyed and we will deserve it." Since then,
Graham has become one of President Donald Trump's staunchest defenders, making Graham the
target of critics who paint him as a hypocrite for repeatedly contradicting his previously
expressed stances.
In 2015, for example, Graham called Donald Trump a
"race-baiting xenophobic bigot," but by 2018 he was claiming that he had "never heard [Trump]
make a single racist statement." And in 1999, during impeachment proceedings against
President Bill Clinton (a Democrat), Graham asserted that an
impeachable offense "doesn't even have to be a crime," but then in 2019 Graham
challenged those calling for the impeachment of Trump to "show me something that is a
crime"
President Trump also had words for Pelosi on Monday after the Speaker called for "fairness"
in a Senate trial.
"Pelosi gives us the most unfair trial in the history of the U.S. Congress, and now she is
crying for fairness in the Senate, and breaking all rules while doing so," Trump tweeted,
adding "She lost Congress once, she will do it again!"
Pelosi gives us the most unfair trial in the history of the U.S. Congress, and now she is
crying for fairness in the Senate, and breaking all rules while doing so. She lost Congress
once, she will do it again!
Pelosi says she will only transmit the impeachment articles to the Senate after Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announces the process they will use for Trump's
trial.
The U.S. Senate trial for the Democratic Party's impeachment of President Donald Trump is in
limbo.
It's because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, pressing the Senate to comply with her demands, has
withheld the articles voted on by House Democrats.
Advertisement - story continues below
Some scholars, including a witness for the Democrats, believe the unprecedented move is
unconstitutional.
After all, that Constitution states: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all
Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the
President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall
be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
The Founders inserted no clause giving the House speaker authority to make such demands.
It's why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell believes Pelosi eventually will give up her
power play.
Advertisement - story continues below
Fox News reported McConnell believes Pelosi "seems to think she can dictate the rules of a
Senate impeachment trial."
McConnell, a Republican senator from Kentucky, said on "Fox & Friends," "She apparently
believes she can tell us how to run the trial."
But that is "absurd," he said, saying she'll back down "sooner or later."
"We can't do anything until the speaker sends the papers over, so everybody enjoy the
holidays," McConnell said.
The Fox report explained Pelosi was trying "to pressure the Senate to agree to certain terms
for a trial."
Advertisement - story continues below
"She indicated the House would eventually send the articles over to the upper chamber but
insisted it is up to the Senate to determine how the process develops going forward," the
report said.
She doubled down on Monday, Fox News reported.
"The House cannot choose our impeachment managers until we know what sort of trial the
Senate will conduct," Pelosi said. "President Trump blocked his own witnesses and documents
from the House, and from the American people, on phony complaints about the House process. What
is his excuse now?"
Pelosi was referring to the contempt of Congress article of impeachment. The White House
argues it has the right to dispute any subpoenas for witnesses or documents and that such
disputes should be resolved in court.
Advertisement - story continues below
McConnell has argued for following the precedent of the Clinton impeachment.
"You listen to the opening arguments, you have a written question period, and at that point,
in the Clinton trial, we had a decision about which witnesses to call and, as you can imagine,
that was a pretty partisan exercise, but we didn't let the partisan part of it keep us from
getting started so all I'm doing is saying what was good for President Clinton is good for
President Trump," McConnell said.
President Trump has been mocking Pelosi's delay in presenting the articles of impeachment to
the Senate. He said the Senate can invalidate the articles if they're not delivered by a
certain date.
The president said on Twitter: "Pelosi feels her phony impeachment HOAX is so pathetic she
is afraid to present it to the Senate, which can set a date and put this whole SCAM into
default if they refuse to show up! The Do Nothings are so bad for our Country!"
Advertisement - story continues below
McConnell previously dismissed claims by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who has been
lobbying for impeachment for months, that the senators overseeing the trial should be
"impartial."
"Do you think Chuck Schumer is impartial? Do you think Elizabeth Warren is impartial? Bernie
Sanders is impartial?" McConnell said.
"So let's quit the charade. This is a political exercise. All I'm asking of Schumer is that
we treat Trump the same way we treated Clinton."
Schumer, contradicting himself, has claimed he could be an impartial juror in the Senate
even though he's already claimed Trump is guilty.
"Bruce Fein, a former senior official in the Department of Justice and a constitutional
scholar, has identified 12 impeachable offenses committed by Donald Trump. But, as he notes,
many of these constitutional violations are not unique to the Trump administration. They have
been normalized by Democratic and Republican administrations."
Impeachment blues: Can you believe the empire cant even manage a decent impeachment. There is
a broad debate going on in the crazed land of U$A and it turns on this
contradiction .
THIS empire is a lethal threat to our planet and they cock up all they touch. Can you
believe they held an impeachment hearing in the House of Representatives and didn't have the
accused present? They relied on a whistleblower that was prohibited to attend because he may
be revealed yet everyone knew Ciaramella was the leaker (whistleblower) relying on hearsay
evidence. There are no rules of natural justice in the U$A empire. Mendacity uber
alles.
John H. Durham, the United States attorney leading the investigation, has requested Mr.
Brennan's emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed
on his inquiry. He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including the former
F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.'s views of a notorious dossier of
assertions about Russia and Trump associates.
... ... ...
Mr. Durham is also examining whether Mr. Brennan privately contradicted his public comments,
including May
2017 testimony to Congress , about both the dossier and about any debate among the
intelligence agencies over their conclusions on Russia's interference, the people said.
... ... ..
"The president bore the burden of probably one of the greatest conspiracy theories --
baseless conspiracy theories -- in American political history," Mr. Barr told Fox News. He has
long expressed skepticism that the F.B.I. had enough information to begin its inquiry in 2016,
publicly criticizing an inspector general report released last week that affirmed that the
bureau did.
Mr. Barr has long been
interested in the conclusion about Mr. Putin ordering intervention on Mr. Trump's behalf,
perhaps the intelligence report's most explosive assertion. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported
high confidence in the conclusion, while the N.S.A., which conducts electronic surveillance,
had a moderate degree of confidence.
... ... ...
Critics of the intelligence assessment, like Representative Chris Stewart, Republican of
Utah, said the C.I.A.'s sourcing failed to justify the high level of confidence about Moscow's
intervention on behalf of Mr. Trump.
"I don't agree with the conclusion, particularly that it's such a high level of confidence,"
Mr. Stewart said, citing raw intelligence that he said he reviewed.
"I just think there should've been allowances made for some of the ambiguity in that and
especially for those who didn't also share in the conclusion that it was a high degree of
confidence," he added.
Mr. Durham's investigators also want to know more about the discussions that prompted
intelligence community leaders to include Mr. Steele's allegations in the
appendix of their assessment.
Mr. Brennan has repeatedly said, including in his 2017 congressional testimony, that the
C.I.A. did not rely on the dossier when it helped develop the assessment, and the former
director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has also testified before lawmakers that the
same was true for the intelligence agencies more broadly. But Mr. Trump's allies have long
asked pointed questions about the dossier, including how it was used in the intelligence
agency's assessment.
Some C.I.A. analysts and officials insisted that the dossier be left out of the assessment,
while some F.B.I. leaders wanted to include it and bristled at its relegation to the appendix.
Their disagreements were captured in the highly anticipated report released last week
by Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, examining aspects of the
F.B.I.'s Russia investigation.
Mr. Steele's information "was a topic of significant discussion within the F.B.I. and with
the other agencies participating in drafting" the declassified intelligence assessment about
Russia interference, Mr. Horowitz wrote. The F.B.I. shared Mr. Steele's information with the
team of officials from multiple agencies drafting the assessment.
Mr. Comey also briefed Mr. Brennan and other top Obama administration intelligence officials
including the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, and Mr. Clapper
about the bureau's efforts to assess the information in the dossier, Mr. Comey told the
inspector general. He said that analysts had found it to be "credible on its face."
... ... ...
Andrew G. McCabe, then the deputy director of the F.B.I., pushed back, according to the
inspector general report, accusing the intelligence chiefs of trying to minimize Mr. Steele's
information.
Ultimately the two sides compromised by placing Mr. Steele's material in the appendix. After
BuzzFeed News published the dossier in January 2017, days after the intelligence assessment
about Russia's election sabotage was released, Mr. Comey complained to Mr. Clapper about his
decision to publicly state that the intelligence community "has not made any judgment" about
the document's reliability.
Mr. Comey said that the F.B.I. had concluded that Mr. Steele was reliable, according to the
inspector general report. Mr. Clapper ignored Mr. Comey, the report said.
"... Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon pulled no punches in an interview with Fox Business Network's Trish Regan saying that the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump will be the "trial of the century." ..."
"... Bannon said Republicans ought to "turn the tables" on Democrats and demand a full trial that will force it to go into the Democratic presidential primary. ..."
"... "I think you ought to demand a full trial, where to get witnesses -- and, hey, if it takes too long, it's the Democrats to force this constitutional crisis over the Christmas holidays. If this trial goes on for a month or two into the Democratic primary, that's a tough break for them. They're the ones that forced this. One of the reasons they forced it is their field is so weak going in there. Nobody cares. Like I said, witness protection program. Nobody cares about their debate. They're the ones that force this. " ..."
"... "... this is the managed decline of the United States. This is about the Washington consensus. The Washington Post published the Afghanistan papers last week. Two trillion dollars. 2,400 dead. Tens of thousands wounded. What's that? That's the inter-agency consensus in 18 years that betrayed our country. That's what betrayed our countries. With Brennan, that's what betrayed our country, not Donald Trump. Donald Trump has stood up. The reasons people cheer for him, it's their sons and daughters that have died in Afghanistan. It's their lives, their kids' lives being thrown away, and their tax dollars. " ..."
Having blasted the liberal elites earlier in the week for
"not giving a f**k" about the average joe in America:
"Look, this is what drives me nuts about the left. All immigration is to flood the zone
with cheap labour, and the reason is because the elites don't give a fuck about African
Americans and the Hispanic working class . They don't care about the white working class
either. You're just a commodity" .
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon pulled no punches in an interview with
Fox Business Network's Trish Regan saying that the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald
Trump will be the "trial of the century."
" I think this trial is going to be the trial of the century, a nd the mainstream media is
going to be all over it," Bannon said.
"That's why I think it's so important not just for his legacy, but for his presidency and
his second term. He's got to engage in this. He's got to take them on. He's got to have the
whistleblower; we have to have the Bidens in front of the nation and the world. They're going
to have to stand and deliver under oath. And we're going to get to the bottom of this . And I
think that's going to lead to an exoneration, not just an acquittal, but an exoneration of
President Trump."
Bannon said Republicans ought to "turn the tables" on Democrats and demand a full trial
that will force it to go into the Democratic presidential primary.
"I think you ought to demand a full trial, where to get witnesses -- and, hey, if it
takes too long, it's the Democrats to force this constitutional crisis over the Christmas
holidays. If this trial goes on for a month or two into the Democratic primary, that's a
tough break for them. They're the ones that forced this. One of the reasons they forced it is
their field is so weak going in there. Nobody cares. Like I said, witness protection program.
Nobody cares about their debate. They're the ones that force this. "
Bannon went on to reiterate his belief that Hillary Clinton will "inevitably" be the
Democratic Presidential nominee... but will lose... again:
" Hillary Clinton comes in at the moment that she feels that she can step in to save the
Democratic Party and try to convince people that a rematch with President Trump is the best
way that they have to try to defeat President Trump," Bannon said.
"They won't beat him. Right now, there's nobody, including Hillary Clinton out there, that
can beat Donald Trump. But they're going to get desperate here because look at tonight.
Nobody cares about this debate, this debate's in Los Angeles."
Finally, the former strategist raged against "the Washington Consensus":
"... this is the managed decline of the United States. This is about the Washington
consensus. The Washington Post published the Afghanistan papers last week. Two trillion
dollars. 2,400 dead. Tens of thousands wounded. What's that? That's the inter-agency
consensus in 18 years that betrayed our country. That's what betrayed our countries. With
Brennan, that's what betrayed our country, not Donald Trump. Donald Trump has stood up. The
reasons people cheer for him, it's their sons and daughters that have died in Afghanistan.
It's their lives, their kids' lives being thrown away, and their tax dollars. "
And that, Bannon exclaimed, is why we need a trial in the Senate to expose the swamp.
"And they understand that Donald Trump is fighting that. That's why we need a trial, a
real trial and Senate with witnesses. So, before the world, Donald Trump could get his day in
court. "
Trish Regan: I do believe the president heard that she wants to run again from this show,
from none other than Mr. Stephen Bannon here on set with me, who talked about Hillary Clinton
getting back in potentially again. And also, you called Bloomberg as well. So, Bloomberg's in,
is Hillary going to join?
Steve Bannon: I think it's inevitable. They had a poll out today that showed Biden at like
28, Bernie 21, Elizabeth Warren in the high teens. It looks like something that's going to get
to a -- particularly with Super Tuesday, when Biden drops the nuclear weapon of his money on
these in these big states. It's going to lead to a brokered convention. Hillary Clinton, I
think, is going to come in when it's evident that none of the radical left of the Democratic
Party can beat the President Trump --
[cross talk]
Steve Bannon: -- A brokered convention. I think Hillary Clinton comes in at the moment that
she feels that she can step in to save the Democratic Party and try to convince people that a
rematch with President Trump is the best way that they have to try to defeat President Trump.
They won't beat him. Right now, there's nobody, including Hillary Clinton out there, that can
beat Donald Trump. But they're going to get desperate here because look at tonight. Nobody
cares about this debate, this debate's in Los Angeles.
Trish Regan : They should be watching you.
Steve Bannon: Well, I'm talking about on MSNBC and CNN and their networks. They're not
they're not running around saying, this thing is great. They understand these people, not just
are boring, it's not just about their star quality, it's what they're talking about is so off
the mainstream, it's not connecting with people. And they're going to start getting desperate.
Remember, their number one thing is that Donald Trump is an existential threat to the
Democratic Party, to the established order and to the mainstream media, and they will do
anything to take him down and destroy him. In particular, you saw last night what he's talking
about to the people; hey, they're trying to come after you, they're trying to come after me to
get to you. We are in this together. And he saw people respond to that. That response of that
audience last night for two hours, that stood out for hours in, what, 15- or 17-degree cold is
quite remarkable.
Trish Regan: What I find remarkable and, you know, we can say this is a couple Irishmen --
or Irishman and an Irishwoman. You think about traditional Democrats, right? And I think about
my family and how my dad's family was, historically, big Irish Catholic family and you were a
Democrat like you're Catholic. Like, it was part of your religion, right? And, you know, my --
and if you were lucky enough, you got a job in the union. And so, there was a feeling that you
always voted blue, and that has changed.
Steve Bannon: Last night you saw that. He's connected with working class -- listen to this.
It's the reason he won Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa. States they never thought
we'd win again. And altogether because he went and he got, you know, Democrats, blue collar
Democrats to vote for it and they believe in it. And they're seeing -- here's the thing they're
seeing, the manifestation of his actions are making their lives better. You know, the Zogby
poll today said that 53 percent of Democrats think that their party is spending too much time
on impeachment instead of getting things done legislatively. It is so --
Trish Regan: And they got that right. And it's not just, you know, we talk about Irish
Americans. I mean, I look at the African American population right now and you look at some of
the poll numbers there. And he's doing extremely well in a way that you wouldn't really think
he would with that particular population, given the media.
Steve Bannon: Well that's what the immigration policy -- remember everything was to make
sure that wasn't more labor pressure on African Americans and Hispanics. That's why you seen
the approval rate -- I think it's 34 percent of African Americans approve now by Pew, and 36
percent of Hispanics. Because you're seeing wages starting to rise. People -- unemployment's at
historic lows, wages starting to rise. That's why I think it's so important, since they've
smeared him in this process. He didn't get to call any witnesses in this trial. And I think
this trial will be -- it's going to be the trial of the century, and the mainstream media is
going to be all over it. That's why I think it's so important not just for his legacy, but for
his presidency and his second term. He's got to engage in this. He's got to take them on. He's
got to have the whistleblower; we have to have the Bidens in front of the nation and the world.
They're going to have to stand and deliver under oath. And we're going to get to the bottom of
this. And I think that's going to lead to an exoneration, not just an acquittal, but an
exoneration of President Trump.
Trish Regan: The trial of the century. Wow. You know, a lot of people are worried, well, you
get John Bolton. What is he going to do? What is John Bolton going to say? And what is this one
going to say? What is that one going to say? What do you say to those concerns?
Steve Bannon: The president -- the call was perfect. He looked at everything that led up to
it. This is why the American people heard him. And you just saw the bureaucrats that were in it
that were testified. This is because that is the managed decline of the United States. This is
about the Washington consensus. The Washington Post published the Afghanistan papers last week.
Two trillion dollars. 2,400 dead. Tens of thousands wounded. What's that? That's the
inter-agency consensus in 18 years that betrayed our country. That's what betrayed our
countries. With Brennan, that's what betrayed our country, not Donald Trump. Donald Trump has
stood up. The reasons people cheer for him, it's their sons and daughters that have died in
Afghanistan. It's their lives, their kids' lives being thrown away, and their tax dollars. And
they understand that Donald Trump is fighting that. That's why we need a trial, a real trial
and Senate with witnesses. So, before the world, Donald Trump could get his day in court.
Trish Regan: And you call them all. Disruption, right? It is the decade of disruption, and
you're one of the main disruptors there, according to The Wall Street Journal. In fact, one of
the most powerful people here in Washington, the power players. Can we see that? So, you're in
some pretty significant company, there Mr. Bannon.
Steve Bannon: Well, I got the disrupt look on President Trump. As President Trump says, I'm
his top student and that's where the top student got for being the top student. I got my
slot.
Trish Regan: Well, listen, we appreciate you being here tonight for that.
Steve Bannon: Thank you for having me, Trish.
Trish Regan: Very interesting insight, as always, Steve Bannon. I do want to point out to
everyone they can listen to you every day. You can tune into a syndicated radio show and
podcast on iTunes, War Room: Impeachment. Well, that's aptly named. It airs seven days a week.
Forgive me, I was thinking weekdays. Seven days a week, you're on the case.
Steve Bannon: Got to do it. Thank you so much for having me.
Speaking of Steve Bannon, here's what he had to say about Trump and conspiracy theories he
(Bannon) cooked up to distract the rubes and yahoos. From a review of Michael Wolff's book,
Siege: Trump Under Fire:
" . . . Wolff’s guide, the major-domo of Trump’s 2016 campaign who became a
White House adviser until he wasn’t, enjoys tweaking his former boss. Bannon volunteers
that he helped concoct the story that the Mueller investigation was the demon spawn of the
“deep state”, and says there was never much substance to it.
As Wolff tells it, “among the nimblest conspiracy provocateurs of the Trump age,
Bannon spelled out the … narrative in powerful detail”. But then Bannon’s
voice pierces his own self-generated din: “You do realize … that none of this is
true.” Allow that one to sink in.
Wolff also has Bannon calling the Trump Organization a criminal enterprise and
predicting its downfall : “This is where it isn’t a witch-hunt – even
for the hardcore, this is where he turns into just a crooked business guy … Not the
billionaire he said he was, just another scumbag.” Allow that to sink in, too.
Expect Bannon to be quoted by Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the
eventual Democratic candidate. Also look for the Democratic National Committee to send
chocolates to Bannon, once head of Breitbart and a partner in Cambridge Analytica, next
Easter."
Bannon is trying to save the now compromised and degenerated system throughout the West by
reversing the trend line, the social basis for determining a self-reform is there but the
opposing forces are those that manage real power.
Here's a key point - on June 12, Assange announces that Wikileaks will soon be releasing
info pertinent to Hillary. HE DOES NOT SAY THAT HE WILL BE RELEASING DNC EMAILS.
And yet, on June 14, Crowdstrike reports a Russian hack of the DNC servers - and a day later, Guccifer
2.0 emerges and proclaims himself to be the hacker, takes credit for the upcoming Wikileaks
DNC releases, publishes the Trump oppo research which Crowdstrike claimed he had taken, and
intentionally adds "Russian footprints" to his metadata.
So how did Crowdstrike and G2.0 know
that DNC EMAILS would be released?
Because, as Larry postulates, the US intelligence
community had intercepted communications between Seth Rich and Wikileaks in which Seth had
offered the DNC emails (consistent with the report of Sy Hersh's source within the FBI).
So
US intelligence tipped off the DNC that their emails were about to be leaked to Wikileaks.
That's when the stratagem of attributing the impending Wikileaks release to a Russian hack
was born - distracting from the incriminating content of the emails, while vilifying the Deep
State's favorite enemies, Assange and Russia, all in one neat scam.
Re: Ukraine games and the Democrats. There is much in this article I have not heard before.
Many very specific and therefore potentially testable allegations.
Isikoff is a part of conspiracy to depose Trump. and it shows.
OK. Let's assume that will drag the trial all the
January. Then what ?
If we believe polls it is amazing how brainwashed US public is: to assume that
marionette government has any say in what to do is the upper level of naivety: " Removing Trump from office (a step beyond impeachment) had the support of just under half
(49 percent) of registered voters
in the Yahoo News/YouGov poll . On the factual basis for the two articles of impeachment,
53 percent of registered voters said Trump abused his power in demanding help from Ukraine;
only 40 percent said he did not. Fifty-one percent said the president obstructed Congress;
again, only 40 percent said he did not."
Notable quotes:
"... Michael Isikoff was involved with Clinton and the Russian Dossier. ..."
A House Democrat who played a key role in the impeachment of President Trump says the House
should not "roll over" and quickly present the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a
trial that would amount to a "farce."
"We're not going to participate in a process that makes a mockery out of the Constitution,"
said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a member of the House Judiciary Committee, who presented the
panel's case for impeachment to the House Rules Committee. Raskin has been widely mentioned as
a candidate to be one of the House managers to prosecute the case in an impeachment trial in
the Senate. "We are not gonna roll over and say, yeah, you can give us some drive-through
justice with one afternoon where everything is dealt with on a motion to dismiss and no
evidence is heard.
"My position is that, so long as they do not make the most minimal provisions for a fair
trial, then we should not participate in a farce."
Although Raskin emphasized he was speaking for himself, his comments on the Yahoo News
"Skullduggery" podcast illustrate the competing pressures House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is under
from her own caucus in the aftermath of the historic vote to impeach the president, which was
supported by virtually all House Democrats -- and not a single Republican. Public opinion among
registered voters shows a narrow (50-45)
plurality favoring impeachment , according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll.
After the passage of the two articles of impeachment on Wednesday evening -- one for abuse
of power, the other for obstruction of Congress -- Pelosi has held off presenting them to the
Senate, citing doubts that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will permit a "fair" trial.
McConnell has said he will coordinate his efforts with the White House and has made up his mind
not to vote for conviction. Removal of the president requires a two-thirds majority in the
Senate, which Republicans control by a 53-47 margin.
Pelosi's move -- as the House adjourned for a two-week holiday break on Thursday -- has
created a new layer of uncertainty over when, or even if, the Senate will actually try the
president. Republicans have already jumped over Pelosi's tactics, accusing her of political
gamesmanship that undermines the solemnity with which Democrats presented the case against the
president.
But Raskin, one of the House's more progressive members, says it is McConnell's own comments
-- vowing to work with White House lawyers to ensure the acquittal of the president -- that
have made a mockery of impeachment.
"To say that you're not going to look at the evidence or the facts would get you
disqualified from every jury pool in the United States of America," Raskin said. "If you were
in a voir dire and the judge said to you, 'Will you pay attention to the facts? Will you pay
attention to the evidence? Will you pay attention to the law?' and you say, 'No. I've already
made up my mind,' you would be dismissed immediately."
Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo were blocked from appearing before the House during its
impeachment hearings by a White House claim that any conversations they had with the president
were shielded by executive privilege. Trump's defenders say the House could have tried to
compel their testimony by subpoena. But the certainty that White House lawyers would have
fought those subpoenas all the way up to the Supreme Court would have put off action until well
into next year, Raskin said.
"It just takes a very long time."
Raskin acknowledged that impeachment by its nature is both a judicial and political process
-- and that Pelosi's maneuvering is intended at least in part to put public heat on McConnell
to accede to the demand for witnesses.
"We want the country to put serious pressure on the Senate to conduct the trial with
seriousness," Raskin said. "And the polls show, for example, on the question of witnesses, that
even though I think only 51 percent or 52 percent of the people are declaring themselves right
now in favor of impeachment and removal, like 70 percent of the people are saying, 'Yes, the
president should make all witnesses available.'"
Removing Trump from office (a step beyond impeachment) had the support of just under half
(49 percent) of registered voters
in the Yahoo News/YouGov poll . On the factual basis for the two articles of impeachment,
53 percent of registered voters said Trump abused his power in demanding help from Ukraine;
only 40 percent said he did not. Fifty-one percent said the president obstructed Congress;
again, only 40 percent said he did not.
How effective Pelosi's strategy will be is far from clear. While President Trump is seeking
a quick Senate trial in January so he can proclaim vindication as he runs for reelection,
McConnell has suggested he is happy to forget the whole thing. "Do you think this is leverage,
to not send us something we'd rather not do?" he said to reporters this week. And with those
words, noted New York Times reporter Carl Hulse, the Senate majority leader " cracked a
broad smile outside the Senate chamber in a departure from his usual dour expression."
yesterday
Michael Isikoff was involved with
Clinton and the Russian Dossier. ThisSkullduggeryGroup is
another TokyoRoseYellowJournalistic attempt at presenting
propagandist commentaries as news articles.
Isekoff has replaced Marrissa Mayer
at Yawho News that's all.
There are many fake posters on the
message boards. They are not really fellow U.S.Citizens
and can easily be recognized by their one line insults
that have nothing to do with debate and only to do with
creating a hostile environment between so called liberals
and so called conservatives who I prefer to call
U.S.Citizens. Our differences are not that far apart but
there are Globalist, Anarchist, and other forces in this
country and outside of this country that would love to
see our country collapse and that we also discard our
Constitution and our freedoms protected under that
document.
Cass Sunstein
ObolaCzar proposed government
'infiltrate' social network sitesCassSunstein wants
agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards.
Published: 01/12/2012 at 10:56 PM
Just prior to his appointment as
President Obama's so-called regulatory czar,CassSunstein
wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government
should "infiltrate" social network websites, chat rooms
and message boards.Such "cognitive infiltration,"Sunstein
argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban
on "conspiracy theorizing."
Major Obama donor and former Google
executive Marissa Mayer will take the helm at Yahoo! as the
company's new CEO Tuesday In May, Neilsen listed
theYahooABC NewsNetwork as the leading news site on the
Web in the U.S., makingMayer the head of the
largest news site on the Web.
She
is also a major donor to both PresidentBarackObama and
the DemocraticParty.According to the Center for
ResponsivePolitics; in April 2011Mayer donated two
separate amounts of $2,500 dollars to Obama, and one
large sum of $30,800 to the Democratic National
committee.
Data from political data firm Aristotle, as
reported by the HuffingtonPost, reveals that, in the
second quarter of 2011,Mayer also contributed $35,800 to
Obama Victory Fund 2012.
Asked whether Mayer's political
leanings would not affect the editorial direction ofYahoo!, Yahoo nor Mayer returned The DC's request for
comment by the time of publication. [Full
Disclosure:TheDCandYahoo! have an editorial partnership.]
Well, maybe if Nancy used her
position to actually help the American economy instead of
using her political position to line the pockets of
herself, her husband and their cronies, she might have
remained Speaker.
Why do I say that ? Since Nancy has been "serving" the
nation in D.C., she has increased her personal wealth by
$100 MILLION. Not a typo. How did she do that ? According
to various bios, "good investing". What that really means
is insider trading. You, I and Martha Stewart go to jail
if we get caught doing that, but it was perfectly okay
for members of congress until exposed and the passing of
S.T.O.C.K ( Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge ) Act
in April 2012. The Act prohibited the use of non-public
information for private profit, including insider trading
by members of Congress and other government employees.
But, thanks to Nancy's piggish greed and abuse of her
position, she bought stocks in at least 8 Initial Public
Offerings (IPOs), with insider knowledge. If you have any
friends in the securities industry, ask them how
difficult it is to get in on even one IPO, let alone
eight. Pelosi’s husband’s purchase of shares in the 2008
initial public offering by Visa Inc as Congress was
considering new credit card regulations. Within two days
of the Visa offering, the 5,000 shares purchased by Paul
Pelosi had risen $20 each.
Nancy's greed led to the addition of the "Pelosi
Provision" to the S.T.O.C.K. Act.
The Pelosi provision prohibits members of Congress,
executive branch officials and their staffs from
receiving special access to initial public offerings
because of their position.
So, Nancy "led" a House that was in power during 10%
Unemployment. Lost control of the House while a Democrat
was in the White House and Democrat majority in the
Senate.
Meanwhile, Nancy was looking out for #1, big time.
"... Are the security forces loyal to him to the extent that he could realistically counted on them to carry out a crackdown on
the "Nazis"? ..."
"... I am sympathetic to a lot of what Putin has felt it necessary to do, but I must say, I don't buy the incessant use of the term
"Ukronazi." Sounds propagandistic. ..."
"... What about the Ukrainian people? A large majority of them voted for some sort of reconciliation with the separatists and Russia.
They did so twice: once for Zelenskii, and once again for his party. Does that count for nothing? ..."
"... I think the plan is to wait until Russia collapses from Western sanctions, and then invade Crimea and Donbass. They didn't
give up on the territory by any means, which is why I don't think that any ceasefire in Donbass will hold. It is going to remain a slow-burning
conflict, the regime will continue to complain about "Russian invasion" and international investors will continue to avoid the Ukraine.
..."
The recent Paris summit and the few days following the summit have brought a lot of clarity about the future of the Minsk Agreements.
Short version: Kiev has officially rejected them (by rejecting both the sequence of steps and several crucial steps). For those interested,
let's look a little further.
First, what just happened
First, here are the key excerpts from the Paris Conference and from statements made by "Ze" and his superior, Arsen Avakov right
after their return to Kiev:
The Minsk agreements (Minsk Protocol of 5 September 2014, Minsk Memorandum of 19 September 2014 and the Minsk Package of Measures
of 12 February 2015) continue to be the basis of the work of the Normandy format whose member states are committed to their
full implementation ( ) The sides express interest in agreeing within the Normandy format (N4) and the Trilateral Contact
Group on all the legal aspects of the Special Order of Local Self-Government – special status – of Certain Areas of the Donetsk
and Luhansk Regions – as outlined in the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements from 2015 – in order
to ensure its functioning on a permanent basis .They consider it necessary to incorporate the "Steinmeier formula" into the Ukrainian
legislation, in accordance with the version agreed upon within the N4 and the Trilateral Contact Group.
President 'Ze' statement on Ukrainian TV: (unofficial, in-house, translation) source
" The most difficult question is the question of the transfer of the border control to Ukraine. It's very funny, because
its our border and the transfer of the control to us. But, it's a weak sport, the Achilles' heel of the Minsk Agreement." "It's
what was signed by us, unfortunately. We can discuss this for a very long time. Possibly, the conditions were as such." "But we
signed that we will get the control over our border only after the elections on the temporarily occupied territories." "We dedicated
a very long time to this question, we discussed it in details, we have a very different positions with the president of
Russia ." "But this is the Minsk position, we have to understand this. I only like one thing, that we started talking about
this. We agreed that we will continue talking about this in details and with the different variations during our next meeting."
"This is also a victory, because we will have a meeting in four months."
Q. What do you think, is it possible to change the Minsk Agreement? source
" This will be very difficult to do, but we have to do it. We have to change it . First, we have to understand
that it's been over four years since the Minsk Agreement was signed. Everything changes in our life. We have to understand that
it wasn't my team that signed the Minsk Agreement, but we as a power have to fulfill the conditions that our power at the time
agreed back then. But? I am sure that some things we will be able to change. We will be changing them." "Because the transfer
of the Ukraine's border after our control only after the elections, – it's not our position. I said about this don't know how
many times, but this is the final decision ."
Arsen Avakov's statement on Ukrainian TV: (unofficial, in-house, translation):
" The philosophy of the border control the part of the border that we don't have control over is 408 kilometers. It's not that
easy to take it over, to equip it, even to get there across the enemy territories. It's a procedure. As a compromise, we offered
the following scheme: we will start taking the border under our control stating with the New Year, little by little, reducing the
length of the border that is not controlled by us, and a day before the local election we will close the border, we will close this
bottleneck. And this way will get the control over the border. Why isn't this a good compromise? Considering, that at the same time
according to the Steinmeier Formula, they have to disarm all the illegal armed formations of this pseudo-state DNR. This is how we
see the compromise."
In other words, both the official President and real President of the Ukraine agree: the Ukraine will not implement the Minsk
Agreements as written, made law by the UNSC and clarified by the so-called Steinmeier Formula.
Ukrainian propagandists on Russian TV (yes, Urkonazi and hardline nationalist propagandists do get air time on Russian TV on a
daily basis – for an explanation why, see here and here ) went into damage
control mode and explained it all away by saying " these are only words, what matters is what Zelenskii signed in Paris ".
They are wrong. First of all, statements made in their official capacity by the President or the Minister of Internal Affairs do
represent OFFICIAL policy statements. Second, this explanation completely overlooks the reason why Ze and Avakov said these things.
That reason is very simple: Ze caved in to the Urkonazis, completely. He now uses EXACTLY the same rhetoric as Poroshenko did, in
spite of the fact that the only reason he was elected is that he presented himself as the ultimate anti-Poroshenko. Now all we see
is Poroshenko 2.0.
So in the behind-the-scenes (but very real) struggle between the Zionist camp (Kolomoiskii and Zelenskii) and the Urkonazi camp
(Avakov and Poroshenko), the latter have successfully taken control of the former and now the chances for saving a unitary Ukraine
are down to, maybe not quite zero, but to something like 0.0000001% (I leave that one under the heading "never say never" and because
I have been wrong in the past).
So what happens next?
That is the interesting question. In theory, the Normandy Four will meet again in 4 months. But that assumes that some progress
was made. Well, it is possible that in a few sections of the line of contact there will be an OSCE supervised withdrawal of forces.
But, let's be honest here, the people have seen many, many such promised withdrawals, and they all turned out to be fake. Either
the Ukronazis return to the neutral zone (claiming huge victories over the (sic) "Russian armed force"), or they resume bombing civilians,
or they never even bother to change position. Any withdrawal is a good thing if it can save a single life! But no amount of withdrawals
will settle anything in this conflict.
Second, there are A LOT of Ukrainian politicians who now say that the citizens of the LDNR have to "return" to Russia if they
don't like the Urkonazi coup or its ideology. They either don't realize, or don't care, that there are very few Russian volunteers
in Novorussia and that the vast majority of the men and women who compose the LDNR forces are locals. These locals, by the way, get
the Ukie message loud and clear: you better get away while you can, because when we show up you will all be prosecuted for terrorism
and aiding terrorists, that is ALSO something the Urkonazis like to repeat day after day. By the way, while in Banderastan all Russian
TV channels are censored, and while they also try to censor the Russian language Internet, in Novorussia all the Ukrainian (and Russian)
TV stations are freely available. So as soon as some Nazi freak comes out and says something crazy like "we will create filtration
camps" (aka concentration camps) this news is instantly repeated all over Novorussia, which only strengthens the resolve of the people
of the LDNR to fight to their death rather than accept a Nazi occupation..
I said it many times, Zelenskii's ONLY chance was to crackdown on the Nazis as soon as he was elected. He either did not have
the courage to do so, or his U.S. bosses told him to leave them unmolested. Whatever the case may be, it's now over, we are back
to square one.
The most likely scenario is a "slow freezing" of the conflict meaning now that Kiev has officially and overtly rejected the Minsk
Agreements, there will be some minor, pretend-negotiations, maybe, but that fundamentally the conflict will be frozen.
That will be the last nail in the coffin of the pro-EU, pro-NATO so-called "Independent Ukraine", since the most important condition
to try to salvage the Ukrainian economy, namely peace, is now gone. Furthermore, the political climate in the Ukraine will further
deteriorate (the hated Nazi minority + an even worse economic crisis are a perfect recipe for disaster).
For the Novorussians, it's now clear: the rump-Ukraine* does not want them, nor will Kiev ever agree to the Minsk Agreement. That
means that the LDNR will separate from the rump-Ukraine and, on time, rejoin Russia. Good bye Banderites and Urkonazis!
The rump-Ukraine will eventually break-up further: Crimea truly was the "jewel of the Black Sea" and its future appears to be
extremely bright while the Donbass was the biggest source of raw materials, energy, industry, high-tech, etc. etc. etc.). What is
left of the Ukraine is either poor and under-developed (the West) or needs to reopen economic ties with Russia (the South).
Besides, Zelenskii and his party are now trying to rush a new law through the Rada which will allow the sale of Ukrainian land
to private interests (aka foreign interests + a local frontman). As a result, there is now a new "maidan" brewing, pitting Iulia
Timoshenko and other nationalist leaders against Zelenskii and his party. This could become a major crisis very fast, especially
now that is appears that Zelenskii will also renege on this promise to call for a national referendum on the issue of the sale/privatization
of land .
As for the Russians, they already realize that Ze is a joke, unsurprisingly so since he is a comic by trade, and that the Ukrainians
are "not agreement capable". They will treat him like they did Poroshenko in the last years: completely ignore him and not even take
his telephone calls. Right now, there is just a tiny bit of good will left in Moscow, but it is drying up so fast that it will soon
totally disappear. Besides, the Russians really don't care that much anymore: the sanctions turned out to be a blessing, time is
on Russia's side, the Ukronazis are destroying their own state and, finally, the important stuff for Russia is happening in Asia,
not the West.
The Europeans will take a long time to come to terms with two simple facts:
Russia was never a party to this conflict (if she had, it would have been over long ago). The Ukronazis are the ones who won't implement
the Minsk Agreements
This means that the politicians who were behind the EU's backing of the Euromaidan (Merkel) will have to go before their successors
can say that, oops, we got our colors confused, and white is actually black and black turned out to be white. That's okay, politicians
are pretty good at that. The honeymoon between Kiev and Warsaw on the one hand and Berlin on the other will soon end as bad times
are ahead.
Macron looks much better, and he will probably pursue his efforts to restore semi-normal relations with Russia, for France's sake
first, but also eventually the rest of the EU. The Poles and the Balts will accuse him of "treason" and he will just ignore them.
As for Trump, he will most likely make small steps towards Russia, but most of his energy will be directed either inwards (impeachment)
or outwards (Israel), but not towards the Ukrainian conflict. Good.
Conclusion
It's over. Crimea and the Donbass are gone forever, the first is de jure , the latter merely de facto . The rump-Ukraine
is completely unconformable (barring some kind of coup followed by a government of national unity supported Moscow – I consider this
hypothesis as highly unlikely).
If you live in the West, don't expect your national media to report on any of this. They will be the LAST ones to actually admit
it (journos have a longer shelf life than politicians, it is harder for them to make a 180).
PS: to get a feeling for the kind of silly stunts the "Ze team" is now busying itself with, just check this one: they actually
tried to falsify the Ukrainian version of the Paris Communique. For details, see Scott's report here: https://thesaker.is/kiev-attempted-to-change-the-letter-and-meaning-of-paris-summit-communique/
. If the Ukraine was a Kindergarten, then "Ze" would be a perfect classroom teacher or visiting entertainer. But for a country
fighting for its survival, such stunts are a very, very bad sign indeed!
(*rump-Ukraine: In broad terms, a "rump" state is what remains of a state when a portion is carved away. Expanding on the "butcher"
metaphor, the rump is what is left when the higher-value cuts such as rib roast and loin have been removed.)
I said it many times, Zelenskii's ONLY chance was to crackdown on the Nazis as soon as he was elected. He either did not
have the courage to do so, or his U.S. bosses told him to leave them unmolested.
Are the security forces loyal to him to the extent that he could realistically counted on them to carry out a crackdown
on the "Nazis"?
For the Novorussians, it's now clear: the rump-Ukraine* does not want them, nor will Kiev ever agree to the Minsk Agreement.
So what is the Ukrainian thinking here -- that they are better off simply cutting bait on the east and letting Russia deal
with the headache of the Donbass's antiquated infrastructure? And that a truncated Ukraine would at least be mostly free of internal
pro-Russian sentiment?
I am sympathetic to a lot of what Putin has felt it necessary to do, but I must say, I don't buy the incessant use of the
term "Ukronazi." Sounds propagandistic.
What about the Ukrainian people? A large majority of them voted for some sort of reconciliation with the separatists and Russia.
They did so twice: once for Zelenskii, and once again for his party. Does that count for nothing?
I think the plan is to wait until Russia collapses from Western sanctions, and then invade Crimea and Donbass. They didn't
give up on the territory by any means, which is why I don't think that any ceasefire in Donbass will hold. It is going to remain
a slow-burning conflict, the regime will continue to complain about "Russian invasion" and international investors will continue
to avoid the Ukraine.
"That reason is very simple: Ze caved in to the Ukronazis, completely. He now uses EXACTLY the same rhetoric as Poroshenko did,
in spite of the fact that the only reason he was elected is that he presented himself as the ultimate anti-Poroshenko. Now all
we see is Poroshenko 2.0."
This is interesting. It implies z actually meant what he said in order to gain votes to get elected. In fact, he is very similar
to trump in this respect. Lied about desiring an end to the conflict (conflicts in the case of trump), but once in office continued
the aggressive policies (and expanded them in the case of trump). Actually, if one considers poroshenko as the ukraine version
of obama/clinton and zelinsky as trump, it looks like the ukrainian regime is following in the footsteps of the american regime.
It's not just Minsk that has been abandoned by the Kiev junta. Kiev itself has been abandoned by the EU, which now looks to Nordstream-2
for its energy supplies from Russia, thus bypassing the thieves in Ukraine. Even sanctions from the Supreme Sanctioner in DC is
not going to persuade the Germans to shiver in the winter.
Where is AOC in all this? She was the prime mover on impeachment, specifically impeachment
over a phone call rather than concentration camps and genocide.
And now with impeachment she gave Pelosi cover to sell the country out again.
I was wondering why many libreral centrists were expreasing admiration for her, a
socialist. Maybe they recognized something?
"Prime mover"? What planet are you from? They were Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi. Did you
miss that Russiagate was in motion while AOC was still tending bar? AOC isn't even on any of
the key committees (Judiciary and Intel).
I shouldn't have said THE prime mover, but ONE OF the prime movers in the House in
actually pushing it over the line against Pelosi's opposition. It seems like the House Dem
consensus ever since Russiagate was just to tease their base with it and milk the suspense
for all it was worth, until AOC, among others, rallied the base.
There were other reps who pushed for impeachment, but AOC has one of the biggest platforms
and crucially, expanded popular support for impeachment outside the MSNBC crowd. So yes, a
key figure in the political/PR effort to move from conspiracy theories to actual
impeachment.
"AOC is one of the highest-profile members of Congress and she blasted Pelosi for
resisting impeachment since May."
Liz Warren is the one who made it a part of her campaign before anyone else. Rashida
Tlaib was the one who made t-shirt with her "impeach the mf'er" quote on it. A lot of them
were "blasting" Pelosi for dithering. AOC also "blasted" her for giving ICE more money and a
lot of their things .
Your central focus on AOC for the impeachment fiasco while ignoring her active role in
spotlighting so many other issues of importance which no one else speaks about is
interesting. Did you catch any of her speaking at the Sanders rally in LA today? Any other
"high profile" Dems pushing such important issues and campaigns?
Thanks for this comment. I don't trust *any of them* except Sanders, but AOC has been
making more good noises than bad, and to claim that it was she who's been driving Pelosi to
impeachment is quite a stretch. Poor, helpless/hapless Rep. Pelosi sure.
Pelosi has repeatedly stared down the progressives in the House. The overwhelming majority
of the freshmen reps are what used to be called Blue Dogs, as in corporate Dems. AOC making
noise on this issue would not move Pelosi any more than it has on other issues.
IMHO Pelosi didn't try to tamp down Russiagate, and that created expectations that
Something Big would happen. Plus she lives in the California/blue cities bubble.
What Dem donors think matters to her way more than what AOC tweets about. If anything,
Pelosi (secondarily, I sincerely doubt this would be a big issue in her calculus) would view
impeachment as a way to reduce the attention recently given to progressive issues like single
payer and student debt forgiveness.
"... The problem with an unseen stimulus is that no one thinks it's helping them. Obama provided tax relief for nearly every working American, but instead of sending citizens a check, as George W. Bush had done, his economists decided to structure it as a payroll tax cut, subtly increasing the size of everyone's paycheck. The administration then intentionally did not advertise the fact that it had given nearly every working American a tax cut , in the hopes that people would be nudged into spending, rather than saving, that extra cash. Predictably, in 2010, one poll showed that only 12 percent of Americans believed they'd received a tax cut; 24 percent thought Obama had raised their taxes. ..."
"... A program that was supposed to help underwater homeowners turned down 70 percent of those applying for permanent loan modifications , even as over six million families lost their homes. The point of the program was never actually to help people stay in their homes, of course; it was to preserve the finance industry by spacing out foreclosures. In the end, it achieved its aim: The banks today are as profitable as ever, while more households are renting than in 50 years . ..."
"... The individual mandate, similarly designed to force the healthiest young invincibles to enter the market to bring down costs, is equally dead. And a decade into the ACA, it has become more apparent than ever that the best way to reduce America's absurd health care costs would simply be a single-payer program. ..."
"... The political scientist Suzanne Mettler coined the term "the submerged state" in 2010 to refer to the jungle of hidden government "programs" designed not to call attention to themselves, often perpetuated not because they are still helping the neediest, but because they are lucrative to the finance, insurance, and/or real estate industries. ..."
Welcome to The Decade From Hell , our look
back at an arbitrary 10-year period that began with a great outpouring of hope and ended in a cavalcade of despair.
As 2009 ended, the editors of this magazine at the time
took their measure of the first year of Barack Obama's
presidency and declared it, with some reservations, a modest success. "All of this might not exactly place him in the pantheon next
to Franklin Roosevelt," they said of his major domestic achievements (the stimulus package, primarily, as the Affordable Care Act
had not yet been signed). "But it's not a bad start, given all the constraints of the political system (and global order) in which
he works."
That was the broad consensus of American liberals at the time, ranging from nearly the most progressive to nearly the most neoliberal.
Over the ensuing years, that consensus would crack and eventually shatter under the weight of one disappointment after another. The
story of American politics over the past decade is that of a political party on the cusp of enduring power and world-historical social
reform, and how these once imaginable outcomes were methodically squandered.
The bulk of that unsigned New Republic editorial in 2009 was dedicated to Obama's foreign policy, specifically the question
of whether he was waging enough war. The conclusion: He was. The editors praised "the escalation of the war in Afghanistan" as "the
most consequential action of the first year of his presidency," even though it
offended the base of his party and possibly injured his future political prospects. On strategic grounds, we believe he made
the right choice. But the thoroughness and logic of the process by which he arrived at this decision double our confidence in
that choice. The is exactly the type of pragmatism and non-ideological policymaking that sentient humans have craved after the
Bush years.
(Sure, escalate the endless wars -- but for God's sake, please do it non-ideologically .)
In December of this year, The Washington Post
obtained thousands of pages of documents from a government oversight project called "Lessons Learned," which included interviews
with more than 600 people involved in the war in Afghanistan at some point over its 18-year history. An interview with a National
Security Council official described, according to the Post , "constant pressure from the Obama White House and Pentagon to
produce figures to show the troop surge of 2009 to 2011 was working, despite hard evidence to the contrary." Nearly every piece of
data used over the last decade to try to convince Americans that the war was going well, or even going according to any sort of coherent
logic or reason, was phony or meaningless.
"I don't want to be going to Walter Reed for another eight years," Obama
reportedly said in 2009 , as he struggled
with the decision to escalate the war. The president and his closest advisers were determined to avoid the mistakes of Vietnam. Since
then, overwhelmed by billions
in U.S. "aid," the country has sunk into kleptocracy. Last year, according to the United Nations, was the single deadliest year
of the war for Afghan civilians. Today, around 13,000 American service members remain in Afghanistan. The Trump administration is
attempting to negotiate a peace with the Taliban that would leave it in charge of the country, just as it was prior to America's
invasion. The war in Afghanistan may finally end, but not before the close of this decade that began with that oh-so-carefully considered
decision to escalate it.
"We Are All Socialists Now," Newsweek declared on its cover in early 2009, when
it was still part of the prestige press (it is currently run by
a different sort of cult ).
Editor Jon Meacham, evincing the usual historical and political amnesia of airport bookstore historians, justified the claim by writing
that "for the foreseeable future Americans will be more engaged with questions about how to manage a mixed economy than about whether
we should have one." A mixed economy run according to Keynesian principles was, you may recall from reading slightly more rigorous
historians, the primary alternative to socialism on offer in the West throughout the twentieth century. The stimulus had been
large (if not large
enough ), but with $288 billion of it dedicated to tax credits and incentives for individuals and businesses, it scarcely resembled
socialism. Indeed, rather than giving Americans a greater hand in managing the economy, much of it was designed to be almost invisible.
This was intentional. In the May 6, 2009, issue of The New Republic , Franklin Foer and Noam Scheiber
described Obama's "Nudge-ocracy," a belief, inspired
by behavioral economics, that the best way for the government to create good outcomes for the people was not through "heavy-handed
market interventions" but via technocratic attempts to change the behavior of individuals and the incentives of market actors.
The problem with an unseen stimulus is that no one thinks it's helping them. Obama provided tax relief for nearly every working
American, but instead of sending citizens a check, as George W. Bush had done, his economists decided to structure it as a payroll
tax cut, subtly increasing the size of everyone's paycheck. The administration then
intentionally did not advertise the fact that
it had given nearly every working American a tax cut , in the hopes that people would be nudged into spending, rather than saving,
that extra cash. Predictably, in 2010,
one poll showed
that only 12 percent of Americans believed they'd received a tax cut; 24 percent thought Obama had raised their taxes.
The flaw in this strategy was apparent to another author at this magazine. In late 2009, John B. Judis
foresaw a presidency in serious political trouble, because
Obama's fortunes were tied not just to the state of the economy, or even economic trends, but to people's perceptions of the
state of the economy. Noting how Roosevelt "dramatized the New Deal's contribution to the economy" by creating "colorful new agencies,"
thereby "ensuring that Roosevelt was given credit for the rise in employment," Judis called on Obama to "introduce programs that
provide jobs and capture the public's imagination." He also suggested the president
turn a deaf ear to those who are calling for fiscal responsibility. He should keep pouring money into jobs and into the pockets
of people who will spend until the unemployment rate begins going down and wages begin going up.... And, whatever he does to try
to mend the economy, Obama should never stop loudly trumpeting his efforts -- so that he is able to reap the credit when improvements
occur.
Roosevelt liked to wrestle his enemies in public, and Team Obama preferred to be above it all.
What Judis didn't consider, though, was that Obama didn't want to do any of those things. The president, along with economists
who worked for him such as Austan Goolsbee and Tim Geithner,
all pointedly rejected comparisons to
Roosevelt , based in part on a seemingly inaccurate understanding of the history of his first term but also seemingly based on
aesthetics: Roosevelt liked to wrestle his enemies in public, and Team Obama preferred to be above it all. It's hard to remember
now how wise everyone made it sound that the president and his team intentionally avoided doing things they worried would be too
popular, but there would not be another New Deal. Indeed, instead of ostentatious acts of helping people, the administration almost
preferred being seen standing athwart attempts to provide relief. A program that was supposed to help underwater homeowners
turned
down 70 percent of those applying for permanent loan modifications , even as over six million families lost their homes. The
point of the program was never actually to help people stay in their homes, of course; it was to
preserve the
finance industry by spacing out foreclosures. In the end, it achieved its aim: The banks today are as profitable as ever, while
more households are renting than in 50 years .
By far the most effective part of the Affordable Care Act, in terms of helping Americans get care, was simply expanding Medicaid.
But what many Democrats and liberals were most excited about was the bill's many experimental and technocratic attempts to "bend
the cost curve" -- reduce costs without price controls -- and "improve quality," mainly by encouraging insurers, with incentives,
to strive for outcomes that market forces alone weren't incentivizing them to aim for. The signature example of this may be the "Cadillac
tax," which was designed to nudge companies to force employees onto cheaper insurance plans with greater cost sharing -- a tax built
on the belief that one of the primary drivers of health care cost inflation was people taking advantage of their too-generous employers
and greedily consuming more health care than they needed. The tax never went into effect.
The individual mandate, similarly designed to force the healthiest
young invincibles to enter the market to bring down
costs, is equally dead. And a decade into the ACA, it has become more apparent than ever that the best way to reduce America's absurd
health care costs would simply be a single-payer program.
That is not to say that the ACA did not end up having the significant long-term political ramifications its drafters promised
it would. The primary non-Medicaid structure of the ACA, with its means-tested subsidies to purchase private insurance, had the predictable
effect of convincing some of its beneficiaries
that Obama and the Democratic Party had nothing to do with the government assistance they weren't sure they were getting. Then, as
costs rose and rose over the decade, that structure also
had the predictable effect of making people
who receive partially subsidized private care resentful of those poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.
Much of the decade we have just endured has shown how the Democratic addiction to dispensing benefits through the tax code in
complicated, indirect ways -- combined with the usual insufficiency of these benefits -- was nearly perfectly designed to foment
mass resentment of others, imagined or not, who might secretly be getting the Good Benefits.
The political scientist Suzanne Mettler coined the term "the submerged state" in 2010 to refer to the jungle of hidden government
"programs" designed not to call attention to themselves, often perpetuated not because they are still helping the neediest, but because
they are lucrative to the finance, insurance, and/or real estate industries.
One of her illustrations
of the effect of the submerged state is a graph showing how many people who used particular government programs admitted so only
after first telling researchers they'd received no assistance. That nearly 40 percent of people on Medicare claimed this is likely
attributable to ideology (and the fact that Medicare, like Social Security, was designed to make retirees feel like they had "paid
into it").
But when 60 percent of people who used tax-advantaged higher education savings accounts claim they received no government benefits,
as they did in Mettler's study, it's probably because tax-advantaged savings accounts are wholly inadequate to the problem of higher
education costs. Now combine this with a persistent belief (memorably
described by Ashley C. Ford a few years ago) that minorities -- black kids in particular -- get to go to college for free by
default, and stir in the rise of tuition costs and other expenses due to cutbacks in state investment in education. The result of
this cocktail of ignorant biases and inadequate solutions might look something like the year 2019.
"... It is noteworthy that not a single House Republican dared or even cared to question Schiff's framing of the issue, which was bolstered by witnesses from the permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic establishment, including Trump's appointees. ..."
"... Nor is any Republican Senator likely to point out the inconvenient truth that we have no defense treaty with Ukraine, which thus is not really our "ally." ..."
"... The sole retort from Trump's establishment defenders : He released the aid to Ukraine, including the Javelin missiles Obama denied them! He's every bit the warmonger you want him to be! So there! ..."
"... Senate Demaggotic Leader Chuck Schumer gave the game away when he demanded that the World Greatest Deliberative Body receive testimony from cashiered National Security Adviser John Bolton and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney but not from the man at the center of the whole Ukraine "drug deal" (as Bolton described it): Rudy Giuliani. ..."
For a century and a half American political life has been the exclusive preserve of the
duopoly of Democrats and Republicans, also known as
the Evil Party and the Stupid Party . (If something is both Evil and Stupid, we call that
"Bipartisan.") But the familiar Evil-Stupid dichotomy doesn't even begin to describe the
descent into national dysfunction and galloping irrationality that characterizes the Trump
impeachment hysteria.
Media chatter now centers on the nuts-and-bolts questions of "what's next?" Will House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate? (Yes. Even one of the
legal "scholars" enrolled in the impeachment lynch mob avers that
Trump isn't actually impeached until the Senate receives the articles .) Who will be the
trial managers? (Who cares.) Will there be a "real trial," with witnesses? (It hardly matters.)
Will Trump be removed? (Unlikely unless some bolt from the blue flips 20 GOP Senators.) Will
impeachment be the Democrats' albatross going into November 2020? (Most polls show independents
are turned off, but there's still almost a year to go.)
None of these questions, which are meaningful only in a mental universe of the Evils and the
Stupids shadowboxing over a partisan allocation of political spoils, touch upon the grim
– and occasionally sardonic – symptoms of America's seemingly unstoppable terminal
slide.
With Trump's impeachment it's time to say goodbye to yesteryear's Team Evil and Team Stupid.
Say hello in 2020 to Team Maggot and Team Corpse!
In short, Democrats hate Trump not so much for what he's done (which, contrary to what his
passionate supporters think based on his Tweets, isn't much) but as an expression of an
amorphous dread that by some mysterious populist alchemy he might still breathe life back into
the Corpse Party's deplorable base.
With that in mind, here are a few things to note as we cruise on into Bizarro World
:
As the impeachment spectacle unfolded in the House, one could not fail to be touched by the
hushed, heartfelt reverence with which Democrat after Democrat cited the sage words of the
Founding Fathers: Madison especially, but also Jefferson and Washington. No doubt they can
hardly wait for this spectacle to be over so they can go back to denouncing the Founders as
dead, racist, Christian, patriarchal, " Anglo
," and (presumably) heterosexual slaveholders
in wigs and knee-breeches whose memory should be expunged from the historical record . It's
instructive to glance at the members of
the House Judiciary Committee who – solemnly, reluctantly, and prayerfully, they
assure us! – voted out articles of impeachment in the name of "the American people." But
which "people" might that be? Of the 23 Democrats who voted, only four even arguably fit the
heritage American, male profile of the Founding Fathers. The " gender
balance " (as it's ungrammatically called nowadays) on the voting majority side of the
Committee is 12-11. That's not quite up to
Barack Obama's exhortation that "every nation on earth" should be "run by women ," but it's
progress in that direction! (Just imagine how much more serene the world would be if all
countries were ruled by peaceniks like Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Condi Rice, Susan
Rice, Samantha Power, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Michèle Flournoy, Evelyn Farkas, etc., plus
a
bevy of Deep State Democrats now installed in Congress .) By contrast, the 17 Republicans
on the Committee have approximately the same demographic composition they'd have had in 1950
– and aside from the inclusion of two women, that of the First Congress seated in
1789.
In short, in the Congressional Maggot Caucus the approaching
Dictatorship of Victims defined by race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language,
religion, migratory status, etc., is already becoming a reality, and they voted to get rid of
Trump. Members of the Corpse Caucus defending him still belong demographically and morally to
the declining legacy America, though they'd never, ever admit it. Impeachment is thus more than
just the latest iteration of the years-long anti-constitutional coup to overturn a presidential
election,
though it is that too . Even more fundamentally, it's a coup against the people whose
identity, traditions, and values the Constitution was intended to ensure for themselves and
their posterity.
Foreign interference in our deMOCKracy.
Even more absurd than Democrats' presumption in lip-synching the venerable principles of an
American constitutional tradition they despise almost as much as they loathe the ethnos that
ordained and established it is their feigned horror – horror! – that Trump's phone
chat with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky realized the Founders' worst fears of foreign influence
over American domestic politics. Leaving aside the fact that Ukraine under Zelensky's
predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, did try to queer the 2016 election in favor of Hillary, and that
Hunter and Joe Biden are crooks, the Maggoteers' ability to maintain a straight face of shocked
indignation smack in the middle of a souk, a flea market, a bazaar where both domestic and
foreign interests buy, sell, and trade favors like vintage baseball cards is nothing less than
heroic.
Argentina Caucus, Armenian Issues Caucus, Azerbaijan Caucus, Bangladesh Caucus, Bosnia
Caucus, Brazil Caucus, Cambodia Caucus, Central America Caucus, Colombia Caucus,
Congressional Caucus on Bulgaria, Croatian Caucus, Czech Caucus, Ethiopian-American Caucus,
Ethnic and Religious Freedom in Sri Lanka, EU Caucus, Friends of Australia Caucus, Friends of
Denmark Caucus, Friends of Egypt Caucus, Friends of Finland Caucus, Friends of Ireland
Caucus, Friends of Liechtenstein Caucus, Friends of New Zealand Caucus, Friends of Norway
Caucus, Friends of Scotland Caucus, Friends of Spain Caucus, Friends of Sweden Caucus,
Friends of the Dominican Republic Caucus, Friends of Wales Caucus, Georgia Caucus, Hellenic
Caucus, Hellenic Israel Alliance Caucus, House Baltic Caucus, Hungarian Caucus, India and
Indian Americans Caucus, Iraq Caucus, Israel Allies Caucus, Israel Victory Caucus, Kingdom of
Netherlands Caucus, Korea Caucus, Kyrgyzstan Caucus, Macedonia and Macedonian-American
Caucus, Moldova Caucus, Mongolia Caucus, Montenegro Caucus, Morocco Caucus, Nigeria Caucus,
Pakistan Caucus, Peru Caucus, Poland Caucus, Portuguese Caucus, Qatari-American Strategic
Relationships Caucus, Republican Israel Caucus, Romania Caucus, Serbian Caucus, Slovak
Caucus, Sri Lanka Caucus, Taiwan Caucus, UK Caucus, Ukraine Caucus, U.S.-Bermuda Friendship
Caucus, U.S.-China Working Group, U.S.-Japan Caucus, U.S.-Kazakhstan Caucus, U.S.-Lebanon
Friendship Caucus, U.S.-Philippines Friendship Caucus, U.S.-Turkey Relations and Turkish
American, Uzbekistan Caucus, Venezuela Democracy Caucus
Recalling
Your Working Boy 's years at the State Department – where there still exists no
"American Interests Section" – the reader can search the above in vain for anything that
looks remotely like "Friends of the United States of America."
In fact, the Democrats' core impeachment narrative – Russia bad, Ukraine good –
is itself an example to which American policy is in the grip of foreign antipathies and
attachments against which the
Father of Our Country warned us in his 1796 farewell address :
"[N]othing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against
particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in
place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which
indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.
It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it
astray from its duty and its interest."
"[W]e should care about our allies. We should care about Ukraine. We should care about a
country struggling to be free and a Democracy. We used to care about Democracy. We used to
care about our allies. We used to stand up to Putin and Russia. We used to. I know the party
of Ronald Reagan used to. 'Why should we care about Ukraine?' But of course it's about more
than Ukraine. It's about us. It's about our national security. Their fight is our fight.
Their defense is our defense. When Russia remakes the map of Europe for the first time since
World War II by dint of military force [ JGJ : Well, there was Kosovo, but never mind ] and
Ukraine fights back, it is our fight too."
Indeed, one wonders how hysterical Democrats missed accusing Trump outright of treason ,
which actually is specified as grounds for impeachment in
Article II, Section 4 . After all, as described by Schiff, didn't Trump's actions
constitute (under Article
III, Section 3 ) "adhering" to our evil enemies the Russians, and "giving them aid and
comfort"? It's an open and shut case of a capital crime – and the
House Majority Whip is ready to get the rope ! (Really, how did the Democrats miss this?
Maybe GOP stupidity has migrated to the other side of the aisle )
It is noteworthy that not a single House Republican dared or even cared to question Schiff's
framing of the issue, which was bolstered by witnesses from the permanent military,
intelligence, and diplomatic establishment, including Trump's appointees.
Nor is any Republican
Senator likely to point out the inconvenient truth that we have no defense treaty with Ukraine,
which thus is not really our "ally." Partisanship is the variable; Russophobia is the constant.
The sole retort
from Trump's establishment defenders : He released the aid to Ukraine, including the
Javelin missiles Obama denied them! He's every bit the warmonger you want him to be! So
there!
Thus, even with Trump's almost (at this point) certain survival of a Senate impeachment
trial, the relevant foreign inveterate antipathies and passionate attachments will remain
entrenched. (Not just in the case of Ukraine/Russia but with respect to the rest of the world
our habitual hatreds and fondnesses remain firmly in place and are unlikely to change for the
balance of Trump's presidency, if ever. Trump's
Korea initiative is on life support. Israel/Iran is a flashpoint that could explode at any
time : "Israel, even less than the US, cannot take casualties. A couple of bull's eyes, a
lot of Israelis go back to Brooklyn. The 82 million people in Iran have no place else to
go.")
If there was anyone who should have been impeached, it was George Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin
Powell and George Tenet, who was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom, for assisting
Cheney in the Iraq WMD lies.
But...what did Nancy say then?
Nancy Pelosi: I Knew Bush Jr Was Lying About WMD To Start War, But Didn't See It As
Impeachable
But there are multiple reasons not to delay a Senate trial past that window. The most common
argument in favor of this tactic is that it would give Democrats some sort of leverage as the
process moves beyond their control. "As a tactical matter, it could strengthen Senate Minority
Leader Charles E. Schumer's (D-N.Y.) hand in bargaining over trial rules with McConnell because
of McConnell's and Trump's urgent desire to get this whole business behind them," Tribe argued
earlier this week. House Democratic leaders have made similar suggestions in recent
days.
The last three years suggest that the majority leader would be more than happy to keep
running the Senate as a judicial-confirmation factory and a legislative graveyard.
This is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, it assumes that McConnell actually wants the
Senate to hold an impeachment trial for Trump. The last three years suggest that the majority
leader would be more than happy to keep running the Senate as a judicial-confirmation factory
and a legislative graveyard. It's doubtful that any other Republican senators are thrilled
about the prospect of acting as the president's jurors, either. Given the choice between
holding a trial that could force vulnerable members of his caucus to make uncomfortable votes
and not holding a trial at all, it seems more likely that McConnell would choose the
latter. Second, it assumes that Trump also wants to, in Tribe's words, "get this whole
business behind [him]." There's a certain logic to the proposition that Trump is eager to tell
his supporters that he was acquitted in a Senate trial. But I doubt that eagerness outweighs
his desire not to undermine his own case in said trial. After all, if Mulvaney or Bolton could
give testimony that would exculpate Trump in the Ukraine scandal, the president would have
frog-marched them to the House Intelligence Committee himself last month. (The idea that Trump
truly cares about the separation of powers, as his lawyers argued when blocking those witnesses
from testifying, is contradicted by the rest of his presidency.)
The other half of Tribe's argument is also unconvincing. In making the case for withholding
the articles, he argues that it would vindicate higher civic and democratic ideals. "On a
substantive level, [the House] would be justified to withhold going forward with a Senate
trial," Tribe wrote. "Under the current circumstances, such a proceeding would fail to render a
meaningful verdict of acquittal. It would also fail to inform the public, which has the right
to know the truth about the conduct of its president."
"... My paranoid fear is that Pelosi or McConnell might try to time the proceedings so as to take Bernie and Warren off the campaign trail at a crucial moment, helping Biden. ..."
"... Amfortas the hippie , December 21, 2019 at 5:40 pm ..."
"... that, and sucking the air out of the room for the primaries. When's super tuesday, again? surely they can engineer it so that their "high drama" coincides. ..."
"... "let's talk about universal material benefits" " ok, Vlad trying to distract us from whats really important " ..."
"... Hepativore , December 21, 2019 at 6:49 pm ..."
"... Happy winter Solstice, everyone! ..."
"... Anyway, the funny thing is, that Biden himself has said that he only wants to be a one-term president. It makes me wonder if he knows that he has neither the energy or presence of mind to hold the office, and that he is merely doing so because of establishment pressure to stop Sanders at all costs. ..."
Please bone up on US procedure. It's not good to have you confuse readers.
The Senate can't do anything until the House passes a motion referring the impeachment to
the Senate. The House ALSO needs to designate managers as part of that process.
Michael
Tracey argued that it's only Senate rules that require that the House formally transmit
the impeachment verdict. The Constitution says that the Senate has to try an impeached
president, and the Constitution trumps the Senate's rules. Logically, then, the Senate could
just modify its rules to try the president.
But the whole delay is weird and impeachment has only been done twice before, so not a lot
of precedent.
My paranoid fear is that Pelosi or McConnell might try to time the proceedings so as
to take Bernie and Warren off the campaign trail at a crucial moment, helping Biden.
that, and sucking the air out of the room for the primaries. When's super tuesday,
again? surely they can engineer it so that their "high drama" coincides.
"let's talk about universal material benefits" " ok, Vlad trying to distract us from
whats really important "
Anyway, the funny thing is, that Biden himself has said that he only wants to be a
one-term president. It makes me wonder if he knows that he has neither the energy or presence
of mind to hold the office, and that he is merely doing so because of establishment pressure
to stop Sanders at all costs. Plus, if the Democrats get the brokered convention they
are after, he can bow out, satisfied that he helped the DNC protect the donor class from the
Sanders threat.
The impeachment, what it means, panic in the establishment, as justice continues to creep
ever closer, biting at their heels. They can feel the heat of the reformation is closing in
on them, real justice, real trials and real convictions. They have good reason to fear and
panic, the deep state is apparently quite shallow at the end of the day, those seeking
justice for outweighing the corrupt political appointees and their falsely promoted minions
and they will pursue the shadow government for the chaos, loss of life, loss of wealth and
for the coming collapse as a result of shallow pathetic insatiable greed.
"... oligarchic greed; a military dedicated to protecting the wealth of oligarchs; and, wars over resources. Granted Bill Clinton began the current charade about 'humanitarian wars' but it was Bush II and Obama who turned our focus into resource wars and the hegemons (Malignant Overlords) who decided it was time to take it all. ..."
Long ago (1968) after returning from Vietnam with a bullet hole in my leg (my 90 wonder, post-ROTC officer shot me when he
panicked) I wondered off to a down-at-the-heel cow college. There I took a class and C Wright Mills 'The Power Elite' was required
reading.
I had just finished 'War is a fraud' and read an article by Paul Ehrlich an then 'The Population Bomb' shortly thereafter.
The three books created an interesting fusion in my mind:
More or less after the year 2000 the world would be plagued by resource wars;
The primary role of the military is to enforce what capitalists want; and
Behind the alleged scenes of our form of government hovered oligarchs who would demand more and more.
I recently found a paper I had written long ago. It wasn't very well written, but even then the handwriting was on the wall:
oligarchic greed; a military dedicated to protecting the wealth of oligarchs; and, wars over resources. Granted Bill Clinton
began the current charade about 'humanitarian wars' but it was Bush II and Obama who turned our focus into resource wars and the
hegemons (Malignant Overlords) who decided it was time to take it all.
I guess the point of all of this is (except for the details) Ehrlich, Mills and Butler warned us. As did Huxley and Orwell
... we were just too damned dumb (or distracted) to see it.
Maybe with the Queen of Chaos, the above will result in either annihilation or in a severe reduction in the numbers of people
... (hopefully including all of the oligarchic class) and the chance to start over?
Nah ... we'll just fuck it up again ... as a species we refuse to learn. Sigh ...
"... "growing evidence that the public impeachment proceedings in the House against Trump may actually be helping him politically." ..."
"... "open war on American Democracy." ..."
"... the end of his six-page letter shows that he is fully aware of the Democrats' gambit, bringing it out in the open: he wrote it not because he expected them to see reason but "for the purpose of history" and to create a "permanent and indelible record." ..."
"... It is said that history is written by the winners. That's almost true. It is made by the winners, but written by the loud. Trump is a real-estate developer and reality TV star who talked his way into the White House against two major political dynasties – Clinton and Bush – and both the Republican and Democrat establishments; through a gauntlet of US intelligence agencies, as it turns out; and in the face of near-unanimous opposition from the media. ..."
"... So his impeachment is indeed a historic moment – just not in the way his enemies think. ..."
...If the plan was to sabotage Trump's second-term campaign, it seems to have backfired spectacularly. With every
hearing before the Intelligence or Judiciary Committee, the public support for impeachment actually decreased. Even
CNN
was forced to admit the existence of
"growing evidence that the public impeachment proceedings in the House
against Trump may actually be helping him politically."
Indeed, what better way for Trump to solidify his bona
fides as the populist outsider than to be impeached by the coastal elites and the Washington Swamp, in what amounted to
a nakedly partisan process?
Definition of Impeachment (modern): A process by which the party out of power shows the
world how they got that way. Happens most commonly right before a landslide reelection.
...Trump never gets tired of pointing out the accomplishments of his administration: jobs, stock market growth, trade
deals, etc. He did so again, in a scathing letter to Pelosi on Impeachment Eve, contrasting that to her party's
"open war on American Democracy."
However,
the end of his six-page letter shows that he is fully aware of the
Democrats' gambit, bringing it out in the open: he wrote it not because he expected them to see reason but "for the
purpose of history" and to create a "permanent and indelible record."
It is said that history is written by the winners. That's almost true. It is made by the winners, but written by
the loud. Trump is a real-estate developer and reality TV star who talked his way into the White House against two major
political dynasties – Clinton and Bush – and both the Republican and Democrat establishments; through a gauntlet of US
intelligence agencies, as it turns out; and in the face of near-unanimous opposition from the media.
So his impeachment is indeed a historic moment – just not in the way his enemies think.
"... While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and liberation". ..."
"... Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia? Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining ground btw. Ask yourself why ? ..."
"... Sphere of influence, the same reason why Cuba and Venezuela will pay for their insolence against the hegemon. The world is never a fair place. ..."
While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and
liberation".
I hate how America exploit the weak. president moon should offer an olive branch to fatty Kim by sending back the
thaad to America and pulling out American base and troops. he should convince fatty Kim that should he really like to proliferate
his nuclear missile development as deterrence, aim it only to America and America only. there is no need for Koreans to kill fellow
Koreans.
Very good idea, after having pushed Ukraine and Georgia to a war lost in advance, lets hope US will abandon South Korea and
Japan because they were helpless in demilitarizing one of the poorest countries in the world....
Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia?
Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life
isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say
farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining
ground btw. Ask yourself why ?
In this person's opinion, the article raises a good point with regards to US defense subsidies. However, its examples are dissimilar.
Japan spends approximately 1% of its GDP on defense; South Korea spends roughly 2.5% of its GDP defense.
In fact, it seems to this person that a better example of US Defense Welfare would be direct subsidies granted to the state
of Israel.
"... The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya. ..."
"... Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course, his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed. ..."
"... Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. ..."
"... We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact. ..."
The start of current decade revealed the most ruthless face of a global neo-colonialism. From Syria and Libya to Europe and Latin
America, the old colonial powers of the West tried to rebound against an oncoming rival bloc led by Russia and China, which starts
to threaten their global domination.
Inside a multi-polar, complex terrain of geopolitical games, the big players start to abandon the old-fashioned, inefficient direct
wars. They use today other, various methods like
brutal proxy
wars , economic wars, financial and constitutional coups, provocative operations, 'color revolutions', etc. In this highly
complex and unstable situation, when even traditional allies turn against each other as the global balances change rapidly, the forces
unleashed are absolutely destructive. Inevitably, the results are more than evident.
Proxy Wars - Syria/Libya
After the US invasion in Iraq, the gates of hell had opened in the Middle East. Obama continued the Bush legacy of US endless
interventions, but he had to change tactics because a direct war would be inefficient, costly and extremely unpopular to the American
people and the rest of the world.
The result, however, appeared to be equally (if not more) devastating with the failed US invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US
had lost total control of the armed groups directly linked with the ISIS terrorists, failed to topple Assad, and, moreover, instead
of eliminating the Russian and Iranian influence in the region, actually managed to increase it. As a result, the US and its allies
failed to secure their geopolitical interests around the various pipeline games.
In addition, the US sees Turkey, one of its most important ally, changing direction dangerously, away from the Western bloc. Probably
the strongest indication for this, is that Turkey, Iran and Russia decided very recently to proceed in an agreement on Syria without
the presence of the US.
Yet, the list of US failures does not end here. The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have
proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have
witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya.
Evidence from
WikiLeaks has shown that the old colonial powers have started a new round of ruthless competition on Libya's resources.
The usual story propagated by the Western media, about another tyrant who had to be removed, has now completely collapsed. They don't
care neither to topple an 'authoritarian' regime, nor to spread Democracy. All they care about is to secure each country's resources
for their big companies.
The Gaddafi case is quite interesting because it shows that
the Western
hypocrites were using him according to their interests .
Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they
had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order
to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course,
his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed.
Economic Wars, Financial Coups – Greece/Eurozone
It would be unthinkable for the neo-colonialists to conduct proxy wars inside European soil, especially against countries which
belong to Western institutions like NATO, EU, eurozone, etc. The wave of the US-made major economic crisis hit Greece and Europe
at the start of the decade, almost simultaneously with the eruption of the Arab Spring revolutionary wave and the subsequent disaster
in Middle East and Libya.
Greece was the easy victim for the global neoliberal dictatorship to impose catastrophic measures in favor of the plutocracy.
The Greek experiment enters its seventh year and the plan is to be used as a model for the whole eurozone. Greece has become also
the model for the looting of public property, as happened in the past with the East Germany and the
Treuhand Operation
after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
While Greece was the major victim of an economic war, Germany used its economic power and control of the European Central Bank
to impose unprecedented austerity, sado-monetarism and neoliberal destruction through silent financial coups in
Ireland ,
Italy and
Cyprus . The Greek political establishment collapsed with the rise of SYRIZA in power, and the ECB was forced to proceed
in an open financial coup against
Greece when the current PM, Alexis Tsipras, decided to conduct a referendum on the catastrophic measures imposed by the ECB, IMF
and the European Commission, through which the Greek people clearly rejected these measures, despite the propaganda of terror inside
and outside Greece. Due to the direct threat from Mario Draghi and the ECB, who actually threatened to cut liquidity sinking Greece
into a financial chaos, Tsipras finally forced to retreat, signing another catastrophic memorandum.
Through similar financial and political pressure, the Brussels bureaufascists and the German sado-monetarists along with the IMF
economic hitmen, imposed neoliberal disaster to other eurozone countries like Portugal, Spain etc. It is remarkable that even the
second eurozone economy, France,
rushed to
impose anti-labor measures midst terrorist attacks, succumbing to a - pre-designed by the elites - neo-Feudalism, under
the 'Socialist' François Hollande, despite the intense protests in many French cities.
Germany would never let the United States to lead the neo-colonization in Europe, as it tries (again) to become a major power
with its own sphere of influence, expanding throughout eurozone and beyond. As the situation in Europe becomes more and more critical
with the ongoing economic and refugee crisis and the rise of the Far-Right and the nationalists, the economic war mostly between
the US and the German big capital, creates an even more complicated situation.
The decline of the US-German relations has been exposed initially with the
NSA interceptions
scandal , yet, progressively, the big picture came on surface, revealing a
transatlantic
economic war between banking and corporate giants. In times of huge multilevel crises, the big capital always intensifies
its efforts to eliminate competitors too. As a consequence, the US has seen another key ally, Germany, trying to gain a certain degree
of independence in order to form its own agenda, separate from the US interests.
Note that, both Germany and Turkey are medium powers that, historically, always trying to expand and create their own spheres
of influence, seeking independence from the traditional big powers.
A wave of neoliberal onslaught shakes currently Latin America. While in Argentina, Mauricio Macri allegedly took the power normally,
the constitutional
coup against Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, as well as, the
usual actions
of the Right opposition in Venezuela against Nicolás Maduro with the help of the US finger, are far more obvious.
The special weight of these three countries in Latin America is extremely important for the US imperialism to regain ground in the
global geopolitical arena. Especially the last ten to fifteen years, each of them developed increasingly autonomous policies away
from the US close custody, under Leftist governments, and this was something that alarmed the US imperialism components.
Brazil appears to be the most important among the three, not only due to its size, but also as a member of the BRICS, the team
of fast growing economies who threaten the US and generally the Western global dominance. The constitutional coup against Rousseff
was rather a sloppy action and reveals the anxiety of the US establishment to regain control through puppet regimes. This is a well-known
situation from the past through which the establishment attempts to secure absolute dominance in the US backyard.
The importance of Venezuela due to its oil reserves is also significant. When Maduro tried to approach Russia in order to strengthen
the economic cooperation between the two countries, he must had set the alarm for the neocons in the US. Venezuela could find an
alternative in Russia and BRICS, in order to breathe from the multiple economic war that was set off by the US. It is characteristic
that the economic war against Russia by the US and the Saudis, by keeping the oil prices in historically low levels, had significant
impact on the Venezuelan economy too. It is also known that the US organizations are funding the opposition since Chávez era, in
order to proceed in provocative operations that could overthrow the Leftist governments.
The case of Venezuela is really interesting. The US imperialists were fiercely trying to overthrow the Leftist governments since
Chávez administration. They found now a weaker president, Nicolás Maduro - who certainly does not have the strength and personality
of Hugo Chávez - to achieve their goal.
The Western media mouthpieces are doing their job, which is propaganda as usual. The recipe is known. You present the half truth,
with a big overdose of exaggeration.
The establishment
parrots are demonizing Socialism , but they won't ever tell you about the money that the US is spending, feeding the
Right-Wing groups and opposition to proceed in provocative operations, in order to create instability. They won't tell you about
the financial war conducted through the oil prices, manipulated by the Saudis, the close US ally.
Regarding Argentina, former president, Cristina Kirchner, had also made some important moves towards the stronger cooperation
with Russia, which was something unacceptable for Washington's hawks. Not only for geopolitical reasons, but also because Argentina
could escape from the vulture funds that sucking its blood since its default. This would give the country an alternative to the neoliberal
monopoly of destruction. The US big banks and corporations would never accept such a perspective because the debt-enslaved Argentina
is a golden opportunity for a new round of huge profits. It's
happening right
now in eurozone's debt colony, Greece.
'Color Revolutions' - Ukraine
The events in Ukraine have shown that, the big capital has no hesitation to ally even with the neo-nazis, in order to impose the
new world order. This is not something new of course. The connection of Hitler with the German economic oligarchs, but also with
other major Western companies, before and during the WWII, is well known.
The most terrifying of all however, is not that the West has silenced in front of the decrees of the new Ukrainian leadership,
through which is targeting the minorities, but the fact that the West allied with the neo-nazis, while according to some information
has also funded their actions as well as other extreme nationalist groups during the riots in Kiev.
Plenty of indications show that US organizations have 'put their finger' on Ukraine. A
video , for
example, concerning the situation in Ukraine has been directed by Ben Moses (creator of the movie "Good Morning, Vietnam"), who is
connected with American government executives and organizations like National Endowment for Democracy, funded by the US Congress.
This video shows a beautiful young female Ukrainian who characterizes the government of the country as "dictatorship" and praise
some protesters with the neo-nazi symbols of the fascist Ukranian party Svoboda on them.
The same organizations are behind 'color revolutions' elsewhere, as well as, provocative operations against Leftist governments
in Venezuela and other countries.
Ukraine is the perfect place to provoke Putin and tight the noose around Russia. Of course the huge hypocrisy of the West can
also be identified in the case of Crimea. While in other cases, the Western officials were 'screaming' for the right of self-determination
(like Kosovo, for example), after they destroyed Yugoslavia in a bloodbath, they can't recognize the will of the majority of Crimeans
to join Russia.
The war will become wilder
The Western neo-colonial powers are trying to counterattack against the geopolitical upgrade of Russia and the Chinese economic
expansionism.
Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine
in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. Besides, Trump has already shown his hostile feelings against China, despite
his friendly approach to Russia and Putin.
We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation
in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that
they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian
borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact.
"... If the impeachment in the House of Representatives was such a brilliant piece of work, why is Nancy Pelosi now reluctant to forward the articles of impeachment to the Senate? ..."
There are lots of dismal reasons why Trump will be elected, but the Democrats just gave
him the greatest gift of all: the only thing he does well in the morbid circus that his
administration/political life is campaign. He's useless at everything else. And he campaigns
best when he's railing against something, and better still when he is campaigning as the
victim of some perceived injustice, which he as a remarkable knack of convincing the audience
is an injustice vested on them, too.
It feels like nothing because it is nothing.
Democrats have been talking impeachment since the election. They have now accomplished
that, in a strict Party line vote. (The previous two impeachments were not party-line
votes.)
So, what will be the result?
In my opinion, this puts Trump in a better position running up to the Election. In the
Spring, we will see the Republican party-line rejection of conviction in the Senate. And,
they get the opportunity to call witnesses. Any one think they will not drag Biden up to the
Hill to question?
Trump gets to claim martyrdom (the Right loves to be martyrs, just as the Left loves to be
victims.) He gets to point at all this, and just as with the Mueller Report, crow that all
the investigations turned up nothing illegal.
But, IMO, the big story is that Democrats just emptied their cannon. They have nothing
left. And they wasted the shot.
There is no way that Donald Trump, a New York City real estate developer, has not broken
multiple laws. I am a bit offended by the laziness of the Democrats, in that they did not do
any work to investigate and accuse Trump of actual codified crimes. They impeached him over
rather minor and confusing matters of opinion. And now Trump can claim that all those
investigations yielded no actual law breaking.
Its a farce. A purely political, poorly directed farce. And, I am now almost certain that
they have guaranteed us another 4 years of Donald Effing Trump.
Its a bad mistake. Impeachment will be used exactly in the same way as Brexit was used as a
means to gametheory Johnson back into 10 Downing St. You will be regarded as friend or foe,
as the nation is utterly divided down the middle. Expect Trump and the Republicans to
steamroller the next Presidential Election as the Democrats will be painted as dangerous,
undemocratic , totally Anti American. What a truly depressing world we live in.
If the impeachment in the House of Representatives was such a brilliant piece of work, why is
Nancy Pelosi now reluctant to forward the articles of impeachment to the Senate?
It appears
that she has little confidence in the work and despite claiming that it was urgent that the
process proceed as rapidly as possible, she is now dragging her feet. The American public was
expressing reduced enthusiasm for impeachment as it progressed and now the Democrats won't
even send the articles to the Senate. The will be hell to pay for this malfeasance at the
voting booth in less than a year.
But it was totally partisan based what constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley called
"non-crimes". Trump would wear such as badge of honour--in the sense he was attacked non-stop
by what he calls "The Deep State" and survived.
He would also claim that the elitist bureaucracy in Washington tried to destroy a
President who was for "We the People"--whom the elitist classes call "deplorables" and whom
can even be smelt at Walmart.
I was against the impeachment of Bill Clinton. At that time democrat supporters made
pantomime protests by dressing as puritans and Mrs Clinton referred to the "Vast Right Wing
Conspiracy". The case for Trump impeachment is even weaker and unlike with Clinton there has
been a lack of due process and no bipartisan support. Impeachment has now become the pursuit
of politics by other means which is a bad precedent for the future.
But if you want to re-energise Trump's base, this is a good move.
In the U.S. Schiff is seen as dishonest, a parody make-up trickster, a liar, etc. Pelosi is
seen as intellectually feeble and somewhat ditzy. She was pushed onto the impeachment path by
the hard Left of the Democratic party. An example of that is the words used by Democrat
Rashida Tlaib to refer to Trump--a very vulgar "Impeach the mfer[abbreviation".
'a new Gallup poll released Wednesday morning, before the House vote, which shows two
things happening since House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, opened up
a formal impeachment inquiry in October:
1) Trump's job approval rating has gone from 39% to 45%
2) Support for Trump's impeachment and removal has dipped from 52% to 46%.'
Tulsi Gabbard on Twitter a few minutes ago, explaining her refusal to vote:
"A house divided cannot stand. And today we are divided. Fragmentation and polarity are
ripping our country apart. Today, I come before you to make a stand for the center, to appeal
to all of you to bridge our differences and stand up for the American people.
#StandWithTulsi"
According to the latest polls her support is about 2% nationally but higher in Iowa and
New Hampshire. Will her supporters stick with her? If not, where do they go? Sanders?
It feels anti-climatic because it was purely political. Democrats have set a terrible
precedent here. With no votes from the opposition party and cheers afterwards from the
majority party, they proved the impeachment was just a laborious exercise in bold faced
politics.
Now impeachment can be used whenever the roles are reversed and one party simply hates the
president from the other party.
So it's ok to have half of the court made up of people who have stated from before he was
elected they would impeach him, but wrong for him to have people in the court who are
prepared to defend him?
You want a show trial in which only the prosecutors get to make their case?
This impeachment is at best a symbolic act of defiance with no consequences.
At worst, it's a cynical ploy by establishment Dems to keeps Sanders and Warren tied up in
pointless Senate hearings, making it difficult for them to campaign for the election, and
giving Grandpa Joe an easy ride. Might Sound a bit tinfoil-hatty, but they'll do just about
anything to prevent meaningful change.
That being said, I also don't believe in the strange notion that this has somehow handed
Trump reelection. Why? The only people enraged by this are his cult, and they'll show up
anyway.
Nahh... We Brazilians have additional reasons to celebrate Trump's Fake Impeachment because
Dilma Rousseff was the victim of a Fake Impeachment sponsored by US Embassy in Brazil.
The self-destruction of the American political system sounds like music in my ears, as the
motherfucker Americans helped a handful of bandits tear my vote. Fuck US very much.
And now the poor Jair Bolsonaro is crying for his ass. Each politician mourns the loss of
his protector through his hole that it misses him, as we all say in Brazil.
This will likely backfire. Regardless of the rights and wrongs.
It will entrench most of his supporters and it will turn some waverers agains the Democrats.
That's a different debate. And one in which everything is viewed trough a short term
opportunistic myoptic lens. In some occasions that might be -accidentally - successful. But
mostly short term opportunistic behaviour is strategically (long term) stupid.
I agree that it was not very smart for Trump and later republicans to focus on the
Biden/Ukraine episode :-). I remember this cartoon with the one person covered in lots and
lots of spots pointing at another person who had just the one small spot while crying out:
'look: you have a spot'. Whatever you think about rich offspring getting into high end
schools and getting board positions (not a fan): the problem is a lot bigger on the
republican side.
Two days ago, the President sent a fuck-you letter to Pelosi. And she deserved it. Dems have nothing to offer to electorate so they engages in those witch hunts. They derailed
Tulsi, now they might face another four years of Trump.
Pelosi sponsored war of terror "completely democratized" more more then a million people
and nobody was impeached for that.
Torquemada's subjects never endured such inhumane treatment as Trump in the hands of Pelosi ;-) But we should not forget that
Pelosi sponsored war of terror "completely democratized" more more then a million people and nobody was impeached for that.
This Kabuki theater became more interesting: On 10th December 2019, Senator Mich McConnell (Republican Kentucky)
publicly declared, &"I'm not impartial about this at all. I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not
anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision."
America is a write-off. It was a terrible idea from the beginning. An empire? Now? Really?
Not learning anything from the history books, eh? Ye need an American Union, asap, before
ye destroy us all.
Mark Galli, its current editor (who is leaving the publication in two weeks)
takes on Trump directly -- a courageous move on his part, as his magazine has largely been
apolitical. "The facts in this instance are unambiguous: the president of the United States
attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of
the president's political opponents," Galli writes. He draws the obvious conclusion for
Christians: "That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is
profoundly immoral." Galli goes further, digging into the behavior of the man in the Oval
Office, noting that Trump "has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration." He gets
specific: "He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals." As if
that wasn't enough, Galli adds, "He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his
relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone -- with its
habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders -- is a near perfect example of a
human being who is morally lost and confused." Galli's warning to Christians is clear. "To the
many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we
might say this: remember who you are and whom you serve," Galli writes. "Consider how your
justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an
unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump's immoral words and behavior
in the cause of political expediency. If we don't reverse course now, will anyone take anything
we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come?" Galli also
acknowledged Friday in an interview on CNN's "New Day" that his stand is unlikely to shake
loose Trump's strong hold on this voter segment, a crucial portion of his political base.
Galli's move is even more admirable when you consider that he published his editorial even
knowing that, as he said in his interview, he's not optimistic that his editorial will alter
Trump's support among white evangelicals. It's not a stretch to say that white evangelicals put
Trump into office in 2016. About
80% of them voted for him. They did so because of the abortion issue, mostly. They wanted
pro-life judges throughout the justice system. But this was a devil's bargain, at best.
<img alt="Faith could bring us together. But too often it divides us"
src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/191121180252-20191121-fractured-states-religious-leaders-large-169.jpg">Faith
could bring us together. But too often it divides us Younger evangelicals, those under 45,
have been slowly but steadily
moving away from Trump during the past two years or so, unhappy about his example. A key
topic that has driven them away is immigration. Loving your neighbor as yourself has always
been a bedrock Christian value. And Trump's stance on immigrants (especially those of color)
has upset the younger generation of evangelicals, with two-thirds of them saying in surveys
that immigrants strengthen our country, bringing their work ethic and talents with them from
Mexico or Central America or Syria. Climate change is another issue that has caught the
imagination of younger evangelicals. "I can't love my neighbor if I'm not protecting the earth
that sustains them and defending their rights to clean water, clean air, and a stable climate,"
Kyle Meyaard-Schaap, a national organizer for Young Evangelicals for Climate Action, told
Grist . Needless to say, Trump's contempt on this subject grates badly on these young
Christians. Perhaps naively, Americans have always looked to the presidency for exemplary moral
behavior, and when there are obvious personal or moral failures, as with Nixon and Clinton,
there is disappointment, even anger. But if you're a Christian -- and I lay claim to this for
myself -- you understand that it's human to fail at perfect behavior. There is always
forgiveness. And, as T.S. Eliot wrote, "Humility is endless."
Humility lies at the heart of
Christian behavior. As does honesty. In these, Trump has set a terrible example, and he's now
been taken down for this by an important Christian voice. If only another 10 percent of
evangelicals take this seriously, and I suspect they will, Donald J. Trump's presidency is
destined for the ash heap of history.
Delaying the Senate trial erodes the Democrats' argument that impeachment was so urgent that
they could not wait for the courts to act on Trump's aggressive claims of privilege.
Seven Democratic presidential candidates who gathered on a debate stage in Los Angeles on
Thursday represent another argument for moving beyond impeachment.
... ... ...
Washington is fixated on the daily turns of the impeachment saga, but polls indicate that
most Americans are not. Business executive Andrew Yang pointed out that, even when the current
president is gone, the struggles of many people will remain, particularly in parts of the
country that helped elect Trump in 2016.
"We blasted away 4 million manufacturing jobs that were primarily based in Ohio, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri. I just left Iowa -- we blasted 40,000 manufacturing jobs
there," Yang said. "The more we act like Donald Trump is the cause of all our problems, the
more Americans lose trust that we can actually see what's going on in our communities and solve
those problems."
That is what voters are waiting to hear, and the sooner the better for Democrats.
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin there are going to be three things in life that are certain.
Death, taxes and the impeachment of a US President when the House is held by a different
party. American politics is going to get a whole lot nastier now than what it has been.
This Punch and Judy show has achieved nothing. The House impeached him and the Senate
won't convict him. Trump now will be playing the victim card. Come November the key thing
that will matter is the economy. If it as successful as it is now then he will get a second
term. If it is in a recession then advantage Democratic candidate.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has called for the Senate to subpoena four new witnesses that
the House never heard. Nancy Pelosi signaled Wednesday night that she might not send over to
the Senate the articles of impeachment the House had just approved.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the floor both Wednesday night and Thursday morning.
To have the Senate, which is judge and jury of the impeachment charges, start calling witnesses
whom House prosecutors failed to pursue "could set a nightmarish precedent."
Said McConnell, Schumer "would apparently like our chamber to do House Democrats' homework
for them."
Schumer's plea for new witnesses is an admission that the House's case for impeaching Trump
is inadequate and deficient and could prove wholly noncredible to the American people. After
all, if you need more witnesses, you probably do not have the smoking gun.
The message sent by Pelosi's call for more time before the trial, and Schumer's call for
more witnesses, is one of fear that not only could the House's case for impeachment fail, it
could be laughed out of the Senate. And the American people might be fine with that.
The Democratic Party has bet the ranch on the impeachment and removal of Trump for
imperiling our "national security." But are Schumer and Pelosi behaving as though the republic
is in mortal peril?
Schumer's call for new witnesses also underscores the thinness of Article I of the
impeachment, Trump's alleged "Abuse of Power."
Beneath Article I, there is not a single crime listed -- no treason, no bribery, no
extortion, no high crimes.
What kind of impeachment is this, with not one crime from the list the Founding Fathers
designated as impeachable acts?
Why did the Democratic House not impeach Trump for conspiring with Russia to steal the 2016
election? Answer: Congress could no more prove this charge than could Robert Mueller after two
years.
Other events are breaking Trump's way.
The James Comey-FBI investigation Mueller inherited has begun to take on the aspect of a
"deep state" conspiracy.
According to the Justice Department's IG Michael Horowitz, the FISA court warrants used to
justify FBI spying were the products not only of incompetence but also of mendacity and
possible criminality.
The "essential" evidence used by the FBI to get the FISA judge to approve warrants for
surveillance was the Steele dossier.
An ex-British spy, Christopher Steele was working in mid-2016 for a dirt-diving operation
commissioned by the DNC and Clinton campaign to go after Trump. His altarpiece, the dossier, we
learn from Horowitz, was a farrago of fabrications, rumors, and lies fed to Steele by a Russian
"sub-source."
In the four FBI submissions to the FISA courts for warrants to spy on Carter Page, there
were "at least 17 significant errors or omissions."
And all 17 went against Team Trump.
Moreover, the discrediting of the Comey investigation has just begun. U.S. Attorney John
Durham will report this spring or summer on his deeper and wider investigation into its
roots.
As IG of Justice, Horowitz's investigation was confined to his department and the FBI. But
Durham is looking into the involvement of U.S. and foreign intelligence in the first days of
the FBI investigation.
Attorney General Bill Barr and Durham have both said that they do not share Horowitz's view
that there was no political bias at the beginning of the investigation of the Trump campaign.
Durham's writ is far wider than Horowitz's and he has the power to impanel grand juries and
bring criminal indictments.
Among the fields Durham is plowing are reports that agents and assets of the FBI and CIA may
have "set up" Trump foreign policy aide George Papadopoulos. Possible purpose: to feed him
intel about Russia having dirt on Hillary Clinton, and then entrap him, put him in legal
jeopardy, and turn him into an investigative instrument to be used against Trump.
With the Horowitz report confirming what the Trumpers have been reporting and saying about
Comey's investigation for years, and the newly proven manipulation of the FISA courts, the
media hooting about "right-wing conspiracy theories" seems to have been toned down.
Carter Page, once considered a dupe of the Russians, is now seen as a patriot who assisted
his country's intelligence services only to be made a victim of injustice who saw his civil
rights trampled upon by his own government.
The cards appear to be falling Trump's way.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan
and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com.
On Tuesday, Donald Trump showed that it is not only through the spoken word or his Twitter
account that he is able to raise eyebrows, when he sent an angry and frequently bizarre letter
to House speaker Nancy Pelosi .
The six-page missive was remarkable for a number of reasons, not least for Trump's claim he
has been subjected to worse treatment than that endured by people accused of witchcraft in the
17th century.
Here are five highlights, or otherwise, from Trump's dispatch. 1) 'More due process was
afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.'
Fourteen women and five men were hanged in colonial Massachusetts the late 1690s, for
supposedly engaging in witchcraft. "Spectral evidence" was admissible in the trials –
evidence where a witness had a dream, or apparition, which featured the alleged witch engaged
in dark deeds. Spectral evidence is yet to feature in Trump's impeachment hearings.
2)
'You [Nancy Pelosi] are offending Americans of faith by continually saying: "I pray for the
president," when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense.
It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!'
Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she prays for Donald Trump. In October, the House speaker
said
she was praying for his "health", after Trump had what she described as a "meltdown" during a
meeting with Democratic leaders.
It's not the first time she has claimed to be appealing to a higher power on Trump's
behalf. It seems Trump doesn't like it. Or believe it.
3) 'There are not many people who
could have taken the punishment inflicted during this period of time, and yet done so much for
the success of America and its citizens.'
Trump's claims that he alone could withstand such rough treatment from his opponents
rather fall down here – located as they are in a six-page ode to
self-pity.
4) 'You view democracy as your enemy!'
This exclamation comes midway through the letter, after Trump claims the Democrats have
developed "Trump Derangement Syndrome". Trump is not confident of the odds Democrats will
recover from the malady: "You will never get over it!" he writes.
5) 'I write this letter
to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.
100 years from now, when people look back at this affair, I want them to understand it, and
learn from it, so that it can never happen to another president again.'
There's a slightly self-satisfied air to the final paragraph of the letter, as if Trump
feels he has delivered a piece of soaring oratory which will be pored over by scholars in years
to come. At least here, in a sense, Trump is correct. People are unlikely to forget "this
affair" – his presidency – for a long, long time and historians of the future will
certainly examine this letter: just perhaps not in the way Trump would want them to.
Muellergate and biased MSM overcame weak minded Americans and apparently caused Pu$$y
hatted evangelicals not to vote conservative in the 2018 Midterms. (If you believe there was
no ballot, voting machine or illegal voter fraud.).....
On to 2019, where the impeachment in name only in suspended animation will be used as the
Same Mullergate style main stream narrative to sway weak minded Americans and Voter fraud to
get Trump in 2020.
You had better hope Trump wins, because all your republican gun registered names are on
Google Databases. What do you think Hillary who invited NATO in during Bill's dalliance as
President was for, A Tea Party ?
But it was totally partisan based what constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley called
"non-crimes". Trump would wear such as badge of honour--in the sense he was attacked non-stop
by what he calls "The Deep State" and survived.
He would also claim that the elitist bureaucracy in Washington tried to destroy a
President who was for "We the People"--whom the elitist classes call "deplorables" and whom
can even be smelt at Walmart.
Like it or not, impeaching a President is a very significant moment. It only happened twice
before, and came close a third. It IS an imporant occasion. And the principle is NO ONE IS
ABOVE THE LAW. This is why the Founding Fathers put it in the Constitution. And the occasion
impinged on one thing that the Founding Fathers dreaded most: a foreign nation involving
itself in our electoral process. IT IS THAT SERIOUS
Removing a president is a very significant moment, which isn't going to happen.
Impeaching a president is just another TV show, which will be forgotten by the general public
in a couple of years or so. Bubba's situation is only remembered in America and abroad due to
Monica's salacious role. Ask the first person on the street what the actual accusations
against Bubba were. Most won't even coherently explain what Donnie's current situation is
about. And in neither case it will be their fault, because it is politicians who are to be
fully blamed - Democrats are as inarticulate now as Republicans were then.
Regarding foreign ivolvements - you're a "little" bit too late to become concerned about
that. Saudi and Israeli interests have already attained a permanent residency within
America's political system, elections included.
But back in 2007, when Fein was working on impeaching President George W. Bush and Vice
President Dick Cheney, Pelosi said that impeachment was off the table completely.
So "long as they think their party has a chance to get the White House back they're eager to
take Trump's usurpations and imitate them with executive orders of their own," Fein said.
Ultimately, according to Fein, both parties in Congress "have no concept of the separation
of powers. It's all about loyalty to party. None of the Democrats did anything about Obama
going to war illegally, the Snowden revelations, DACA. Democrats didn't complain at all about
that. Republicans are exactly the same. There's no longer any loyalty to the oath of office.
That's why the country's institutions are collapsing."
Nancy Pelosi is worried that impeachment will cost the Democrats their 2016 purple gains,
and with it, her speaker's gavel.
Yet in the end, her political calculation may prove shortsighted. After all, her limp and
rushed use of the House impeachment inquiry has unified Trump supporters, calcified executive
overreach, and played directly into Trump's hands.
Hence why impeachment is so rare. If evidence isn't so obvious that you have to rely on the
President's own supporters to get at it, you probably shouldn't be trying to impeach in the
first place. That's a political choice you have to make carefully.
I tend to think this is going to be a disaster for Democrats. The GOP-controlled Senate
will spend all of its time asking questions about Biden and his son and then fully acquit,
GOP voters will come out in force and rally around the President, and Democratic voters
will be disillusioned and stay home.
I'd be happy to see Trump impeached for leaving our troops in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq
and the rest. But then I would have impeached Bush and Obama for the same.
The Trump Campaign Promises Monitor has posted a month-by-month timeline of the impeachment
inquiry, from the day Congress approved Ukrainian military aid to yesterday's impeachment
vote. See Promise #50: Drain the Swamp/Topic #14 - Impeachment Inquiry @
http://trumpcampaignpromise...
With the House set to vote on two impeachment articles Wednesday, President Trump has
broken his 2016 campaign promise to "drain the swamp." For a list of the 15 different ways
President Trump has, in fact, failed to drain the swamp, see Promise #50 at the Trump
Campaign Promises Monitor @
http://trumpcampaignpromise...
"... Why have we supported Nguema, Karimov, and Kagame but not the ones who are thorns in our sides? The reasons are obvious. It's not the lives of their citizens - it's power for the elite class. We intervene abroad because we want to further the interest of the wealthy. ..."
"... America will always pick and choose the leaders it props up and tears down. It never was and never will be for humanitarian reasons -- that is a clever veil. We denounce ethnic cleansing and then fund it. We call for free elections and then support Pinochet, Stroessner, and Videla. ..."
"... Opposing war is a noble and courageous act, and there will always be smears. Opposing war isn't supporting dictators; it's opposing death and destruction in the service of the wealthy. Never believe what they tell you about why they're sending your kids to die. Never. ..."
Idealistic Realist , Apr 27, 2019 1:24:45 PM |
link
Best analysis by a candidate for POTUS ever:
American foreign policy is not a failure. To comfort themselves, observers often say that our leaders -- presidents, advisors,
generals -- don't know what they're doing. They do know. Their agenda just isn't what we like to imagine it is.
To quote Michael Parenti: "US policy is not filled with contradictions and inconsistencies. It has performed brilliantly
and steadily in the service of those who own most of the world and who want to own all of it."
The vision of our leaders as bunglers, while more accurate than the image of them as valiant public servants, is less accurate
and more rose-tinted than the closest approximation of the truth, which is that they are servants of their class interest.
That is why we go to war.
Those who buy the elite class's foreign policy BS, about the Emmanuel Goldsteins they conjure up every three years, are
fools. Obviously Hussein and Milošević were bad; but "government bad" does not mean we must invade. Wars occur for economic,
not humanitarian, reasons.
Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the president of Equatorial Guinea, is a kleptocrat, murderer, and alleged cannibal. This is
him and his wife with Barack and Michelle Obama.
Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, was said to have boiled political prisoners to death, massacred hundreds
of prisoners, and made torture an institution. This is him with John Kerry.
Paul Kagame, the president of Rwanda, has been involved in the assassination of political opponents, perpetrated obvious
election fraud, and had his term extended until 2034. This is him with Barack and Michelle Obama.
Why have we supported Nguema, Karimov, and Kagame but not the ones who are thorns in our sides? The reasons are obvious.
It's not the lives of their citizens - it's power for the elite class. We intervene abroad because we want to further the interest
of the wealthy.
America will always pick and choose the leaders it props up and tears down. It never was and never will be for humanitarian
reasons -- that is a clever veil. We denounce ethnic cleansing and then fund it. We call for free elections and then support
Pinochet, Stroessner, and Videla.
Opposing war is a noble and courageous act, and there will always be smears. Opposing war isn't supporting dictators;
it's opposing death and destruction in the service of the wealthy. Never believe what they tell you about why they're sending
your kids to die. Never.
March 12, 2019 at 5:25
pm GMT • 200 Words @AnonFromTN
Superfluously impossible, AnonfromTN said: "It is simple, really. The US needs a law
prohibiting anyone with dual citizenship to hold public office."
Hi AnonfromTN.
Hard to comprehend how you persist to deny how the "US law" is Zionized. (Zigh) Israeli
"dual citizenship and holding "Homeland" public office is an irretractable endowment lawlessly
given to US Jews by ruling international Jewry.
They barged into our Constitution like a cancer and feast upon The Bill of Rights.
What's worse now is how livin' the "American dream" has reversed, and at present, President
t-Rump demands huge increases in war funding.
No one gets informed that future wars converge with Israel's will.
Please consider looking at the Wikileaks video linked below? It illustrates a barbaric type
of war crime-free & unaccountability to "international law," including a lawless US
military Rules of Engagement modus operandi, which governed the serial killing activity of an
Apache attack chopper crew in the Baghdad sky. Look close at the posed threat!
Tell me AnonfromTN? As you likely know, Bradley Chelsea Manning is, and under "Homeland"
law, in-the-klink for exposing the war crimes to America. Is their one (1) US Congressman
raising objection to the imprisonment? Fyi, you can look at the brave writing of Kathy Kelly on
the Manning case, and which appears at Counterpunch.org.
@ChuckOrloski I
can only agree. The patient (the US political system) is too far gone to hope for recovery.
As comment #69 rightly points out, our political system is based on bribery. Lobbyism and
donations to political campaigns and PACs are perfectly legal in the US, while all of these
should be criminal offenses punished by jail time, like in most countries. Naturally,
desperate Empires losing their dominant position resort to any war crimes imaginable, and
severely punish those who expose these crimes.
I can add only one thing: you are right that greedy Jews are evil, but greedy people of
any nationality are just as evil as greedy Jews. Not all greedy globalists and MIC thieves
are Jews, but they are all scum. I watch with dismay the US Empire heading to its crash.
Lemmings running to the cliff are about as rational as our degenerate elites. Israel
influence is toxic, but that's not the only poison the Empire will die from.
"... In a society often bereft of historical memory and in thrall to the propaganda of its "exceptionalism", Burns' "entirely new" Vietnam war is presented as "epic, historic work". Its lavish advertising campaign promotes its biggest backer, Bank of America, which in 1971 was burned down by students in Santa Barbara, California, as a symbol of the hated war in Vietnam. ..."
"... The cynical fabrication of "false flags" that led to the invasion of Vietnam is a matter of record – the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" in 1964, which Burns promotes as true, was just one. The lies litter a multitude of official documents, notably the Pentagon Papers ..."
"... Today, according to secret Nato documents obtained by the German newspaper, Suddeutsche Zetung, this vital treaty is likely to be abandoned as "nuclear targeting planning is increased". The German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel has warned against "repeating the worst mistakes of the Cold War All the good treaties on disarmament and arms control from Gorbachev and Reagan are in acute peril. Europe is threatened again with becoming a military training ground for nuclear weapons. We must raise our voice against this." ..."
"... Barack Obama provided the apotheosis, with seven simultaneous wars, a presidential record, including the destruction of Libya as a modern state. Obama's overthrow of Ukraine's elected government has had the desired effect: the massing of American-led Nato forces on Russia's western borderland through which the Nazis invaded in 1941. ..."
In a society often bereft of historical memory and in thrall to the propaganda of its
"exceptionalism", Burns' "entirely new" Vietnam war is presented as "epic, historic work". Its
lavish advertising campaign promotes its biggest backer, Bank of America, which in 1971 was
burned down by students in Santa Barbara, California, as a symbol of the hated war in
Vietnam.
Burns says he is grateful to "the entire Bank of America family" which "has long supported
our country's veterans". Bank of America was a corporate prop to an invasion that killed
perhaps as many as four million Vietnamese and ravaged and poisoned a once bountiful land. More
than 58,000 American soldiers were killed, and around the same number are estimated to have
taken their own lives.
I watched the first episode in New York. It leaves you in no doubt of its intentions right
from the start. The narrator says the war "was begun in good faith by decent people out of
fateful misunderstandings, American overconfidence and Cold War misunderstandings".
The dishonesty of this statement is not surprising. The cynical fabrication of "false flags"
that led to the invasion of Vietnam is a matter of record – the Gulf of Tonkin "incident"
in 1964, which Burns promotes as true, was just one. The lies litter a multitude of official
documents, notably the Pentagon Papers , which the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg
released in 1971.
There was no good faith. The faith was rotten and cancerous. For me – as it must be
for many Americans ! it is difficult to watch the film's jumble of "red peril" maps,
unexplained interviewees, ineptly cut archive and maudlin American battlefield sequences.
... ... ...
The sheer energy and moral persistence of these great movements largely succeeded; by 1987
Reagan had negotiated with Mikhail Gorbachev an Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF)
that effectively ended the Cold War.
Today, according to secret Nato documents obtained by the German newspaper, Suddeutsche
Zetung, this vital treaty is likely to be abandoned as "nuclear targeting planning is
increased". The German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel has warned against "repeating the worst
mistakes of the Cold War All the good treaties on disarmament and arms control from Gorbachev
and Reagan are in acute peril. Europe is threatened again with becoming a military training
ground for nuclear weapons. We must raise our voice against this."
But not in America. The thousands who turned out for Senator Bernie Sanders' "revolution" in
last year's presidential campaign are collectively mute on these dangers. That most of
America's violence across the world has been perpetrated not by Republicans, or mutants like
Trump, but by liberal Democrats, remains a taboo.
Barack Obama provided the apotheosis, with seven simultaneous wars, a presidential record,
including the destruction of Libya as a modern state. Obama's overthrow of Ukraine's elected
government has had the desired effect: the massing of American-led Nato forces on Russia's
western borderland through which the Nazis invaded in 1941.
According to some commenters at MoA the US neocons can be viewed as a flavor of political psychopaths: "Linear thinking is precisely
how Washington psychopaths think and execute once they have identified a targeted population for subservience and eventual exploitation.
It's a laser-like focus on control using the tools psychopaths understand: money, guns and butter. U.S. leaders use linear thinking
because, as psychopaths, they do not have the ability to think otherwise. Linear thinking give leaders control over how their subordinates
think and execute. A culture of psychopathy means subordinates and supporters will offer slavish devotion to such a linear path. Anyone
straying from the path is not insightful or innovative, they are rebels that sow confusion and weaken leaders. They must be silenced
and banished from the Washington tribe."
and " the Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda. Even the psychopath
manages to fake plausibility - although he has no empathy for the victim and takes a thrill out of hurting them, he can still know enough
about them to predict how they will react and to fake empathy himself. This ability seems to be missing in the folk who send the troops
in. Here there seems to be the genuine but unquestioning belief in one's own infallibility - that there is one right way of doing things
to which all others must and will yield if enough pressure is applied. The line by one of GWB's staff was, supposedly, that "we create
our own reality". It is this creation of a reality utterly divorced from the real world that seems to lead to disaster every single
time. "
Notable quotes:
"... Provided the gross flaws of the intelligence, one has to wonder about the quality of the education in politics provided by Harvard and other expensive universities.. What they seem to learn very well there is lying. ..."
"... Barack CIA 0bama. ..."
"... It seems the, "Mission Possible" of the alphabet agencies is not intelligence, but chaos. ..."
"... Did the U.S. enter the First World War to save the world and democracy, or was it a game of waiting until the sides were exhausted enough that victory would be a walkover, the prize a seat at the center of power and the result that the U.S. could now take advantage of a superior position over the now exhausted former superpowers, having sat out the worst of the fighting and sold to both sides at a healthy profit? ..."
"... Invading Afghanistan and Iraq gives the U.S. a dominant role in the center of the Asian continent, the position coveted by Britain, Russia, France and the Ottoman Empire during the Great Power rivalry leading up to the Great War. It can be seen as partial success in a policy of encirclement of Russia and China. Redefining the Afghanistan and Iraq wars along these lines make them look more successful, not less, however odious we may thing these objectives might be from moral and international law perspectives. ..."
"... you mean non-conforming realities like the rule of law, and possible future contingencies like war crimes tribunals? ..."
"... it seems to me that trying to write some kind of rational analysis of a US foreign policy without mentioning the glaring fact that it's all absolutely illegal strikes me as an exercise in confusion. ..."
"... the author's focus on successful implementation of policy is misguided. That the Iraq War was based on a lie, the Libyan bombing Campaign was illegal, and the Syrian conflict was an illegal proxy war does not trouble him. And the strategic reasons for US long-term occupation of Afghanistan escapes him. ..."
"... Although he laments the failure to plan for contingencies, the words "accountable" and "accountability" never appear in this essay. Nor does the word "neocon" - despite their being the malignant driving force in US FP. ..."
"... There have been many lessons for the Russians since Afghanistan, two that Russia was directly involved with were the 90's break-up of Yugoslavia in the 90's (and the diplomatic invention of R2P) and the Chechen turmoil of the last decade. ..."
"... My only gripe with his work is that he always describes multiple aspects of psychopathy in his observations of U.S. foreign policy and the Washington ruling elite, but never goes as far as to conclude the root of all our problems are psychopathic individuals and institutions, or a culture of psychopathy infesting larger groups of the same, e.g., Washington elite, "The Borg", etc. ..."
"... Linear thinking is precisely how Washington psychopaths think and execute once they have identified a targeted population for subservience and eventual exploitation. It's a laser-like focus on control using the tools psychopaths understand: money, guns and butter. U.S. leaders use linear thinking because, as psychopaths, they do not have the ability to think otherwise. Linear thinking give leaders control over how their subordinates think and execute. A culture of psychopathy means subordinates and supporters will offer slavish devotion to such a linear path. Anyone straying from the path is not insightful or innovative, they are rebels that sow confusion and weaken leaders. They must be silenced and banished from the Washington tribe. ..."
"... the military was told "Go to Iraq, overthrow Saddam, everything will work out once we get our contractors and corporations in after you." Paul Bremer's CPA and his "100 Orders" were supposed to fix everything. But the Iraqis objected strenuously to the oil privatization selloff (and the rest of it) and the insurgency was launched. Okay, the military was told, break the insurgency. In comes the CIA, Special Forces, mass surveillance - what comes out? Abu Ghraib torture photos. The insurgency gets even stronger. Iran ends up winning the strategic game, hands down, and has far more influence in Iraq than it could ever dream of during the Saddam era. The whole objective, turning Iraq into a client state of the U.S. neoliberal order, utterly failed. ..."
"... Here's the point I think you're missing: the Washington strategists behind all this are batshit crazy and divorced from reality. Their objectives have to be rewritten every few years, because they're hopeless pipe dreams. They live and work and breathe in these Washington military-industrial think tanks, neocons and neoliberals both, that are largely financed by arms manufacturers and associated private equity firms. As far as the defense contractors go, one war is as good as another, they can keep selling arms to all regardless. Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria - cash cows is all they are. So, they finance the PR monkeys to keep pushing "strategic geopolitical initiatives" that are really nonsensical and have no hope of working in the long run - but who cares, the cash keeps flowing. ..."
"... It's all nonsense, there's no FSA just Al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates, plus the Kurdish proxy force is a long-term dead end - but it keeps the war going. A more rational approach - work with Russia to defeat ISIS, don't worry about economic cooperation between Syria and Iran, tell the Saudis and Israelis that Iran won't invade them (it won't), pull back militarily and focus instead on domestic problems in the USA - the think tanks, defense contractors, Saudi and Israeli lobbyists, they don't like that. ..."
"... Brenner is trying to mislead us with bombastic terminology like "The Linear Mindset". The root cause of America's problems is what Michael Scheuer calls Imperial Hubris: The idea that they are Masters of the Universe and so they have omnipotent power to turn every country into a vassal. But when this hubris meets reality, they get confused and don't know what to do. In such a case, they resort to three standard actions: sanctions, regime change or chaos. If these three don't work, they repeat them! ..."
"... Politicians are mere puppets. Their real owners are the 1% who use the Deep State to direct policy. Among this 1% there are zionists who have enormous influence on US Middle Eastern policy and they use the neocons as their attack dogs to direct such policy. This hubris has caused so much pain, destruction and death all over the world and it has also caused America so much economic damage. ..."
"... America is waning as a global power but instead of self-introspection and returning to realism, they are doubling down on neocon policy stupidity. Putin, China and Iran are trying to save them from their stupidity but they seem to be hell-bent on committing suicide. But I hope the policy sophistication of Russia, China and Iran, as well as their military capabilities that raise the stakes high for US military intervention will force the Masters of the Universe to see sense and reverse their road to destruction. ..."
"... the Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda. Even the psychopath manages to fake plausibility - although he has no empathy for the victim and takes a thrill out of hurting them, he can still know enough about them to predict how they will react and to fake empathy himself. This ability seems to be missing in the folk who send the troops in. Here there seems to be the genuine but unquestioning belief in one's own infallibility - that there is one right way of doing things to which all others must and will yield if enough pressure is applied. The line by one of GWB's staff was, supposedly, that "we create our own reality". It is this creation of a reality utterly divorced from the real world that seems to lead to disaster every single time. ..."
"... The propaganda part is inventing, manufacturing and embellishing some embodiment of evil that must be defeated to liberate their victims and save humanity. That's the cover story, not the underlying purpose of U.S. aggression. ..."
"... Neocons do not believe that exclusively as a goal in itself - it merely dovetails rather nicely with their ultimate obsession with control, and it's and easy sell against any less-than-perfect targeted foreign leader or government. Irrational demonization is the embodiment of that propaganda. ..."
"... The methods of ultimately controlling the liberated people and their nation's resources are cloaked in the guise of 'bringing Western democracy'. Methods for corrupting the resulting government and usurping their laws and voting are hidden or ignored. The propaganda then turns to either praising the resulting utopia or identifying/creating a new evil that now must also be eliminated. The utopia thing hasn't worked out so well in Libya, Iraq or Ukraine, so they stuck with the 'defeat evil' story. ..."
"... Apart from psychopathy in US leadership, the US has no understanding, nor respect of, other cultures. This is not just in US leadership, but in the exceptional people in general. It shows up from time to time in comments at blogs like this, and is often quite noticeable in comments at SST. ..."
"... The essence of imperial hubris is the belief that one's country is omnipotent; that the country can shape and create reality. The country's main aspiration is to create clients, dependencies and as the Godfather Zbigniew Bzrezinski candidly put it, "vassals".Such a mindset does not just appreciate the reality of contingency; it also does not appreciate the nature of complex systems. The country's elites believe that both soft and hard power should be able to ensure the desired outcomes. But resistance to imperial designs and blowback from the imperial power's activities induce cognitive dissonance. Instead of such cognitive crises leading to a return to reality, they lead to denial amongst this elite. This elite lives in a bubble. Their discourse is intellectually incestuous and anybody that threatens this bubble is ostracized. Limits are set to what can be debated. That is why realists like John Mearsheimer, Steve Walt, Michael Scheuer and Stephen Cohen are ignored by this elite even though their ideas are very germane. If other countries don't bow down to their dictates, they have only a combination of the following responses: sanctions, regime change and chaos. The paradox is that the more they double down with their delusions the more the country's power continues to decline. My only hope is that this doubling down will not take the world down with it. ..."
"linear"?, I would say amateurish and often stupid! It seems that the USA cannot see far enough as it's submitted to regime changes
every 5 years and decisions are finally left to powerful lobbies that have a better continuity.
Provided the gross flaws
of the intelligence, one has to wonder about the quality of the education in politics provided by Harvard and other expensive
universities.. What they seem to learn very well there is lying.
"Linear" and all that is the mushy feel-good stuff on top of your arrogance. Kleptocracy only NOW putting down its roots? Come
on. Let's get back to the 90's where it started. Vengeance for 9/11? Cover?
It seems the, "Mission Possible" of the alphabet agencies is not intelligence, but chaos. All's well in the world with
them as long as the USSA is grinding away on some near helpless ME country. Drugs and other natural resources flow from and death
and destruction flow to the unsuspecting Muslim targets.
With America, you're our friend, (or at least we tolerate you) until you're not (or we don't), then God help you and your innocent
hoards.
The organized and well scripted chaos has been just one act in the larger play of destroying western civilization with throngs
of Muslims now flooding western Europe and to a lesser degree, USA. Of course, the Deep State had felt confident in allowing Latinos
to destroy America...Trump has put a large crimp in the pipeline--one of the reasons he is hated so badly by the destructive PTB.
Your analysis of linearity is interesting. However, you make what I believe is a critical error. You assume you know the objective
and the path to follow and base your critique accordingly.
It is entirely possible that the underlying objective of, for instance, invading Iraq was to win a war and bring democracy.
Subsequent behaviour in Iraq (and Afghanistan) indicates that there might be (likely is) a hidden but central other objective.
I do not want to state that I know what that is because I am not "in the know". However, much that you attribute to failure from
linear thinking just as easily can be explained by the complexity of realizing a "hidden agenda".
Perhaps we can learn from history. Did the U.S. enter the First World War to save the world and democracy, or was it a
game of waiting until the sides were exhausted enough that victory would be a walkover, the prize a seat at the center of power
and the result that the U.S. could now take advantage of a superior position over the now exhausted former superpowers, having
sat out the worst of the fighting and sold to both sides at a healthy profit?
Invading Afghanistan and Iraq gives the U.S. a dominant role in the center of the Asian continent, the position coveted
by Britain, Russia, France and the Ottoman Empire during the Great Power rivalry leading up to the Great War. It can be seen as
partial success in a policy of encirclement of Russia and China. Redefining the Afghanistan and Iraq wars along these lines make
them look more successful, not less, however odious we may thing these objectives might be from moral and international law perspectives.
Russia learnt a huge lesson from their experience in Afghanistan. There they retreated in the face of a violent Wahabist insurgency
and paid the price. The Soviet union collapsed and became vulnerable to western free-market gangsterism as well as suffering the
blowback of terrorism in Chechnya, where they decided to play it very differently. A bit more like how Assad senior dealt with
the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1980's.
Russia knew that if ISIS and friends were allowed to destroy Syria like the Mujahadeen
had done in Afghanistan, then it would only be a matter of time before blowback would come again to Russia.
Russia's involvement is entirely rational and in their national interest. It should never have come as a surprise to the US,
and the US should shake off their cold war propaganda and be grateful that people are willing to put their lives on the line to
defeat Wahabist terrorism. Russia has played a focused line with integrity. Many Syrians love them for this, and many more in
the Middle East will likewise adopt a similar line.
In other words, the linear mindset blocks out all non-conforming realities in the present and those contingent elements
which might arise in the future
you mean non-conforming realities like the rule of law, and possible future contingencies like war crimes tribunals?
i kinda skimmed this piece, but it seems to me that trying to write some kind of rational analysis of a US foreign policy
without mentioning the glaring fact that it's all absolutely illegal strikes me as an exercise in confusion.
Brenner: Washington never really had a plan in Syria.
Really? Firstly, the author's focus on successful implementation of policy is misguided. That the Iraq War was based on
a lie, the Libyan bombing Campaign was illegal, and the Syrian conflict was an illegal proxy war does not trouble him. And the
strategic reasons for US long-term occupation of Afghanistan escapes him.
Although he laments the failure to plan for contingencies, the words "accountable" and "accountability" never appear in
this essay. Nor does the word "neocon" - despite their being the malignant driving force in US FP.
The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities
has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic
to Al Qaeda.
In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January [2007], Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said
that there is "a new strategic alignment in the Middle East," separating "reformers" and "extremists"; she pointed to the Sunni
states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were "on the other side of that divide."
Lastly, Brenner's complaint that Obama has been "scape-goated" as having created ISIS conveniently ignores Obama's allowing ISIS
to grow by down-playing the threat that it represented. Obama's called ISIS al Queda's "JV team" and senior intelligence analysts
dutifully distorted intelligence to down-play the threat (see below). This was one of many deceptions that Obama took part in
- if not orchestrated (others: "moderate rebels", Benghazi, the "Fiscal Cliff", bank bailouts).
After months of investigation, this much is very clear: from the middle of 2014 to the middle of 2015, the United States
Central Command's most senior intelligence leaders manipulated the command's intelligence products to downplay the threat from
ISIS in Iraq" . . .
The Joint Task Force can find no justifiable reason why operational reporting was repeatedly used as a rationale to change
the analytic product, particularly when the changes only appeared to be made in a more optimistic direction . . .
There have been many lessons for the Russians since Afghanistan, two that Russia was directly involved with were the 90's
break-up of Yugoslavia in the 90's (and the diplomatic invention of R2P) and the Chechen turmoil of the last decade.
Russia has also benefited through the non-linear analysis of US diplomacy failures of the last two decades. Russia has created
a coalition backing up their military entry into the Middle East that allows achievement of tangible objectives at a sustainable
cost.
But b's article is about the US's dismal diplomacy that is exacerbating its rapid empire decline and it does very well to help
explain the rigid lack of thought that hastens the deterioration of US influence.
This article makes a lot of good points, but I didn't really grasp exactly what "linear" thinking is. OK. Venezuela very well
may be turning into a situation. What is the "linear" approach? What, instead, would be the "non-linear" approach? This article
cites many "linear" failures. It would be helpful also to learn of some non-linear successes. If not by the United States then
by somebody else.
Let me clarify my prior posting. This article seems to be asserting that the United States has attempted to pound the square peg
of its policy objectives into the round hole of the Middle East. I pretty much agree with that idea. But how is this "linear,"
as opposed to "bull-headed"? How does being "non-linear" help with the pounding? Would not adapting our policies to pound a round
peg instead be just as "linear" but more clever?
Thanks for posting these great observations by Michael Brenner, b.
The link to his bio on University of Pitsburg site is broken and the page is gone, but it still exists for now in Google's
cache from Aug. 1st
here . His bio can also be found under this ">https://www.theglobalist.com/united-states-common-man-forgotten-by-elites/">this
article from The Globalist
Everything I've read of Dr. Brenner that I've stumbled across is brilliant. My only gripe with his work is that he always
describes multiple aspects of psychopathy in his observations of U.S. foreign policy and the Washington ruling elite, but never
goes as far as to conclude the root of all our problems are psychopathic individuals and institutions, or a culture of psychopathy
infesting larger groups of the same, e.g., Washington elite, "The Borg", etc.
While he is quite accurate in describing the symptoms, one is left with the impression that they are the things to be
fixed. Linear thinking in a U.S. foreign policy of aggression? Absolutely, but it's pointless to 'fix' that without understanding
the cause.
Linear thinking is precisely how Washington psychopaths think and execute once they have identified a targeted population
for subservience and eventual exploitation. It's a laser-like focus on control using the tools psychopaths understand: money,
guns and butter. U.S. leaders use linear thinking because, as psychopaths, they do not have the ability to think otherwise. Linear
thinking give leaders control over how their subordinates think and execute. A culture of psychopathy means subordinates and supporters
will offer slavish devotion to such a linear path. Anyone straying from the path is not insightful or innovative, they are rebels
that sow confusion and weaken leaders. They must be silenced and banished from the Washington tribe.
Does anyone in Washington REALLY want to 'save' the Persians and 'rebuild' Iran as they imagine America did post WWII to German
and Japan? Or is the more overriding intent to punish and destroy a leadership that will not submit to the political and commercial
interests in the US? Of course the U.S. fails to deliver any benefits to the 'little people' after destroying their country and
government - they are incapable of understanding what the 'little people' want (same goes for domestic issues in the U.S.).
The U.S. government and leadership do not need lessons to modify their techniques or 'thinking' - they are incapable of doing
so. You can't 'talk a psychopath into having empathy' any more than you can talk them out of having smallpox. 'The law' and voting
were intentionally broken in the U.S. to make them all but useless to fix Washington, yet a zombified American public will continue
to use the religiously (or sit back and watch others use them religiously) with little result. Because we're a democracy and a
nation of laws - the government will fix anything broken with those tools.
In a certain sense, I'm glad Brennan does NOT go on about psychopathy in his articles. He would sound as tedious and nutty
as I do here and would never be allowed near Washington. I'll just be grateful for his thorough illustration of the symptoms for
now.
Your analysis of linearity is interesting. However, you make what I believe is a critical error. You assume you know the objective
and the path to follow and base your critique accordingly.
First, this is more an analysis of military failure to "do the job" that Washington "strategic thinkers" tell them to do, and
the reasons why it's such a futile game. In our system of government, the military does tactics, not strategy. And the above article,
which should be passed out to every politician in this country, isn't really about "the objective".
For example, the military was told "Go to Iraq, overthrow Saddam, everything will work out once we get our contractors
and corporations in after you." Paul Bremer's CPA and his "100 Orders" were supposed to fix everything. But the Iraqis objected
strenuously to the oil privatization selloff (and the rest of it) and the insurgency was launched. Okay, the military was told,
break the insurgency. In comes the CIA, Special Forces, mass surveillance - what comes out? Abu Ghraib torture photos. The insurgency
gets even stronger. Iran ends up winning the strategic game, hands down, and has far more influence in Iraq than it could ever
dream of during the Saddam era. The whole objective, turning Iraq into a client state of the U.S. neoliberal order, utterly failed.
Here's the point I think you're missing: the Washington strategists behind all this are batshit crazy and divorced from
reality. Their objectives have to be rewritten every few years, because they're hopeless pipe dreams. They live and work and
breathe in these Washington military-industrial think tanks, neocons and neoliberals both, that are largely financed by arms manufacturers
and associated private equity firms. As far as the defense contractors go, one war is as good as another, they can keep selling
arms to all regardless. Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria - cash cows is all they are. So, they finance the PR monkeys to
keep pushing "strategic geopolitical initiatives" that are really nonsensical and have no hope of working in the long run - but
who cares, the cash keeps flowing.
And if you want to know why the Borg State got firmly behind Hillary Clinton, it's because they could see her supporting this
agenda wholeheartedly, especially after Libya. Here's a comment she wrote to Podesta on 2014-08-19, a long 'strategy piece' ending
with this note:
Note: It is important to keep in mind that as a result of this policy there probably will be concern in the Sunni regions of
Iraq and the Central Government regarding the possible expansion of KRG controlled territory. With advisors in the Peshmerga
command we can reassure the concerned parties that, in return for increase autonomy, the KRG will not exclude the Iraqi Government
from participation in the management of the oil fields around Kirkuk, and the Mosel Dam hydroelectric facility. At the same
time we will be able to work with the Peshmerga as they pursue ISIL into disputed areas of Eastern Syria, coordinating with
FSA troops who can move against ISIL from the North. This will make certain Basher al Assad does not gain an advantage from
these operations. Finally, as it now appears the U.S. is considering a plan to offer contractors as advisors to the Iraqi Ministry
of Defense, we will be in a position to coordinate more effectively between the Peshmerga and the Iraqi Army.
It's all nonsense, there's no FSA just Al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates, plus the Kurdish proxy force is a long-term dead end
- but it keeps the war going. A more rational approach - work with Russia to defeat ISIS, don't worry about economic cooperation
between Syria and Iran, tell the Saudis and Israelis that Iran won't invade them (it won't), pull back militarily and focus instead
on domestic problems in the USA - the think tanks, defense contractors, Saudi and Israeli lobbyists, they don't like that.
Regardless, it looks like end times for the American empire, very similar to how the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1980s, and
the last days of the French and British empires in the 1950s. And good riddance, it's become a dead weight dragging down the standard
of living for most American citizens who aren't on that gravy train.
Brenner is trying to mislead us with bombastic terminology like "The Linear Mindset". The root cause of America's problems
is what Michael Scheuer calls Imperial Hubris: The idea that they are Masters of the Universe and so they have omnipotent power
to turn every country into a vassal. But when this hubris meets reality, they get confused and don't know what to do. In such
a case, they resort to three standard actions: sanctions, regime change or chaos. If these three don't work, they repeat them!
Politicians are mere puppets. Their real owners are the 1% who use the Deep State to direct policy. Among this 1% there
are zionists who have enormous influence on US Middle Eastern policy and they use the neocons as their attack dogs to direct such
policy. This hubris has caused so much pain, destruction and death all over the world and it has also caused America so much economic
damage.
America is waning as a global power but instead of self-introspection and returning to realism, they are doubling down
on neocon policy stupidity. Putin, China and Iran are trying to save them from their stupidity but they seem to be hell-bent on
committing suicide. But I hope the policy sophistication of Russia, China and Iran, as well as their military capabilities that
raise the stakes high for US military intervention will force the Masters of the Universe to see sense and reverse their road
to destruction.
There's a lot in both this piece and the comments. In a sense, I wonder if the core issue behind the Neocon/Imperial mindset isn't
a complete inability to see the other side's point of view. Psychopathy, short-termism (a common fault in businesspeople), divorce
from reality and hubris are likely a good part of it, as somebody, Paveway IV, Makutwa and nonsense factory put it, but the
Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda. Even the psychopath manages to
fake plausibility - although he has no empathy for the victim and takes a thrill out of hurting them, he can still know enough
about them to predict how they will react and to fake empathy himself. This ability seems to be missing in the folk who send the
troops in. Here there seems to be the genuine but unquestioning belief in one's own infallibility - that there is one right way
of doing things to which all others must and will yield if enough pressure is applied. The line by one of GWB's staff was, supposedly,
that "we create our own reality". It is this creation of a reality utterly divorced from the real world that seems to lead to
disaster every single time.
I would paraphrase critics of b that he (she?) has fallen into linearity trap: one point is the resources spent by USA on wars
of 21-st century (a lot), the second points are positive results (hardly any), and an intellectual charge proceeds from A to B.
However between A and B there can be diversity of problems. We can stock enough gasoline, run out of potable water. And indeed,
you can encounter pesky terrain. I recall a family vacation trip where we visited Natural Bridges National Monument and we proceeded
to Arizona on an extremely straight highway through pretty flat plateau. Then the pavement end, and the acrophobic designated
driver has to negotiate several 180* hairpins to get down on a cliff flanking Monument Valley. After second inspection, the map
had tiny letters "switchbacks" and a tiny fragment of the road not marked with the pavement. Still better than discovering "bridge
out" annotation on your map only when you gaze at the water flowing between two bridge heads. (If I recall, during late 20-th
century Balkan intervention, US military needed a lot of time to cross Danube river that unexpectedly had no functioning bridge
where they wanted to operate. Landscape changes during a war.)
That said, military usually has an appreciation for terrain. But there are also humans. On domestic side, the number of experts
on those distant societies is small, and qualified experts, minuscule. Because the qualified ones were disproportionally naysayers,
the mere whiff if expertise was treated as treason, and we had a purge of "Arabists". And it was of course worse in the lands
to charm and conquer. Effective rule requires local hands to follow our wishes, people who can be trusted. And, preferably, not
intensely hated by the locals they are supposed to administer. And like with gasoline, water, food, etc. on a vacation trip (who
forgot mosquito repellent!), the list of needed traits is surprisingly long. Like viewing collaboration with Israel supporting
infidels as a mortal sin that can be perpetrated to spare the family from starvation (you can recruit them, success!), but it
has to be atoned through backstabbing (local cadres are disappointing).
Great analysis! This is an excellent example for why I read MOA at least once a day and most of the comments! There's something
of a sad irony that Trump has made at least some kind of effort to thwart the neocons and their relentless rush toward armageddon,
seeing as how lacking in any real intellectual capcity they all seem and with Trump at the helm?
Mostly tptb, our political class, and the pundits for the masses, seem all to exhibit an astonishingly dull witted lack of
true concern or humanity for anybody anywhere, and in my years on earth so far, at least in America, they have inculcated in the
population very dubious ethical chioces, which you would think were tragic, and decisions, which you would believe were doomed,
from the wars being waged, to the lifestyles of the citizenry especially toward the top of the economic ladder, and I don't know
about others here but I for one have been confronting and dealing with these problems both in family and aquaintances for my entire
adult life! Like the battle at Kurushetra. At least they say they "have a plan," scoffingly.
Where is chipnik to weigh in on this with his poetic observations, or I think long ago it was "slthrop" who may have been bannned
for foul language as he or she raged on at the absurdities that keep heaping up exponentially? I do miss them!
Oh well, life is relatively short and we will all be gone at some point and our presense here will be one and all less than
an iota. An awareness of this one fact and its implications you would think would pierce the consciousness of every human being
well before drawing their final breath, but I guess every McCain fails to realize until too late that the jig is up?
Justin Glyn@20 "but the Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda."
The propaganda part is inventing, manufacturing and embellishing some embodiment of evil that must be defeated to liberate
their victims and save humanity. That's the cover story, not the underlying purpose of U.S. aggression.
Neocons do not believe that exclusively as a goal in itself - it merely dovetails rather nicely with their ultimate obsession
with control, and it's and easy sell against any less-than-perfect targeted foreign leader or government. Irrational demonization
is the embodiment of that propaganda.
The methods of ultimately controlling the liberated people and their nation's resources are cloaked in the guise of 'bringing
Western democracy'. Methods for corrupting the resulting government and usurping their laws and voting are hidden or ignored.
The propaganda then turns to either praising the resulting utopia or identifying/creating a new evil that now must also be eliminated.
The utopia thing hasn't worked out so well in Libya, Iraq or Ukraine, so they stuck with the 'defeat evil' story.
Apart from psychopathy in US leadership, the US has no understanding, nor respect of, other cultures. This is not just in
US leadership, but in the exceptional people in general. It shows up from time to time in comments at blogs like this, and is
often quite noticeable in comments at SST.
That it why the US in its arrogance has failed in Syria, and Russia with its tiny force has been so successful.
The essence of imperial hubris is the belief that one's country is omnipotent; that the country can shape and create reality.
The country's main aspiration is to create clients, dependencies and as the Godfather Zbigniew Bzrezinski candidly put it, "vassals".Such
a mindset does not just appreciate the reality of contingency; it also does not appreciate the nature of complex systems. The
country's elites believe that both soft and hard power should be able to ensure the desired outcomes. But resistance to imperial
designs and blowback from the imperial power's activities induce cognitive dissonance. Instead of such cognitive crises leading
to a return to reality, they lead to denial amongst this elite. This elite lives in a bubble. Their discourse is intellectually
incestuous and anybody that threatens this bubble is ostracized. Limits are set to what can be debated. That is why realists like
John Mearsheimer, Steve Walt, Michael Scheuer and Stephen Cohen are ignored by this elite even though their ideas are very germane.
If other countries don't bow down to their dictates, they have only a combination of the following responses: sanctions, regime
change and chaos. The paradox is that the more they double down with their delusions the more the country's power continues to
decline. My only hope is that this doubling down will not take the world down with it.
"... It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America's institutions, including businesses, schools and governments," Dimon, 61, summarized. "This can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked. ..."
"JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon has two big pronouncements as the Trump administration starts reshaping
the government: "The United States of America is truly an exceptional country," and "it is clear that something is wrong."
Dimon, leader of world's most valuable bank and a counselor to the new president, used his 45-page annual letter to shareholders
on Tuesday to list ways America is stronger than ever -- before jumping into a much longer list of self-inflicted problems that
he said was "upsetting" to write.
Here's the start: Since the turn of the century, the U.S. has dumped trillions of dollars into wars, piled huge debt onto students,
forced legions of foreigners to leave after getting advanced degrees, driven millions of Americans out of the workplace with felonies
for sometimes minor offenses and hobbled the housing market with hastily crafted layers of rules.
Dimon, who sits on Donald Trump's business forum aimed at boosting job growth, is renowned for his optimism and has been voicing
support this year for parts of the president's business agenda. In February, Dimon predicted the U.S. would have a bright economic
future if the new administration carries out plans to overhaul taxes, rein in rules and boost infrastructure investment. In an
interview last month, he credited Trump with boosting consumer and business confidence in growth, and reawakening "animal spirits."
But on Tuesday, reasons for concern kept coming. Labor market participation is low, Dimon wrote. Inner-city schools are failing
poor kids. High schools and vocational schools aren't providing skills to get decent jobs. Infrastructure planning and spending
is so anemic that the U.S. hasn't built a major airport in more than 20 years. Corporate taxes are so onerous it's driving capital
and brains overseas. Regulation is excessive.
" It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America's institutions, including businesses, schools and
governments," Dimon, 61, summarized. "This can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free
enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked. "...
"Inner-city schools are failing poor kids. High schools and vocational schools aren't providing skills to get decent jobs. Infrastructure
planning and spending is so anemic that the U.S. hasn't built a major airport in more than 20 years. Corporate taxes are so onerous
it's driving capital and brains overseas. Regulation is excessive."
Let's unpack his list. The 4th (last) sentence is his hope that his bank can back to the unregulated regime that brought us
the Great Recession. His 3rd sentence is a call for more tax cuts for the rich.
We may like his first 2 sentences here but who is going to pay for this? Not Jamie Dimon. See sentence #3.
"... As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror" into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East. He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice. ..."
Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize -- for not being George W. Bush. This seemed unseemly at the time, but not outrageous.
Seven years later, it seems grotesque.
As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror"
into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East. He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice.
ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY
(Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS
(Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is
In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the
Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy)
at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to
Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics
of Illusion (AK Press).
And Ms. Pelosi believes that Mr. Trump is so eager for the public vindication of a Senate
acquittal that he will put pressure on the majority leader to make it happen even if it means
offering some concessions to Mr. Schumer.
For now, however, Mr. McConnell -- and many other Senate Republicans -- seem unmoved by the
House posture. He spent much of Thursday gleefully ridiculing Democrats' negotiating
tactics.
"Do you think this is leverage, to not send us something we'd rather not do?" he asked
reporters this week as he cracked a broad smile outside the Senate chamber, in a departure from
his usual dour expression.
"... Three billion dollars of USAID money sent to Ukraine over 3 years is not accounted for, no documents, no audits. The Clinton Foundation has received $10 million in donations of $500K and up from Ukraine this century. Igor Pasternak had a fundraiser in Washington for Adam Schiff; $1000/plate- guest, $2500/plate-sponsor. Ukranians and US taxpayers should like to know where did our dollars go, and who else in addition to the Bidens are at the trough. ..."
"... So the documents were released three weeks ago? Giuliani had the evidence in JANUARY? So the Quid Pro Quo kerfuffle was manufactured thereafter? ..."
"... So the QPQ is actually by Dems' trying to stop prosecution of Biden and above? Clinton and Obama? Which is why the impeachment bs? Or is it to stop the prosecution of the chiefs of the 3 letter agencies in their manufacturing of Russiagate? And their 5+1 eyed cohorts? In a conspiracy against the potus? Now just fit in Syria, White Helmets and Skripals and all the dots join up. ..."
On November 22nd, a 100-page Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data-dump was made by the U.S.
Department of State, to the Democratic-Party-aligned nonprofit "American Oversight," which had been founded in March
2017 by liberals (really by some of the
main billionaires who fund the Democratic Party
) after the 2016 Democratic electoral defeat (by
Republican billionaires
).
The now Republican-headed U.S. State Department made it as difficult as possible to report the contents of this
dump; Most especially by providing only a photographic image of each page, making it impossible to search on most
systems; and also impossible to Copy/Paste any quotations.
Consequently, on November 23rd, I made a pdf copy of that document to the Web Archive (the first of probably many
that will become posted there), in order to be able to link here to something that will come onscreen less sluggishly
for any interested reader who will want to see the document.
I am herewith pasting below what I consider to be the most important extended passage in the document, so as to
make that passage especially available online. I have manually transcribed the photos, in order that any portion of
this important passage (pages 61-66) can now be easily found and cited by other reporters.
This way, at least that passage might become more widely disseminated to the public -- which it should be, because
the information there contradicts many of the 'news'-reports about Ukrainegate, or the impeachment case against
Trump. (Some excerpts from this extended passage were reported on
November 25th
by the great non-mainstream news-site Zero Hedge, and that was entirely accurate.)
In this passage, President Trump's lawyer Rudolphe Giuliani, on January 23, 25, and 26, of 2019, took a deposition
from Viktor Shokin, whom Joe Biden had forced to be fired on 29 March 2016 as Ukraine's Prosecutor General, and also
a deposition from Yuriy Lutsenko, who replaced Shokin and thereby freed-up from the Obama Administration in 2016 a
one-billion-dollar donation ('loan guarantees' to the then-and-now bankrupt Government of Ukraine) from America's
taxpayers, to fund the then just-recently-installed-by-Obama anti-Russian Government
of Ukraine, for it to stay afloat just a while longer.
Shokin – January 23, 2019, 445 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022:
On January 23, 2019, a telephone interview with Mr. Viktor Shokin the former General Prosecutor of Ukraine was
conducted. Present in the New York location were: Rudolph Giuliani, Mr. Igor Fruman, Mr. Lev Parnas and Mr. George
Boyle.
The conversation was conducted through the use of two (2) interpreters one (1) in Ukraine and one (1) Lev
Parnas in New York. The sum and substance of the conversation are as follows:
Mr. Shokin stated that he was appointed to the position of General Prosecutor of Ukraine from 2015 until April
of 2016 when he was removed at the request of Mr. Joseph Biden the Vice President of the United States. Mr. Shokin
was a Deputy Prosecutor prior to becoming the General Prosecutor. He became involved in a case against Mr. Mykola
Zlochevsky the former Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine.
The case was opened as a result of Mr. Zlochevsky giving himself/company permits to drill for gas and oil in
Ukraine. Mr. Zlochevsky is also the owner of Burisma Holdings, which is a corporation registered in Cyprus. Mr.
Shokin stated that there are documents that list five (5) criminal cases in which Mr. Zlochevsky is listed, with
the main case being for issuing illegal gas exploration permits. The following complaints are in the criminal
case.
Mr. Zlochevsky was laundering money
Obtained assets by corrupt acts bribery
Mr. Zlochevsky removed approximately twenty three million U.S. dollars out of Ukraine without permission
While seated as the Minister he approved two addition[al] entities to receive permits for gas exploration
Mr. Zlochevsky was the owner of two secret companies that were part of Burisma Holdings and gave those
companies permits which made it possible for him to profit while he was the sitting Minister
The above cases were closed after Mr. Zlochevsky was dismissed from the Ministry.
Mr. Shokin further stated that there were several Burisma board appointees [that] were made in 2014 as follows:
Hunter Biden son of Vice President Joseph Biden
Joseph Blade former CIA employee assigned to Anti-Terrorist Unit
Aleksander Kwasnieski former President of Poland
Devon Archer roommate to Christopher Heinz the step-son of Mr. John Kerry United States Secretary of State
Mr. Shokin stated that these appointments were made by Mr. Zlochevsky in order to protect himself. Mr.
Zlochevsky left Ukraine while the above-mentioned cases were open.
Mr. Shokin stated that the investigations stopped out of fear of the United States. Mr. Shokin attempted to
continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015 the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him
that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves, which, according to Mr. Shokin, implied to do nothing.
On or about September 2015, Mr. Pyatt gave a speech in Odessa where he stated that the cases were not investigated
correctly and that Mr. Shokin may be corrupt.
Mr. Shokin stated that in 2014 Mr. Zlochevsky was in the UK and that the twenty three million dollars were
frozen in the UK in the BNP Bank. Mr. Shokin stated that false documents were prepared and the money was released
so Mr. S[sp]lochevski before Mr. Shokin took office. That release of the money made Mr. Shokin look into the above
cases again.
Mr. Shokin stated that there were several articles written about bribes being taken during the investigation of
the cases. The bribes were an effort to have the cases closed. On April [actually
29 March
] of 2016 Mr. Shokin was dismissed as the General Prosecutor of Ukraine [and
both the U.S. and its stooge the EU celebrated his firing
-- the EU aquiesced in the
U.S. regime's Ukrainian coup
]. In November of 2016 the cases were closed by the current Prosecutor General
Yuriy Lutsenko.
Mr. Shokin further stated that on February of 2016 warrants were placed on the accounts of multiple people in
Ukraine. There were requests for information on Hunter Biden to which nothing was received. It is believed that
Hunter Biden receives a salary, commission, plus one million dollars. Mr. Shokin stated he was warned to stop by
Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt.
President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko told Mr. Shokin not to investigate Burisma as it was not in the interest
of Joe and/or Hunter Biden. Mr. Shokin was called into Mr. Poroshenko's office and told that the investigation
into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one
billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine.
Mr. Shokin stated that on or around April of 2016 Mr. Petro Poroshenko called him and told him he had to be
fired as the aid to the Ukraine was being withheld by Joe Biden. Mr. Biden told Mr. Poroshenko that he had
evidence that Mr. Shokin was corrupt and needed to be fired. Mr. Shokin was dismissed in April of 2016 and the
U.S. aid was delivered within one and one half months.
On a different point, Mr. Shokin believes the current [U.S.] Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch denied his visa to
travel to the U.S. Mr. Shokin stated that she is close to Mr. Biden. Mr. Shokin also stated that there were leaks
by a person named Reshenko of the Ukrainian State Secret Service about the Manafort Black Book. Mr. Shokin stated
that there is possible deceit in the Manafort Black Book.
End of interview.
*
Yuriy Lutsenko January 25, 2019, 445 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022:
On January 25, 2019, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine was present at 445 Park Av e,
New York, NY. He was present to speak about corruption in Ukraine. He was accomapnied by Glib Zagoriy, Gyunduz
Mamedov, Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman. Also present were Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and George Boyle.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that he is currently the Prosecutor General for Ukraine. He was the Minister of Interior
from 2007 to 2010. He further stated that he was placed in jail for two and one half years as a political
prisoner.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that his office has the following units under his purview:
Police Department
Fiscals
Secret Service
Investigative Department
Mr. Lutsenko stated that his office has recovered several billion dollars and has had two thousand six hundred
thirty-seven [2,637] verdicts of corruption. Mr. Lutsenko went on to explain that there is a unit called
Specialized Anticorruption Prosecutors Office (SAP) which has under its purview National Anticorruption Bureau
Ukraine (NABU) which investigates corruption cases that involve public figures from Mayors upward. He stated that
the current U.S. Ambassador protects SAP and NABU.
He feels they are good organizations but have terrible leadership. His office has absolutely no control over
SAP or NABU and can't even ask what they are working on, however they fall under his 'control'.
He further state[s] that he believes Mr. Viktor Shokin, the former Prosecutor General, is honest.
Mr. Lutsenko went on to say that he began looking at the same case Mr. Shokin was looking at (mentioned above)
and he believes Hunter Biden receives millions of dollars in compensation from Burisma. He produced a document
from Latvia that showed several million dollars that were distributed out of Burisma's account.
The record showed two (2) companies and four (4) individuals receiving approximately sixteen million dollars in
disbursements, as follows [the breakdown is shown].
Mr. Lutsenko feels that the total disbursements can be as high as $100,000,000.
Ambassador Pyatt gave a speech on September 25, 2015 in Odessa against the Prosecutor Generals' Office. Yuriy Lutsenko Continued:
On January 26, 2019, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine, was present at 445 Park
ave., New York, NY. [His second day of testimony contained only one specific mention which was not vague and
which had not been indicated previously by Shokin: A "system was set up in order to remove money from the Ukraine,
have it laundered, and then collect the laundered money.
These companies were all headed by one Chief Financial Officer.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that about twenty (20) to forty (40) of these companies were shell companies. He further
stated that there were twenty-three (23) companies located offshore, and that two of them had approximately seven
billion dollars that were placed in the Templeton Fund. The system ran similar to a 'pyramid' scheme and all of
the beneficiaries were pro-Russian [which was undefined but presumably meant associated with the pre-coup
Ukrainian Government].
Zlochevsky is actually the decoy, but the real person who has majority-ownership of Burisma, after Zlochevsky sold
to him most of his shares in 2011, is the key Ukrainian billionaire who had backed Obama's February 2014 coup, Ihor
Kolomoysky. And Kolomoysky is now far more interested in recovering a few billions from his bankrupt PrivatBank,
Ukraine's largest bank, than in trying to extract the relative pittance that might still be entailed in Burisma
(which probably isn't much, now that
no established fracking company has found it
to be worth developing).
Apparently, Trump hasn't yet decided whether to continue the Obama-installed regime in Ukraine or else to expose
it and to go after both Obama and Kolomoysky, and to abandon the cover-story of Biden and Zlochevsky. If he does
decide to go after the principals in the case, then he'll have to expose whom were the actual principals, and whom
were merely their agents.
Thus far, in the American press, all of the attention has been only on actual agents, no principals. Given the way
in which Trump's State Department buried the release of that data-dump, Trump has not been particularly eager to get
the real story out there. Nor, of course, are the Democratic Party billionaires whose "American Oversight" has
likewise done nothing to facilitate the exposure of the actual historical narrative in this case.
Dec. 9, 2015
: Hunter Biden and business partner Devon Archer meet at State
Department regarding Burisma Holdings prosecution. [But no online record is provided, no documentation here, of
what was said.]
Feb. 11, 16, 19, 2016
: VP Biden holds series of phone calls with President Poroshenko to check
on status of pending items from their December 2015 meeting. Removal of general prosecutor raised again. [But,
again, no online record is provided. No evidence is provided of any mention of replacing the prosecutor.]
March 15, 2016:
Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland demands
Ukraine "appoint and confirm a new, clean Prosecutor
General, who is committed to rebuilding the integrity of the PGO, and investigate, indict and successfully
prosecute corruption and asset recovery cases -- including locking up dirty personnel in the PGO itself." She
offers no proof that special prosecutor's [General Prosecutor's] office is corrupt.
March 22, 2016:
VP Joe Biden engages in a phone call from Washington DC with Ukrainian
President Poroshenko about U.S. loan guarantees [there is actually no indication in the official readout regarding
any "loan guarantees"].
It is believed in this call that Biden renews his demands that the president fire Prosecutor General Shokin,
but this time Biden warns Ukraine risk[s] losing the next $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees [and, yet again,
Pompeo's State Department falsifies, because
the official readout
says nothing of the sort].
[The only useful information that's provided there is that seven days before Shokin was fired, Biden did phone
Poroshenko, and that Pompeo's State Department isn't to be trusted in anything it asserts, because it
misrepresents here what that readout says. Therefore, the "Dec. 9, 2015" entry also isn't to be trusted, since no
accompanying documentation is provided for its allegation.]
I thought that the Republicans and Democrats decided to, essentially, kill the impeachment (hoax) in
order to protect the entire political class. I mean, Really, the contest between Republicans is phony so
that development is not surprising. Also, according to Alexander Mercouris (who wants to see Trump
re-elected!), both Shokin and Lutsenko (who doesn't have a lawyer background) were doing dirty work on
behalf of their respective oligarch patrons. That's Ukraine now and peviously.
It does seem that
there's a lot of dislike for Trump by the Dems and many Repubs but there's an even stronger dislike by
those enemies of Trum, together with the rest of the political class, of democracy. And there's a culture
of criminalit and impunity which members of the American political share or the exposure of Russiagate
would have seen a chastening of the Democratic Party et al instead of a doubling down on whatever lies
might help remove Trump. Neither is Trump chastened by his brush with the tainting of his crown as he
signs laws that codify the lie that peaceful protest and honest criticism of Israel is antisemitism.
Antonym
,
Imagine the confidence the Democrats
still have today
that with
"Ukrainegate" they can criminalize sitting president Trump instead of their own much more guilty
opposition leaders: US deep state is almost 50 rooted with many appointees in all power branches.
ttshasta
,
Three billion dollars of USAID money sent to Ukraine over 3 years is not accounted for, no documents, no
audits.
The Clinton Foundation has received $10 million in donations of $500K and up from Ukraine this century.
Igor Pasternak had a fundraiser in Washington for Adam Schiff; $1000/plate- guest, $2500/plate-sponsor.
Ukranians and US taxpayers should like to know where did our dollars go, and who else in addition to the
Bidens are at the trough.
Ukraine is not quite the most corrupt country on the planet, but it gives Afghanistan and Somalia some
pretty stiff competition.
Many tens of billions have been poured into the country by the US and EU
taxpayer, via the IMF, CIA, NED, and similar organisations. It has promptly vanished into thin air. There
is nothing to show for it. Ukraine is a Big Black Hole. It is now just a CIA/ NATO playground in the
grand scheme of things to install an openly Fascist Regime in Kiev to encircle and destabilise Russia.
The main players in Ukraine are Levantine oligarchs like Kolomoisky and his ilk, who have stolen
everything that wasn't nailed down in Ukraine since independence. And everything that was nailed down.
Just like Russia in the 1990s. They were joined by a whole host of all the usual suspects, dual/ triple
national Jews with a visceral hatred of Russia. The Nulands, the Vindmans, the Ioanovitches and all the
rest. Ukraine has been a happy hunting ground for these people. There has been a virtually unlimited
bonanza of western taxpayers' money to divvy up between them. Together with a few goy stooges like the
Bidens, who were also allowed to wet their beaks. There was enough to go around, after all.
No wonder they hate Trump so much for spoiling the party. Over to Schiff, Nadler, Cohen, Cohen and
Cohen. Reacting with all the fury of a dog that has had its bone taken away.
Dungroanin
,
So the documents were released three weeks ago?
Giuliani had the evidence in JANUARY?
So the Quid Pro Quo kerfuffle was manufactured thereafter?
So the QPQ is actually by Dems' trying to stop prosecution of Biden and above? Clinton and Obama?
Which is why the impeachment bs? Or is it to stop the prosecution of the chiefs of the 3 letter agencies in their manufacturing of
Russiagate?
And their 5+1 eyed cohorts? In a conspiracy against the potus? Now just fit in Syria, White Helmets and Skripals and all the dots join up.
It can lead to the immediate collapse of the new bozo house of cards and clear the swamp in one
Herculean flushing! You may even be able to save Assange from martyrdom in the British dungeon.
What's it to be Me Zuesse?
George Cornell
,
Thanks for this. It is surely complex and after all why shouldn't Miss Vicki decide who should lead the
Ukraine. And why should anyone begrudge the right of an exemplar sovereign state to deep six a prosecutor
who went after criminal corruption? But even the incognoscenti can appreciate that Hunter Biden, the
cokeheaded nitwit who was shoehorned into the Navy, by his fathers' friends, was unable to forgo the coke
till his urine got tested. His length of service could be measured in hours or days (how long does it
take to get the urine test results) as he was immediately dishonourably discharged. Further, that he
could not possibly provide service to Burisma that was not corrupt, simply because he had no demonstrable
expertise in their affairs. Unless Biden Jr's expertise in marital infidelity, fathering children out of
wedlock with strippers, and spending his marital income on lap dancers and drugs (according to his
ex-wife) dovetailed with Burisma's undeclared interests.
It was reported in the NYT that Bidens presence on the Burisma board gave it respectability. Of course
it must have, although presumably by error, Burisma was left out of any of the lists of most admired
companies. Perhaps these were compiled before Jr. was taken on board, so to speak. Ukrainians can hold
their heads high, such an incredible coup it was to have Biden Jr. grace their country. And he picked the
Ukraine over the horde of other countries which must relentlessly vie for his services, whatever they
might be. Just his accepting their cheques is surely enough.
It is not difficult to appreciate how the Democratic Party leapt at the chance to show the American
public how those big meanie Republicans have wagged their tongues so uncharitably against the upstanding
and virtuous seed of the loins of their leading 77 yr. old presidential candidate. After all, boys will
be boys. Say what you like about the Dems but you can't deny their canny shrewdness and ability to sniff
out talent.
March 12, 2019 at 5:25
pm GMT • 200 Words @AnonFromTN
Superfluously impossible, AnonfromTN said: "It is simple, really. The US needs a law
prohibiting anyone with dual citizenship to hold public office."
Hi AnonfromTN.
Hard to comprehend how you persist to deny how the "US law" is Zionized. (Zigh) Israeli
"dual citizenship and holding "Homeland" public office is an irretractable endowment lawlessly
given to US Jews by ruling international Jewry.
They barged into our Constitution like a cancer and feast upon The Bill of Rights.
What's worse now is how livin' the "American dream" has reversed, and at present, President
t-Rump demands huge increases in war funding.
No one gets informed that future wars converge with Israel's will.
Please consider looking at the Wikileaks video linked below? It illustrates a barbaric type
of war crime-free & unaccountability to "international law," including a lawless US
military Rules of Engagement modus operandi, which governed the serial killing activity of an
Apache attack chopper crew in the Baghdad sky. Look close at the posed threat!
Tell me AnonfromTN? As you likely know, Bradley Chelsea Manning is, and under "Homeland"
law, in-the-klink for exposing the war crimes to America. Is their one (1) US Congressman
raising objection to the imprisonment? Fyi, you can look at the brave writing of Kathy Kelly on
the Manning case, and which appears at Counterpunch.org.
@ChuckOrloski I
can only agree. The patient (the US political system) is too far gone to hope for recovery.
As comment #69 rightly points out, our political system is based on bribery. Lobbyism and
donations to political campaigns and PACs are perfectly legal in the US, while all of these
should be criminal offenses punished by jail time, like in most countries. Naturally,
desperate Empires losing their dominant position resort to any war crimes imaginable, and
severely punish those who expose these crimes.
I can add only one thing: you are right that greedy Jews are evil, but greedy people of
any nationality are just as evil as greedy Jews. Not all greedy globalists and MIC thieves
are Jews, but they are all scum. I watch with dismay the US Empire heading to its crash.
Lemmings running to the cliff are about as rational as our degenerate elites. Israel
influence is toxic, but that's not the only poison the Empire will die from.
I suspected that Deep State has at least two opposing factions. The Realistists want him to
break up the empire, turn back into a republic; the Delusionals want to extend the empire,
continue to exploit and destroy the world. If so, the contradictions, reversals, incoherence
make sense. IMO as I said.
Gary Weglarz ,
I predict that all Western MSM will begin to accurately and vocally cover Mr. Binney's
findings about this odious and treasonous U.S. government psyop at just about the exact time
that -- "hell freezes over" -- as they say.
Jen ,
They don't need to, they have Tony Blair's fellow Brit psycho Boris Johnson to go on
autopilot and blame the Russians the moment something happens and just before London Met
start their investigations.
Gossufer2.0 and CrowdStrike are the weakest links in this sordid story. CrowdStrike was nothing but FBI/CIA contractor.
So the hypothesis that CrowdStrike employees implanted malware to implicate Russians and created fake Gussifer 2.0 personality
is pretty logical.
Notable quotes:
"... Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU--Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com. Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of then CIA Director John Brennan ..."
"... In October 2015 John Brennan reorganized the CIA . As part of that reorganization he created a new directorate--DIRECTORATE OF DIGITAL INNOVATION. Its mission was to "manipulate digital footprints." In other words, this was the Directorate that did the work of creating Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. One of their specialties, creating Digital Dust. ..."
"... We also know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the CIA was using software specifically designed to mask CIA activity and make it appear like it was done by a foreign entity. Wikipedia describes the Vault 7 documents : ..."
"... Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard. More intriguing still, "Феликс Эдмундович" is the colloquial name that translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the 20th Century Russian statesman who is best known for founding the Soviet secret police. (The metadata also shows that the purported DNC strategy memo was originally created by someone named Warren Flood, which happens to be the name of a LinkedIn user claiming to provide strategy and data analytics services to Democratic candidates.) ..."
"... Why would the CIA do this? The CIA knew that Podesta's emails had been hacked and were circulating on the internet. But they had no evidence about the identity of the culprit. If they had such evidence, they would have cited it in the 2017 ICA. ..."
"... The U.S. intelligence community became aware around May 26, 2016 that someone with access to the DNC network was offering those emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange and people who spoke to him indicate that the person was Seth Rich. Whether or not it was Seth, the Trump Task Force at CIA was aware that the emails, which would be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign, would be released at some time in the future. Hence the motive to create Guccifer 2.0 and pin the blame on Russia. ..."
"... The only source for the claim that Russia hacked the DNC is a private cyber security firm, CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Time for the common sense standard again. Crowdstrike detected the Russians on the 6th of May, according to CEO Dimitri Alperovitch, but took no steps to shutdown the network, eliminate the malware and clean the computers until 34 days later, i.e., the 10th of June. That is 34 days of inexcusable inaction. ..."
"... The actions attributed to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 should be priority investigative targets for U.S. Attorney John Durham's team of investigators. This potential use of a known CIA tool, developed under Brennan with the sole purpose to obfuscate the source of intrusions, pointing to another nation, as a false flag operation, is one of the actions and issues that U.S. Attorney John Durham should be looking into as a potential act of "Seditious conspiracy. It needs to be done. To quote the CIA, I strongly assess that the only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU. ..."
"... LJ bottom line: "The only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU." ..."
"... ICA which seemed to have been framed to allow journalists or the unwary to link the ICA with more rigorous standards used by more authentic assessments? ..."
"... With the Russians not having the advantages that the NSA does (back doors in all US-designed network hardware/software and taps all over the internet), would Russia reveal anything unless it involved an immediate major national security threat. I doubt that would cover Trump. ..."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report insists that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were created by Russia's military intelligence organization,
the GRU, as part of a Russian plot to meddle in the U.S. 2016 Presidential Election. But this is a lie. Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks
were created by Brennan's CIA and this action by the CIA should be a target of U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation. Let me
explain why.
Let us start with the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment aka ICA. Only three agencies of the 17 in the U.S. intelligence
community contributed to and coordinated on the ICA--the FBI, the CIA and NSA. In the preamble to the ICA, you can read the following
explanation about methodology:
When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as "we assess" or "we judge," they are conveying an analytic assessment or
judgment
To be clear, the phrase,"We assess", is intel community jargon for "opinion". If there was actual evidence or source material
for a judgment the writer of the assessment would state, "According to a reliable source" or "knowledgeable source" or "documentary
evidence."
Pay close attention to what the analysts writing the ICA stated about the GRU and Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks:
We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data
obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.
Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims
about his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer
2.0 interacted with journalists.
Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting
in June.
We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks.
Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did
not contain any evident forgeries.
Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or
electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU--Guccifer 2.0 persona and
DCLeaks.com. Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump
campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks
were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of
then CIA Director John Brennan.
Here's Mueller's take (I apologize for the lengthy quote but it is important that you read how the Mueller team presents this):
DCLeaks
"The GRU began planning the releases at least as early as April 19, 2016, when Unit 26165 registered the domain dcleaks.com
through a service that anonymized the registrant.137 Unit 26165 paid for the registration using a pool of bitcoin that it had
mined.138 The dcleaks.com landing page pointed to different tranches of stolen documents, arranged by victim or subject matter.
Other dcleaks.com pages contained indexes of the stolen emails that were being released (bearing the sender, recipient, and date
of the email). To control access and the timing of releases, pages were sometimes password-protected for a period of time and
later made unrestricted to the public.
Starting in June 2016, the GRU posted stolen documents onto the website dcleaks.com, including documents stolen from a number
of individuals associated with the Clinton Campaign. These documents appeared to have originated from personal email accounts
(in particular, Google and Microsoft accounts), rather than the DNC and DCCC computer networks. DCLeaks victims included an advisor
to the Clinton Campaign, a former DNC employee and Clinton Campaign employee, and four other campaign volunteers.139 The GRU released
through dcleaks.com thousands of documents, including personal identifying and financial information, internal correspondence
related to the"Clinton Campaign and prior political jobs, and fundraising files and information.140
GRU officers operated a Facebook page under the DCLeaks moniker, which they primarily used to promote releases of materials.141
The Facebook page was administered through a small number of preexisting GRU-controlled Facebook accounts.142
GRU officers also used the DCLeaks Facebook account, the Twitter account @dcleaks__, and the email account [email protected]
to communicate privately with reporters and other U.S. persons. GRU officers using the DCLeaks persona gave certain reporters
early access to archives of leaked files by sending them links and passwords to pages on the dcleaks.com website that had not
yet become public. For example, on July 14, 2016, GRU officers operating under the DCLeaks persona sent a link and password for
a non-public DCLeaks webpage to a U.S. reporter via the Facebook account.143 Similarly, on September 14, 2016, GRU officers sent
reporters Twitter direct messages from @dcleaks_, with a password to another non-public part of the dcleaks.com website.144
The dcleaks.com website remained operational and public until March 2017."
Guccifer 2.0
On June 14, 2016, the DNC and its cyber-response team announced the breach of the DNC network and suspected theft of DNC documents.
In the statements, the cyber-response team alleged that Russian state-sponsored actors (which they referred to as "Fancy Bear")
were responsible for the breach.145 Apparently in response to that announcement, on June 15, 2016, GRU officers using the persona
Guccifer 2.0 created a WordPress blog. In the hours leading up to the launch of that WordPress blog, GRU officers logged into
a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455 and searched for a number of specific words and phrases in English, including
"some hundred sheets," "illuminati," and "worldwide known." Approximately two hours after the last of those searches, Guccifer
2.0 published its first post, attributing the DNC server hack to a lone Romanian hacker and using several of the unique English
words and phrases that the GRU officers had searched for that day.146
That same day, June 15, 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress blog to begin releasing to the public documents
stolen from the DNC and DCCC computer networks.
The Guccifer 2.0 persona ultimately released thousands of documents stolen from the DNC and DCCC in a series of blog posts
between June 15, 2016 and October 18, 2016.147 Released documents included opposition research performed by the DNC (including
a memorandum analyzing potential criticisms of candidate Trump), internal policy documents (such as recommendations on how to
address politically sensitive issues), analyses of specific congressional races, and fundraising documents. Releases were organized
around thematic issues, such as specific states (e.g., Florida and Pennsylvania) that were perceived as competitive in the 2016
U.S. presidential election.
Beginning in late June 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release documents directly to reporters and other
interested individuals. Specifically, on June 27, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 sent an email to the news outlet The Smoking Gun offering
to provide "exclusive access to some leaked emails linked [to] Hillary Clinton's staff."148 The GRU later sent the reporter a
password and link to a locked portion of the dcleaks.com website that contained an archive of emails stolen by Unit 26165 from
a Clinton Campaign volunteer in March 2016.149 "That the Guccifer 2.0 persona provided reporters access to a restricted portion
of the DCLeaks website tends to indicate that both personas were operated by the same or a closely-related group of people.150
The GRU continued its release efforts through Guccifer 2.0 into August 2016. For example, on August 15, 2016, the Guccifer
2.0 persona sent a candidate for the U.S. Congress documents related to the candidate's opponent.151 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer
2.0 persona transferred approximately 2.5 gigabytes of Florida-related data stolen from the DCCC to a U.S. blogger covering Florida
politics.152 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona sent a U.S. reporter documents stolen from the DCCC pertaining to the
Black Lives Matter movement.153"
Wow. Sounds pretty convincing. The documents referencing communications by DCLeaks or Guccifer 2.0 with Wikileaks are real. What
is not true is that these entities were GRU assets.
In October 2015 John Brennan reorganized the CIA . As part of that reorganization he created a new directorate--DIRECTORATE
OF DIGITAL INNOVATION. Its mission was to "manipulate digital footprints." In other words, this was the Directorate that did the
work of creating Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. One of their specialties, creating Digital Dust.
We also know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the CIA was using software specifically designed to mask CIA activity and make it
appear like it was done by a foreign entity. Wikipedia describes the
Vault 7 documents :
Vault 7 is a series of documents that WikiLeaks began to publish on 7 March 2017, that detail activities and capabilities of the
United States' Central Intelligence Agency to perform electronic surveillance and cyber warfare. The files, dated from 2013–2016,
include details on the agency's software capabilities, such as the ability to compromise cars, smart TVs,[1] web browsers (including
Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera Software ASA),[2][3][4] and the operating systems of most smartphones (including
Apple's iOS and Google's Android), as well as other operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, macOS, and Linux[5][6
One of the tools in Vault 7 carries the innocuous name, MARBLE.
Hackernews explains the purpose and function
of MARBLE:
Dubbed "Marble," the part 3 of CIA files contains 676 source code files of a secret anti-forensic Marble Framework, which is basically
an obfuscator or a packer used to hide the true source of CIA malware.
The CIA's Marble Framework tool includes a variety of different algorithm with foreign language text intentionally inserted into
the malware source code to fool security analysts and falsely attribute attacks to the wrong nation.
Marble is used to hamper[ing] forensic investigators and anti-virus companies from attributing viruses, trojans and hacking attacks
to the CIA," says the whistleblowing site.
"...for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then
showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion," WikiLeaks
explains.
So guess what
gullible techies "discovered" in mid-June 2016? The meta data in the Guccifer 2.0 communications had "Russian fingerprints."
We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0 -- the nom
de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove
it -- left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era.
Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside
the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured
to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard. More intriguing still, "Феликс Эдмундович"
is the colloquial name that translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the 20th Century Russian statesman who is best known for founding the
Soviet secret police. (The metadata also shows that the purported DNC strategy memo was originally created by someone named Warren
Flood, which happens to be the name of a LinkedIn user claiming to provide strategy and data analytics services to Democratic candidates.)
Just use your common sense. If the Russians were really trying to carry out a covert cyberattack, do you really think they
are so sloppy and incompetent to insert the name of the creator of the Soviet secret police in the metadata? No. The Russians are
not clowns. This was a clumsy attempt to frame the Russians.
Why would the CIA do this? The CIA knew that Podesta's emails had been hacked and were circulating on the internet. But they
had no evidence about the identity of the culprit. If they had such evidence, they would have cited it in the 2017 ICA.
The U.S. intelligence community became aware around May 26, 2016 that someone with access to the DNC network was offering
those emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange and people who spoke to him indicate that the person was Seth Rich.
Whether or not it was Seth, the Trump Task Force at CIA was aware that the emails, which would be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign,
would be released at some time in the future. Hence the motive to create Guccifer 2.0 and pin the blame on Russia.
It is essential to recall the timeline of the alleged Russian intrusion into the DNC network. The only source for the claim
that Russia hacked the DNC is a private cyber security firm, CrowdStrike. Here is the timeline for the DNC "hack."
Here are the facts on the public record. They are at odds with the claims of the Intelligence Community:
It was
29 April 2016 , when the DNC claims it became aware its servers had been penetrated. No claim yet about who was responsible.
And no claim that there had been a prior warning by the FBI of a penetration of the DNC by Russian military intelligence.
According to CrowdStrike founder , Dimitri Alperovitch, his company first supposedly detected the Russians mucking around
inside the DNC server on 6 May 2016. A CrowdStrike intelligence analyst reportedly told Alperovitch that:
Falcon had identified not one but two Russian intruders: Cozy Bear, a group CrowdStrike's experts believed was affiliated
with the FSB, Russia's answer to the CIA; and Fancy Bear, which they had linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence.
The Wikileaks data shows that the last message copied from the DNC network is dated Wed, 25 May 2016 08:48:35.
10 June 2016 --CrowdStrike waited until 10 June 2016 to take concrete steps to clean up the DNC network. Alperovitch told
Esquire's Vicky Ward that: 'Ultimately, the teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC.
Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10, all DNC employees were instructed to leave
their laptops in the office."
On June 14, 2016 , Ellen Nakamura, a Washington Post reporter who had been briefed by computer security company hired by the
DNC -- Crowdstrike--, wrote:
Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the
entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security
experts who responded to the breach.
The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC's system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said
DNC officials and the security experts.
The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential
candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political
action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available.
15 June, 2016 , an internet "personality" self-described as Guccifer 2.0 surfaces and claims to be responsible for the hacks
but denies being Russian. The people/entity behind Guccifer 2.0:
Used a Russian VPN service provider to conceal their identity.
Created an email account with AOL.fr (a service that exposes the sender's IP address) and contacted the press (exposing his
VPN IP address in the process).
Contacted various media outlets through this set up and claimed credit for hacking the DNC, sharing copies of files purportedly
from the hack (one of which had Russian error messages embedded in them) with reporters from Gawker, The Smoking Gun and other
outlets.
Carried out searches for terms that were mostly in English, several of which would appear in Guccifer 2.0's first blog post.
They chose to do this via a server based in Moscow. (this is from the indictment,
"On or about June 15, 2016, the Conspirators logged into a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455")
Created a blog and made an initial blog post claiming to have hacked the DNC, providing links to various documents as proof.
Carelessly dropped a "Russian Smiley" into his first blog post.
Managed to add the name "Феликс Эдмундович" (which translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, also known as "Iron Felix") to the metadata
of several documents. (Several sources went beyond what the evidence shows and made claims about Guccifer 2.0 using a Russian
keyboard, however, these claims are just assumptions made in response to the presence of cyrillic characters.)
The only thing that the Guccifer 2.0 character did not do to declare its Russian heritage was to take out full page ads in the
New York Times and Washington Post. But the "forensic" fingerprints that Guccifer 2.0 was leaving behind is not the only inexplicable
event.
Time for the common sense standard again. Crowdstrike detected the Russians on the 6th of May, according to CEO Dimitri Alperovitch,
but took no steps to shutdown the network, eliminate the malware and clean the computers until 34 days later, i.e., the 10th of June.
That is 34 days of inexcusable inaction.
It is only AFTER Julian Assange announces on 12 June 2016 that WikiLeaks has emails relating to Hillary Clinton that DCLeaks or
Guccifer 2.0 try to contact Assange.
The actions attributed to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 should be priority investigative targets for U.S. Attorney John Durham's
team of investigators. This potential use of a known CIA tool, developed under Brennan with the sole purpose to obfuscate the source
of intrusions, pointing to another nation, as a false flag operation, is one of the actions and issues that U.S. Attorney John Durham
should be looking into as a potential act of "Seditious conspiracy. It needs to be done. To quote the CIA, I strongly assess that
the only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA,
not the GRU.
LJ bottom line: "The only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential
election was the CIA, not the GRU."
Larry, thanks -- vital clarifications and reminders. In your earlier presentation of this material did you not also distinguish
between the way actually interagency assessments are titled, and ICA which seemed to have been framed to allow journalists or
the unwary to link the ICA with more rigorous standards used by more authentic assessments?
Thank you Larry. You have discovered one more vital key to the conspiracy. We now need the evidence of Julian Assange. He is kept
incommunicado and He is being tortured by the British in jail and will be murdered by the American judicial system if he lasts
long enough to be extradited.
You can be sure he will be "Epsteined" before he appears in open court because he knows the source of what Wikileaks published.
Once he is gone, mother Clinton is in the clear.
I can understand the GRU or SVR hacking the DNC and other e-mail servers because as intelligence services that is their job, but
can anyone think of any examples of Russia (or the Soviet Union) using such information to take overt action?
With the Russians
not having the advantages that the NSA does (back doors in all US-designed network hardware/software and taps all over the internet),
would Russia reveal anything unless it involved an immediate major national security threat. I doubt that would cover Trump.
"... You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an impeachable offense -- it is no more legitimate than the Executive Branch charging members of Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative power. ..."
"... You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars. You know this because Biden bragged about it on video. Biden openly stated: "I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars' I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a bitch. He got fired." Even Joe Biden admitted just days ago in an interview with NPR that it "looked bad." Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually did. ..."
"... This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting booth. You are not just after me, as President, you are after the entire Republican Party. But because of this colossal injustice, our party is more united than it has ever been before. History will judge you harshly as you proceed with this impeachment charade. Your legacy will be that of turning the House of Representatives from a revered legislative body into a Star Chamber of partisan persecution. ..."
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madam Speaker:
I write to express my strongest and most powerful protest against the partisan impeachment crusade being pursued by the Democrats
in the House of Representatives. This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers,
unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history.
The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional
theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence. They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses whatsoever. You have cheapened
the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!
By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution,
and you are declaring open war on American Democracy. You dare to invoke the Founding Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification
scheme -- yet your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for America's founding and your egregious conduct threatens to destroy
that which our Founders pledged their very lives to build. Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans
of faith by continually saying "I pray for the President," when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative
sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!
Your first claim, "Abuse of Power," is a completely disingenuous, meritless, and baseless invention of your imagination. You know
that I had a totally innocent conversation with the President of Ukraine. I then had a second conversation that has been misquoted,
mischaracterized, and fraudulently misrepresented. Fortunately, there was a transcript of the conversation taken, and you know from
the transcript (which was immediately made available) that the paragraph in question was perfect. I said to President Zelensky: "I
would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it." I said do
us a favor, not me , and our country , not a campaign. I then mentioned the Attorney General of the United States.
Every time I talk with a foreign leader, I put America's interests first, just as I did with President Zelensky.
You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an impeachable offense -- it is no more legitimate
than the Executive Branch charging members of Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative power.
You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing
the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars. You know this because Biden bragged about it
on video. Biden openly stated: "I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars' I looked at them and said: 'I'm
leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a bitch. He got fired." Even Joe
Biden admitted just days ago in an interview with NPR that it "looked bad." Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing
me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually did.
President Zelensky has repeatedly declared that I did nothing wrong, and that there was No Pressure. He further emphasized that
it was a "good phone call," that "I don't feel pressure," and explicitly stressed that "nobody pushed me." The Ukrainian Foreign
Minister stated very clearly: "I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance." He also said there
was "No Pressure." Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a supporter of Ukraine who met privately with President Zelensky, has said:
"At no time during this meeting was there any mention by Zelensky or any Ukrainian that they were feeling pressure to do anything
in return for the military aid." Many meetings have been held between representatives of Ukraine and our country. Never once did
Ukraine complain about pressure being applied -- not once! Ambassador Sondland testified that I told him: "No quid pro quo. I want
nothing. I want nothing. I want President Zelensky to do the right thing, do what he ran on."
The second claim, so-called "Obstruction of Congress," is preposterous and dangerous. House Democrats are trying to impeach the
duly elected President of the United States for asserting Constitutionally based privileges that have been asserted on a bipartisan
basis by administrations of both political parties throughout our Nation's history. Under that standard, every American president
would have been impeached many times over. As liberal law professor Jonathan Turley warned when addressing Congressional Democrats:
"I can't emphasize this enough if you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it
is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the President for doing."
Everyone, you included, knows what is really happening. Your chosen candidate lost the election in 2016, in an Electoral College
landslide (306-227), and you and your party have never recovered from this defeat. You have developed a full-fledged case of what
many in the media call Trump Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it! You are unwilling and unable to accept the
verdict issued at the ballot box during the great Election of 2016. So you have spent three straight years attempting to overturn
the will of the American people and nullify their votes. You view democracy as your enemy!
Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public forum that your party's impeachment effort has been going on for "two
and a half years," long before you ever heard about a phone call with Ukraine. Nineteen minutes after I took the oath of office,
the Washington Post published a story headlined, "The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun." Less than three months
after my inauguration, Representative Maxine Waters stated, "I'm going to fight every day until he's impeached." House Democrats
introduced the first impeachment resolution against me within months of my inauguration, for what will be regarded as one of our
country's best decisions, the firing of James Comey (see Inspector General Reports) -- who the world now knows is one of the dirtiest
cops our Nation has ever seen. A ranting and raving Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, declared just hours after she was sworn into office,
"We're gonna go in there and we're gonna impeach the motherf****r." Representative Al Green said in May, "I'm concerned that if we
don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." Again, you and your allies said, and did, all of these things long before
you ever heard of President Zelensky or anything related to Ukraine. As you know very well, this impeachment drive has nothing to
do with Ukraine, or the totally appropriate conversation I had with its new president. It only has to do with your attempt to undo
the election of 2016 and steal the election of 2020!
Congressman Adam Schiff cheated and lied all the way up to the present day, even going so far as to fraudulently make up, out
of thin air, my conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine and read this fantasy language to Congress as though it were said
by me. His shameless lies and deceptions, dating all the way back to the Russia Hoax, is one of the main reasons we are here today.
You and your party are desperate to distract from America's extraordinary economy, incredible jobs boom, record stock market,
soaring confidence, and flourishing citizens. Your party simply cannot compete with our record: 7 million new jobs; the lowest-ever
unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans; a rebuilt military; a completely reformed VA with Choice
and Accountability for our great veterans; more than 170 new federal judges and two Supreme Court Justices; historic tax and regulation
cuts; the elimination of the individual mandate; the first decline in prescription drug prices in half a century; the first new branch
of the United States Military since 1947, the Space Force; strong protection of the Second Amendment; criminal justice reform; a
defeated ISIS caliphate and the killing of the world's number one terrorist leader, al-Baghdadi; the replacement of the disastrous
NAFTA trade deal with the wonderful USMCA (Mexico and Canada); a breakthrough Phase One trade deal with China; massive new trade
deals with Japan and South Korea; withdrawal from the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal; cancellation of the unfair and costly Paris Climate
Accord; becoming the world's top energy producer; recognition of Israel's capital, opening the American Embassy in Jerusalem, and
recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights; a colossal reduction in illegal border crossings, the ending of Catch-and-Release,
and the building of the Southern Border Wall -- and that is just the beginning, there is so much more. You cannot defend your extreme
policies -- open borders, mass migration, high crime, crippling taxes, socialized healthcare, destruction of American energy, late-term
taxpayer-funded abortion, elimination of the Second Amendment, radical far-left theories of law and justice, and constant partisan
obstruction of both common sense and common good.
There is nothing I would rather do than stop referring to your party as the Do-Nothing Democrats. Unfortunately, I don't know
that you will ever give me a chance to do so.
After three years of unfair and unwarranted investigations, 45 million dollars spent, 18 angry Democrat prosecutors, the entire
force of the FBI, headed by leadership now proven to be totally incompetent and corrupt, you have found NOTHING! Few people in high
position could have endured or passed this test. You do not know, nor do you care, the great damage and hurt you have inflicted upon
wonderful and loving members of my family. You conducted a fake investigation upon the democratically elected President of the United
States, and you are doing it yet again.
There are not many people who could have taken the punishment inflicted during this period of time, and yet done so much for the
success of America and its citizens. But instead of putting our country first, you have decided to disgrace our country still further.
You completely failed with the Mueller report because there was nothing to find, so you decided to take the next hoax that came along,
the phone call with Ukraine -- even though it was a perfect call. And by the way, when I speak to foreign countries, there are many
people, with permission, listening to the call on both sides of the conversation.
You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the ones subverting America's Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing
Justice. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain.
Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt. Against all evidence, and regardless of the truth, you and your deputies
claimed that my campaign colluded with the Russians -- a grave, malicious, and slanderous lie, a falsehood like no other. You forced
our Nation through turmoil and torment over a wholly fabricated story, illegally purchased from a foreign spy by Hillary Clinton
and the DNC in order to assault our democracy. Yet, when the monstrous lie was debunked and this Democrat conspiracy dissolved into
dust, you did not apologize. You did not recant. You did not ask to be forgiven. You showed no remorse, no capacity for self-reflection.
Instead, you pursued your next libelous and vicious crusade -- you engineered an attempt to frame and defame an innocent person.
All of this was motivated by personal political calculation. Your Speakership and your party are held hostage by your most deranged
and radical representatives of the far left. Each one of your members lives in fear of a socialist primary challenger -- this is
what is driving impeachment. Look at Congressman Nadler's challenger. Look at yourself and others. Do not take our country down with
your party.
If you truly cared about freedom and liberty for our Nation, then you would be devoting your vast investigative resources to exposing
the full truth concerning the FBI's horrifying abuses of power before, during, and after the 2016 election -- including the use of
spies against my campaign, the submission of false evidence to a FISA court, and the concealment of exculpatory evidence in order
to frame the innocent. The FBI has great and honorable people, but the leadership was inept and corrupt. I would think that you would
personally be appalled by these revelations, because in your press conference the day you announced impeachment, you tied the impeachment
effort directly to the completely discredited Russia Hoax, declaring twice that "all roads lead to Putin," when you know that is
an abject lie. I have been far tougher on Russia than President Obama ever even thought to be.
Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment -- against every shred of truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle
-- is showing how deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America's Constitutional order. Our Founders feared the
tribalization of partisan politics, and you are bringing their worst fears to life.
Worse still, I have been deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam right up until
the present. I have been denied the most fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to present evidence,
to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses, like the so-called whistleblower who
started this entire hoax with a false report of the phone call that bears no relationship to the actual phone call that was made.
Once I presented the transcribed call, which surprised and shocked the fraudsters (they never thought that such evidence would be
presented), the so-called whistleblower, and the second whistleblower, disappeared because they got caught, their report was a fraud,
and they were no longer going to be made available to us. In other words, once the phone call was made public, your whole plot blew
up, but that didn't stop you from continuing.
More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.
You and others on your committees have long said impeachment must be bipartisan -- it is not. You said it was very divisive --
it certainly is, even far more than you ever thought possible -- and it will only get worse!
This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting booth.
You are not just after me, as President, you are after the entire Republican Party. But because of this colossal injustice, our party
is more united than it has ever been before. History will judge you harshly as you proceed with this impeachment charade. Your legacy
will be that of turning the House of Representatives from a revered legislative body into a Star Chamber of partisan persecution.
Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity. You apparently have so little respect for the American People
that you expect them to believe that you are approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly. No intelligent person
believes what you are saying. Since the moment I won the election, the Democrat Party has been possessed by Impeachment Fever. There
is no reticence. This is not a somber affair. You are making a mockery of impeachment and you are scarcely concealing your hatred
of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of patriotic Americans. The voters are wise, and they are seeing straight through
this empty, hollow, and dangerous game you are playing.
I have no doubt the American people will hold you and the Democrats fully responsible in the upcoming 2020 election. They will
not soon forgive your perversion of justice and abuse of power.
There is far too much that needs to be done to improve the lives of our citizens. It is time for you and the highly partisan Democrats
in Congress to immediately cease this impeachment fantasy and get back to work for the American People. While I have no expectation
that you will do so, I write this letter to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.
One hundred years from now, when people look back at this affair, I want them to understand it, and learn from it, so that it
can never happen to another President again.
Sincerely yours,
DONALD J. TRUMP
President of the United States of America
cc: United States Senate
United States House of Representatives
Historic speech from McConnell. He nailed exactly what makes the ideology of the Democrats antithetical to the very principles
that founded this nation.
"...[to] insure domestic tranquility..." THIS is in the preamble to the Constitution the Dems claim to support. Someone please
tell us all how they are supporting this. I'll wait.
Senator McConnell's FINEST HOUR. A great speech that will live forever in the annals of history itself. Our Founding Fathers
would be so proud of you. Thank you for stepping up to the plate and protecting our Republic Senator McConnell. God Bless you
sir.
ext-content expanded"> I've never heard a more brilliant or eloquent summary and analysis of the Impeachment case. Sloppy,
hurried, careless without regard for due process, the Democrats in 12 weeks have committed an abuse of their constitutional authority
and to the spirit of historical precedent regarding impeachment as a weapon to use just because you don't like the President.
This group of democrats have done serious damage to our government.
"... One of the most revealing and absurd responses to rejections of forever war is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries: ..."
"... The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare. ..."
"... The routinization and normalization of endless, unauthorized war is one of the most harmful legacies of the Obama administration. ..."
"... When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something else. ..."
One of the most revealing and absurd responses to
rejections of forever war
is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries:
Just like @POTUS , who put a limited op of NE
#Syria under heading of "endless
war," this op-ed has "drone strikes & Special Ops raids" in indictment of US-at-war. In fact, those actions are antidote to war.
Their misguided critique is insult to real war. https://t.co/DCLS9IDKSw
War has become so normalized over the last twenty years that the constant use of military force gets discounted as something other
than "real war." We have seen this war denialism on display several times in the last year. As more presidential candidates and analysts
have started rejecting endless war, the war's
defenders have often
chosen to
pretend
that the U.S. isn't at war at all. The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is
a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and
Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare.
Because Obama is relatively less aggressive and reckless than his hawkish opponents (a very low bar to clear), he is frequently
given a pass on these issues, and we are treated to misleading stories about his supposed "realism" and "restraint." Insofar as
he has been a president who normalized and routinized open-ended and unnecessary foreign wars, he has shown that neither of those
terms should be used to describe his foreign policy. Even though I know all too well that the president that follows him will
be even worse, the next president will have a freer hand to conduct a more aggressive and dangerous foreign policy in part because
of illegal wars Obama has waged during his time in office.
The attempt to define war so that it never includes what the U.S. military happens to be doing when it uses force abroad has been
going on for quite a while. When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they
came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the
Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't
engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for
redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't
engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that
gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment
of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something
else.
It isn't just physical war that results in active service body bags but our aggression has alreay cost lives on the home front
and there is every reason to believe it will do so again.
We were not isolationists prior to 9/11/2001, Al Qaeda had already attacked but we were distracted bombing Serbia, expanding
NATO, and trying to connect Al Qaeda attacks to Iran. We were just attacked by a Saudi officer we were training on our soil to
use the Saudis against Iran.
It remains to be seen what our economic warfare against Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, and our continued use of Afghanistan
as a bombing platform will cost us. We think we are being clever by using our Treasury Dept and low intensity warfare to minimize
direct immediate casualties but how long can that last.
This article confirms what the last Real Commander-in-Chief, General/President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about when he retired
58 years ago.
His wise Council based on his Supreme Military-Political experience has been ignored.
The MSM, Propagandists for the Military-Industrial Complex, won't remind the American People.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could,
with time and as required, make swords as well.
But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions.
Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on
military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total
influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the
very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for
granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military
machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
The psychological contortionism required to deny that we are at war amazes me. US military forces are killing people in other
countries – but it's not war? Because we can manufacture comforting euphemisms like "police action" or "preventive action" or
"drone strike," it's not war? Because it's smaller scale than a "real" war like WWII?
Cancer is cancer. A small cancer is still a cancer. Arguing that it's not cancer because it's not metastatic stage IV is, well,
the most polite term is sophistry. More accurate terms aren't printable.
espite 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.
Giving military aid to foreign countries and spreading our military power across the globe
is a threat to our national security. Our military spending is obscene. Its how all empires
crumble, when they just can't give up control of the entire world. Time to retreat from the
world-wide power projection insanity and restructure our strategy to provide true national
defense.
James isn't it possible that the Dems concern for Ukraine is perceived to be phony, in the
same way people saw Republican's concern about Clinton's sex perjury as cynical. It could
make voters more aware of our involvement in foreign conflict. Clinton was impeached for
being awful to women, and now Trump, for whom PG does not mean parental guidance, is
cruising toward reelection. Trump's been impeached for being a Dove, who knows we might get
a Rand Paul isolationist within the next decade. Just a thought.
The Democrats declared war this week. Not on Donald Trump but on the United States and the
Constitution.
What started as a coup to overturn the 2016 election has now morphed into a Civil War as
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Fran-feces) presided over the passage of a bill which creates a
clear Constitutional Crisis.
And that means we have multiple factions vying for control of our government, the definition
of a Civil War.
In passing these articles of impeachment against President Trump Congress has arrogated to
itself powers it does not have.
The first article asserts a motive to Trump's actions to invalidate his role as chief law
enforcement officer for the country. It doesn't matter if you like him or any President having
this power, he does have it.
Read that first article and then apply it to a country other than Ukraine where Trump
didn't have 'probable cause' for investigation into corruption and malfeasance there.
That could be Abuse of Power.
But this happened in Ukraine where Trump clearly has probable cause.
The following is the scenario the first impeachment article is asserting as the basis for
abuse of power, through ascribing political motives to the President:
One day President Trump wakes up and says, "Shit! Joe Biden's leading me in the polls. I
need to do something about this."
So, Trump twirls his orange comb-over and calls up the Prime Minister of Armenia, a
Russian ally, to whom we've pledged aid. Since it's a Russian ally and Trump may have
colluded with the Russians, they would be a good candidate to help him.
But Joe Biden has no history of diplomacy or oversight in Armenia as Vice-President.
There's no record of any contact of any kind with Biden in Armenia, for argument's sake.
Trump then, during the phone call, shakes down the Armenian PM for that aid, explicitly
saying he must create dirt on Joe Biden or he would withhold appropriated aid funds to the
country.
Then, after getting caught, Trump tries to hide the record of the phone call by hiding
behind Executive Privilege.
That would be Abuse of Power and an impeachable offense. It would be regrettable but
indefensible that the odious jackals in Congress were right to impeach him. They would,
actually, be defending the Constitution and fully within their rights.
But, that's not what happened.
Biden was put in charge of Ukraine by President Obama. He had full discretion on policy
towards Ukraine and was caught on tape bragging about doing exactly what the impeachment
article is accusing Trump of doing. Shaking Ukraine down for favors in order to get $1 billion
in aid.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/KCF9My1vBP4
Since the prosecutor who Biden had fired was investigating corruption into his son Hunter's
involvement with Ukrainian gas company Burisma, this admission is pretty damning, showing clear
personal motive to use his office to stop investigation into his family.
This is Abuse of Power. This is subjecting U.S. foreign policy to the whims of an elected
official, squelching an investigation into his personal family, using the office for personal
gain.
So, when viewed through this lens the first impeachment article is a complete lie. Trump
didn't do the things asserted. The transcript of the phone call with Ukrainian President
Zelensky proves that.
Trump made the phone call public immediately.
The phone call and Trump's order to review the foreign aid were contemporaneous but not
conditional. If you have a non-charitable view of the President it may raise some questions,
but there was probable cause here.
Your opinions on Trump do not add up to High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The implications of this impeachment article are, however, staggering.
It says explicitly that the U.S. president cannot discharge his duties as a law enforcement
official if the person of interest is someone of the opposite party or a potential electoral
opponent.
It says that probable cause is not a standard for investigation only political
considerations.
That's a clear violation of Congress' role. Congress writes laws. The President executes
them. If the Congress wants to assume law enforcement powers it should work to amend the
Constitution.
This is a clear example of why impeachment is a political process not a legal one. But, if
they are going to act this politically, at least they should put the veneer of legality on it.
Even the equally odious Republicans who impeached Bill Clinton did that.
But in asserting this as an offence Congress seeks to place the Legislative Branch as
superior to the Executive in matters of law enforcement and implementation.
That's a clear violation of the separation of powers. It may suck that the guy holding the
Office of the Presidency is someone you don't like or not willing to turn a blind eye to
corruption, but doing his job is not a 'high crime or misdemeanor.'
The second article is even worse. Because asserts the power to subpoena members of the
Executive branch under the impeachment inquiry into the first article. And since Congress has
sole authority over impeachment, no judicial review of its subpoena power can be made.
This is fully unconstitutional since it subverts the power of the Judicial branch to settle
disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches as established by the Constitution.
Pelosi and company are broadening the definition of 'the sole power of impeachment' to say
that whatever Congress deems as worthy of an impeachment inquiry is therefore law and the other
branches have no say in the matter.
This is patent nonsense and wholly tyrannical.
Rod Rosenstein and Andrew Weismann tried to use an equally broad interpretation of
'obstruction of justice' to include future harm to continue the special council's investigation
into Trump's alleged collusion with Russia.
Moreover it renders the concept of judicial review as laid down in Marbury vs. Madison null and void.
Congress cannot just make up laws and crimes out of whole cloth and then unilaterally declare
them constitutional under the rubric of impeachment.
The Supreme Court has the right to strike down bills Congress passes as
unconstitutional.
This drives a massive wedge through the separation of powers in a blatant power grab by
Pelosi and the Democratic House majority to protect themselves from Trump's investigations into
their crimes surrounding events in Ukraine.
When viewed dispassionately, Obstruction of Congress is not a crime but rather a function of
each of the other two branches of government. It's no better when the President hides behind
Executive Orders to legislate unconstitutionally.
And it's even worse when the Supreme Court makes up laws from the bench rather than kick the
ball back to Congress and start the process all over again.
That's what the whole three co-equal branches of government is supposed to mean.
Now, in practice I don't believe the three branches are equal, as the Judicial branch
routinely oversteps its authority. But in this case if it does not step in immediately and
defend itself from this Congress then the basic fabric of our government unravels
overnight.
That the second impeachment article is directly dependent on the flawed (or non-existent)
logic of the first impeachment article renders the whole thing simply laughable on the face of
it.
I'm no legal scholar so when I can see how ridiculous these articles are then you know this
has nothing to do with the law but everything to do with power.
And the reality is, as
I discussed in my latest podcast , what this impeachment is really about is distracting and
covering up the multiple layers of corruption in U.S. foreign and domestic policy stretching
back decades. Many of the tendrils emanating from the events surrounding the FISA warrants
improperly granted connect directly to the Clintons, Jeffrey Epstein, William Browder and the
rape of Russia in the post-Soviet 90's.
We're talking an entire generation or more of U.S. officials and politicians implicated in
some of the worst crimes of the past thirty years.
The stakes for these people are existential. This is why they are willing to risk a
full-blown constitutional crisis and civil war to remove Trump from office.
They know he's angry at them now. This is personal as well as philosophical. Trump is a
patriot, a narcissist and a gangster. That's a powerful combination of traits.
The polls are shifting his way on this as the average person knows this impeachment is
pathetic. They are tired of the Democrats' games the same way British voters are over the
arguments against Brexit.
So the old adage about killing the king come to mind. If Pelosi et.al. miss here, the
retribution from Trump will be biblical.
The damage to the society is too great to argue irrelevancies. No one outside of the Beltway
Bubble and the Crazies of the Resistance cares about what Trump did here. It's too arcane and
most people are against giving a shithole like Ukraine taxpayer money in the first place.
The whole thing is a giant pile of loser turds steaming up the room and impeding getting any
work done.
In the end We'll know if Trump has his ducks in a row in how Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell plays his cards versus Pelosi. If McConnell pussy-foots around and gives Pelosi
anything on how the trial in the Senate is conducted then the fix is in and Trump is done.
But, if McConnell shuts this down then what comes next will be a righteous smackdown of
Trump's political opponents that will make the phone call with Zelensky look like a routine
call to Dominos' for a double pepperoni.
Either way, this coup attempt by Pelosi is now open warfare. There will be casualties.
* * *
Join My Patreon if you
want help navigating what's the next stop on the short bus to Crazytown. Install the Brave Browser to suck the money away from
Google and protect your privacy.
The inescapable truth is that Trump has 1) not delivered on his 2016 promises, and 2) has
surrounded himself with some of the vilest NeoCon scum on the planet. If he was a true
patriot, as he claimed during the 2016 election campaign, why would he not honor his promises
and surround himself with certifiable gangsters? It raises an important question. Is trump
controlled opposition who was installed as president to undermine and neutralize true
conservatives and patriots? His actions and deeds since becoming president would support this
interpretation.
If true, then the Democratic Party impeachment is little more than kabuki theater that
provides cover for Trump while ensuring his election in 2020 when all hell breaks loose as
the bubble or fake economy built on debt and counterfeit money crashes.
Patriotic and true conservative Americans according to this scenario are being setup up as
the fall guys to take the blame for the Greater Depression instead of the real culprits which
are the Fed and banksters on Wall Street.
Trump appears to be playing the role of Hoover who during the 1930s Great Depression paved
the way for Roosevelt and the Marxist New Deal which was imposed on an unsuspecting American
people struggling to survive during a depression created for them by the Fed. The words of
Franklin Roosevelt speak for themselves.
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that
way."
He won't be removed from office but the brainwashed Trumpeteers and satanic "Christian"
Zionists will be riled enough to elect him in 2020...all part of the grand plan.
Trump's
executive order -- deceptively called "An Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism" --
issued this past week, will empower the federal Department of Education to withhold funding
to college campuses that do not squash anti-Israel rhetoric. In other words, it is now
official government policy to deny college students and faculty members their Natural and
constitutional right to criticize -- especially and primarily if they criticize any and all
things Israel. This will also doubtless include speech that supports Palestinian rights.
Trump also declared that the religion of Judaism is a nationality or ethnicity and is
beyond criticism. Can you imagine the outcry if he had declared Christianity to be a
nationality?
Plus, by issuing this Executive Order, Donald Trump has made every Christian and non-***
in the United States a second-class citizen. But don't expect Robert Jeffress and his gaggle
of Christian Zionists to figure that out.
I have said repeatedly that Donald Trump is America's first Zionist president. And Trump's
actions continue to prove that statement true.
As I wrote in another article this impeachment circus may very well be a Zionist ploy to
keep people thinking Trump is anti deep state, like the QAnon psyop.
He may be anti globalist but not deep state. Well in any case if the Dems don't send the
impeachment to the Senate then this is just a mock trial for appearances sake only. And the
fact Pelosi balked yesterday strengthens that possibility!
The Constitution is itself a farce and a mask for the exercise of power. How does one
interpret "general welfare"? To whom do you petition for the transgressions of "rights"? Is
it not a branch of the same government? We are not in the same situation as the colonists of
the 13 colonies. The enemy is not separated by an ocean. The political decline and conflict
questioned in this article is a result of the economic decline worldwide. Prepare for what
comes after the USA and don't dwell on legal trivialities within.
There are very few Christians, in truth. Professing to be Christian means nothing if you
don't believe every word from the mouth of Yahweh. The judeo-christian churches are the great
apostasy.
"I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump
is guilty of wrongdoing," she said. "I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment
because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process,
fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country."
A censure would "send a strong message to this president and future presidents that their
abuses of power will not go unchecked, while leaving the question of removing Trump from
office to the voters to decide," Gabbard said.
I suspected that Deep State has at least two opposing factions. The Realistists want him to
break up the empire, turn back into a republic; the Delusionals want to extend the empire,
continue to exploit and destroy the world. If so, the contradictions, reversals, incoherence
make sense. IMO as I said.
Gary Weglarz ,
I predict that all Western MSM will begin to accurately and vocally cover Mr. Binney's
findings about this odious and treasonous U.S. government psyop at just about the exact time
that -- "hell freezes over" -- as they say.
Jen ,
They don't need to, they have Tony Blair's fellow Brit psycho Boris Johnson to go on
autopilot and blame the Russians the moment something happens and just before London Met
start their investigations.
So, if the President wanted to, he could be impeached by the house over and over again
without that helping the Senate to find any illegal, and therefore convictable behavior for the
President?
May be if the house impeach him three times and never send the impeachment articles to the
Senate, the dear President would faint. May be then the doctors would finally decide that he is
incapable of fulling his duties in the White House and declare him officially so sicko that he
gets forced to stay in bed. /sad snark attempt.
"The CIA was the central protagonist in Russiagate. The origins of the New Cold War are found
in Bill Clinton's first term, when administration neo-cons looted, plundered and moved NATO
against a prostrate Russia in
contradiction to explicit guarantees not to do so made by the George H.W. Bush
administration. Vladimir Putin's apparent crime was to oust the Clintonites from Russia and
restore Russian sovereignty." CounterPunch.org
"Russiagate was a declaration of war by the 'intelligence community' against a duly elected
President. As argued below, the CIA's motive is to move its own foreign policy agenda forward
without even the illusion of democratic consent." CounterPunch.org
Notable quotes:
"... Actions in the Washington cesspool never surprise -- by members of both right wing of the US war party. They represent the greatest threat to world peace and ordinary people everywhere at home and abroad. Pro-war, pro-business, pro-Wall Street, anti-progressive Speaker Pelosi is part of the problem, never part of the solution. ..."
Actions in the Washington cesspool never surprise -- by members of both right wing of the US
war party. They represent the greatest threat to world peace and ordinary people everywhere at home and
abroad. Pro-war, pro-business, pro-Wall Street, anti-progressive Speaker Pelosi is part of the
problem, never part of the solution.
Her long disturbing congressional record shows she exclusively serves wealth and power
interests at the expense of the vast majority of Americans she disdains, proving it time and
again.
Her deplorable voting record speaks for itself, backing:
the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Blily Act repeal of Glass-Steagall, permitting some of the most
egregious financial abuses in the modern era;
the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), permitting endless
wars of aggression in multiple theaters, raging endlessly;
annual National Defense Authorization Acts and US wars of aggression;
Obama's neoliberal harshness, continuing under Trump, along with tax cuts for the rich,
benefitting her and her husband enormously, without admitting it;
increasingly unaffordable marketplace medicine, ripping off consumers for profit, leaving
millions uninsured, most Americans way underinsured;
the USA Patriot Act, Anti-Terrorism Act and other police state law;
the 9/11 whitewash Commission Recommendation Act;
the FISA Amendments Act -- permitting warrantless spying post-9/11, Big Brother watching
everyone;
NAFTA and other anti-consumer/corporate coup d'etat trade bills;
the repressive US gulag prison system, the world's largest by far; incarcerating
millions by federal, state, and local authorities, it includes global torture prisons;
unapologetic support for Israeli apartheid viciousness;
fierce opposition to Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, and other
nonbelligerent sovereign states threatening no one;
the Russiagate witch hunt and Ukrainegate scams.
Calling exploitive/predatory "free market (capitalism) our greatest asset" shows her
contempt for equity and justice.
Her support for the military, industrial, security, media complex is all about backing
endless wars of aggression against invented enemies. No real ones exist.
Pelosi represents what belligerent, plutocratic, oligarchic, increasingly totalitarian rule
is all about, notably contemptuous of nations on the US target list for regime change --
Russia, China and Iran topping the list.
On Friday, she falsely accused Russia of involvement in Ukrainegate, a failed Russiagate
scam spinoff with no legitimacy, supported by undemocratic Dems and their echo-chamber
media.
Repeating the long ago debunked Russian US election meddling Big Lie that won't die, she
falsely accused Moscow of "ha(ving) a hand in this."
Referring to the Ukrainegate scam, she offered no evidence backing her accusation because
none exists.
During a Friday press conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York,
Sergey Lavrov slammed Pelosi's Big Lie, saying:
"Russia's been accused of all the deadly sins, and then some. It's paranoia, and I think
it's obvious to everyone."
It's unacceptable anti-Russia hate-mongering, what goes on endlessly, Cold War 2.0
raging.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the following on her facebook
page:
"Speaker of the lower house of Congress Nancy Pelosi believes that Russia is involved in the
scandal over July telephone conversation between us and Ukraine Presidents Donald Trump and
Vladimir Zelensky."
"This (baseless) assumption was made on Friday Pelosi (not) explaining what it means, and
without providing evidence of her words."
"Considering that it was Nancy Pelosi who caused the 'Scandal around the telephone
conversation between the presidents of the United States and Ukraine,' then, according to the
speaker's logic, Russia attached the hand to her."
What's going on is continuation of the most shameful political chapter in US history,
ongoing since Trump took office, along with railroading Richard Nixon.
Both episodes represent McCarthyism on steroids – supported by establishment media,
furious about Trump's triumph over Hillary, targeting him largely for the wrong reasons,
ignoring plenty of right ones.
Mueller's probe ended with a whimper, not the bang Dems wanted, Ukrainegate their second
bite of the apple to try discrediting Trump for political advantage ahead of November 2020
elections.
That's what Russiagate and Ukrainegate are all about.
These actions by undemocratic Dems and their media press agents are further clear proof that
Washington's deeply corrupted political system to its rotten core is far too debauched to
fix.
While Nancy Pelosi
threatens to withhold articles of impeachment passed Wednesday night by the House, Harvard
Law Professor Noah Feldman says that President Trump isn't technically impeached until the
House actually transmits the articles to the Senate. Feldman, who testified in front of the
House Judiciary Committee's impeachment proceedings earlier this month, argues in a
Bloomberg Op-Ed that the framers' definition of impeachment "assumed that impeachment was a
process, not just a House vote," and that " Strictly speaking, "impeachment" occurred –
and occurs -- when the articles of impeachment are presented to the Senate for trial. And at
that point, the Senate is obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial ."
If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't actually
impeached the president . If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say
that he wasn't truly impeached at all.
That's because "impeachment" under the Constitution means the House sending its approved
articles of to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the
president is impeached.
As for the headlines we saw after the House vote saying, "TRUMP IMPEACHED," those are a
media shorthand, not a technically correct legal statement . So far, the House has voted to
impeach (future tense) Trump. He isn't impeached (past tense) until the articles go to the
Senate and the House members deliver the message . -Noah Feldman
Pelosi, meanwhile, won't transmit the articles until the Senate holds what she considers a
"fair" trial.
Roughly modeled after England's impeachment procedures, the framers in Article I of the
constitution gave the House "the sole power of impeachment," while giving the Senate "the sole
power to try all impeachments."
Article II outlines says the president "shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
There's more:
But we can say with some confidence that only the Senate is empowered to judge the
fairness of its own trial – that's what the "sole power to try all impeachments"
means.
If the House votes to "impeach" but doesn't send the articles to the Senate or send
impeachment managers there to carry its message, it hasn't directly violated the text of the
Constitution. But the House would be acting against the implicit logic of the Constitution's
description of impeachment.
A president who has been genuinely impeached must constitutionally have the opportunity to
defend himself before the Senate . That's built into the constitutional logic of impeachment,
which demands a trial before removal.
To be sure, if the House just never sends its articles of impeachment to the Senate, there
can be no trial there . That's what the "sole power to impeach" means.
In closing, Feldman says " if the House never sends the articles, then Trump could say with
strong justification that he was never actually impeached ," adding "And that's probably not
the message Congressional Democrats are hoping to send."
In times past the Senate would have guarded its power against the House. I'm guessing the
Democrat Senators thinks party is more important than all that.
This pansy has no standing about anything related to impeachment.
He has not made any academic studies on the topic nor did he even take the time to prepare
for his biased and totally ridiculous testimony in the "impeachment."
It is all part of our lesson from this event.
Schiff is a graduate of Harvard. And this pansy teaches at Harvard.
The lesson to take away from all this is never ever hire anyone from Harvard nor to
believe anything from them because they are not educated they are indoctrinated.
Think about it people CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, all in lock step with the Democratic
Party no objective reporting at all anymore. These national media outlets and the Democratic
Party continue to publish and propagate false and fake new stories and never retract them or
admit it was all pure fiction.
Why, we have to ask why? Because they deem the American public not smart enough to think
for themselves. If the truth does not fit the pre-determined narrative it is buried or
covered-up by the national media. Their position is you will think do and say as we tell you,
since you're just not smart enough to think for yourself or decide for yourself on how you
want to live your own lives. We know what's best for you. The self-appointed Elite and the
Dems on both Coasts deem all of us in the flyover states not smart enough to vote for a
President, You're just not smart enough to raise your children and teach your kids as you
deem fit, you should not be allowed to worship as you desire or own guns, you're just not
smart enough to control and manage your retirement savings. They desire to eliminate the
Electoral College so your vote is eliminated. Trump scares the hell out of them because they
see their money pot being taken away from them and their ill-conceived control over our
Country slipping away. They have looted and pillaged this country for decades and built a
lavish lifestyle using your hard earned tax dollars. The area around Washington DC is not the
richest area in America by accident.
What have the Democrat party done for the citizens of the US the last 3 years or the last
20 years for that matter. Do you think their impeachment push and the attacks for the last 3
years are because they have the American people's best interest at heart? Think again. They
care absolutely nothing about the American people and have one goal and one goal only and
that is to control every single aspect of your life. They will try and seize every bit of
your retirement savings through taxes and fees for their own enrichment. They will sell out
America at every turn only to enrich themselves. If they ever regain power they will unleash
unimaginable carnage on America and you are all regardless of your political party Fodder for
their fire.
A vote for any Democrat is a vote for your own and our Country's demise.
DemoRats became the second War party. Which means two parties merged on this issue forming
Uniparty, like in the USSR.
Feeding and care MIC is No.1 task for both. Ordinary Americans well being does matter much
for either party. New generation of Americans is punished with crushing debt and low paying jobs.
They do not care that people over 50 who lost their jobs are essentially thrown out like a
garbage.
Counting dollars they got from MIC and Wall Street they are oblivious to the growing danger
of converting the USA and Russia territories into radioactive desert. That does not bather them
one bit. They have shelters, You don't. Vote accordingly. .
But all of these fundamental democratic issues have been excluded from the
Democrats' impeachment drive, which is centered on claims that Trump has been insufficiently
aggressive in fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.
"In the end, this impeachment is the first over a question of whether the president is
selling out American national security," writes David Sanger in the New York Times.
"While Ukraine is the proximate event, how the president has dealt with Mr. Putin is the
overarching theme."
Sanger concludes, "the argument about Ukraine, the ostensible reason for the president's
impeachment, was not really about Ukraine at all. It was about Russia."
But it was House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff -- the pivotal figure in the
impeachment drive -- who left no question about the central demand of the Democratic Party for
an escalation of the US conflict with Russia.
"Ukraine is fighting our fight against the Russians, against their expansionism. That's our
fight, too." Schiff said. "We used to stand up to Putin and Russia. I know the party of Ronald
Reagan used to."
"That's why we support Ukraine with the military aid that we have," Schiff continued. "The
President may not care about it, but we do. We care about our defense, we care about the
defense of our allies, and we darn well care about our constitution."
Nowhere has anyone explained why Ukraine's war with Russia should be "our fight, too," or
why the failure to fight this war to the Democrats' satisfaction constitutes an impeachable
offense.
The Democrats' attempt to remove Trump aims to legitimize an intense escalation of the US
conflict with Russia, a policy for which there exists no support among the mass of the
population.
The Democratic Party is aware of the broad popular hatred of the Trump administration. But
what this party of the rich and affluent fears far more than Trump's reelection is a mass
mobilization to remove him, which would inevitably challenge their own wealth and the
capitalist system.
In the terms defined by the Democrats, the impeachment has no democratic or legitimate
content. The complete remoteness from and indifference to any popular sentiment or demands
gives it the character of a palace coup. The innumerable claims by various Democrats that their
impeachment constitutes a defense of democracy are both unconvincing and untrue.
Even as they have moved ahead with their impeachment drive, the Democrats have worked with
Trump to expand the military, gut congressional restrictions on the use of military force, and
expand his immigration crackdown. On Tuesday, they approved the largest military budget in US
history, and on Thursday, the day after the impeachment, they plan to pass USMCA (United
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), a trade war measure targeting China.
As the impeachment votes were being cast, Trump was in Battle Creek, Michigan, making a
violent, demagogic and fascistic appeal to his supporters. Trump echoed the letter he had
earlier sent to the House of Representatives in which he accused the Speaker of the House of
"declaring open war on American Democracy."
But in excluding all democratic issues that would succeed in mobilizing the population
against Trump, the Democrats have actually played into the hands of the President, who has
sought to mobilize his fascistic base on the grounds that he is a victim of a "deep state"
plot.
The central lie peddled by Trump is to equate the Democrats' efforts to remove him --
together with those of the intelligence agencies and media -- with socialism. This is his label
for any form of popular opposition to his administration. In the traditions of fascism, Trump
falsely presents himself as the victim of a conspiracy between the "elites," socialists and
communists.
Whatever the outcome of the impeachment crisis, it will see a dangerous further movement of
American politics to the right. If the Democrats fail to remove Trump -- as seems likely -- it
will strengthen him. If they somehow succeed in orchestrating Trump's removal, it would be seen
as illegitimate by broad sections of the population, and would virtually guarantee an
escalation of military conflict with Russia.
Whatever its outcome, the impeachment must be seen in context of the greatest crisis of
American capitalism since the Civil War. In their own way, both parties represent the twin
imperatives of American imperialism under conditions of social crisis and the loss of its
global hegemony.
The Democrats embody the drive to war; the Republicans, in the form of Trump, embody the
move toward fascistic and authoritarian forms of rule.
The fight against Trump can only unfold on the basis of a social and political struggle
rooted in the working class. The essential prerequisite for the emergence of such a movement is
a total and unequivocal break with the Democratic and Republican parties. The attitude of the
working class to this impeachment must be, amending Shakespeare, "A plague on both political
parties."
Historic speech from McConnell. He nailed exactly what makes the ideology of the Democrats
antithetical to the very principles that founded this nation.
"...[to] insure domestic tranquility..." THIS is in the preamble to the Constitution the
Dems claim to support. Someone please tell us all how they are supporting this. I'll
wait.
Senator McConnell's FINEST HOUR. A great speech that will live forever in the annals of
history itself. Our Founding Fathers would be so proud of you. Thank you for stepping up to
the plate and protecting our Republic Senator McConnell. God Bless you sir.
If anyone was watching The Horowitz hearing in the senate today it would be hard to conclude
that RussiaGate and Ukrainegate will not have serious consequences going forward.
The whole sordid, nasty conspiracy seems on the verge of being exposed, maybe as high as
Obama himself, although he is just a puppet himself, and indictments are sure to follow. I
don't see how anyone could think that this will not be catastrophic for the democratic
party.
The House impeachment is driven by several factors:
After Russiagate, when Trump began to investigate its fraudulent origins, the Dems feared the exposure of Obama-era
corruption if not high crimes. Hence Ukrainegate is preemptive political tactics.
The investigation into Russiagate led right to Ukraine, and thus to Biden. In the context of Sanders' campaign,
Ukrainegate became an imperative for the factions of the capitalist class that dominates the DNC. If Biden falls on Ukraine
issues, then Sanders is inevitable; an anathema to Wall Street and Big Tech DNC donors.
3. While 1 and 2 dominate DNC machinations, foreign policy is also a factor. The foreign policy establishment is absolutely
against any hesitation with respect to confronting Russia as part of a regional and global strategy for primacy. Trump's limited
prevarications on Russia might threaten the long established strategy to expand Nato to Ukraine and thereby to encircle Russia
and maintain US dominance over Europe. So, even though Trump names great power rivalry as the name of the game today, his inclination
for making nice with Putin threatens to weaken the US hold over Europe, which Trump wants to label as an economic competitor.
It is with these points that the strategic differences become apparent: Trump is raising a realist, neo-mercantalist strategy
against ALL potential competitors; the DNC and the deep state hold a strategy of liberal hegemony: globalization and US primacy
through dominating regional alliances, and impregnating US hegemony INSIDE the vassal States of the empire.
All of this, however, is bound to fail for the DNC, and down the road for Trump himself.
The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones.
My apologies if this has been posted before, but here is a news conference broadcast by
Interfax a few days ago detailing a joint French-Ukrainian journalistic investigation into a
huge money laundering scheme using various shadow banking organizations in Austria and
Switzerland, benefiting Clinton friendly Ukrainian oligarchs and of course the Clinton
Foundation.
The link is short enough to not require re-formatting:
Forgive me for the somewhat redundant post, and again I hope this is not a waste of anyone's
time, but this is the source of the Interfax report I posted just above currently at #56. It
is relevant to the Ukrainegate impeachment fiasco.
The U.S. and lapdog EU/UK media will not touch this with a 10 foot pole.
KYIV. Dec 17 (Interfax-Ukraine) – Ukraine and the United States should investigate
the transfer of $29 million by businessman Victor Pinchuk from Ukraine to the Clinton
Foundation, Ukrainian Member of Parliament (independent) Andriy Derkach has said. According
to him, the investigation should check and establish how the Pinchuk Foundation's
activities were funded; it, among other projects, made a contribution of $29 million to the
Clinton Foundation. "Yesterday, Ukrainian law enforcement agencies registered criminal
proceeding number 12019000000001138. As part of this proceeding, I provided facts that
should be verified and established by the investigation. Establishing these facts will also
help the American side to conduct its own investigation and establish the origin of the
money received by [Hillary] Clinton," Derkach said at a press conferences at
Interfax-Ukraine in Kyiv on Tuesday, December 17.
According to him, it was the independent French online publication Mediapart that first
drew attention to the money withdrawal scheme from Ukraine and Pinchuk's financing of the
Clinton Foundation.
"The general scheme is as follows. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) lent money to
Ukraine in 2015. The same year, Victor Pinchuk's Credit Dnepr [Bank] received UAH 357
million in a National Bank stabilization loan from the IMF's disbursement. Delta Bank was
given a total of UAH 5.110 billion in loans. The banks siphoned the money through Austria's
Meinl Bank into offshore accounts, and further into [the accounts of] the Pinchuk
Foundation. The money siphoning scam was confirmed by a May 2016 ruling by [Kyiv's]
Pechersky court. The total damage from this scam involving other banks is estimated at $800
million. The Pinchuk Foundation transferred $29 million to the Foundation of Clinton, a
future U.S. presidential candidate from the Democratic Party," Derkach said.
"... Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring their power to bear on domestic policy as well. ..."
"... Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest of the world. ..."
Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep
State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials,
often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and
incipient tyranny.
Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of
European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring
their power to bear on domestic policy as well.
Although both halves of the One-Party really want the effective tyranny of state and
corporate bureaucracies, it's not surprising that it's the Democrats (along with the MSM)
taking the lead in openly defending the tyrannical proposition that the CIA should be
running its own foreign (and implicitly domestic) policy, and that the president should be
just a figurehead which follows orders. That goes with the Democrats' more avowedly
technocratic style, and it goes with the ratchet effect whereby it's usually Democrats which
push the policy envelope toward ever greater inequality, ecocide and tyranny.
Now is a time of rising irredentism and the decline of all the ideas of
globalization and technocracy, though the reality is likely to hang on for awhile. The whole
Deep State-Zionist-Russia-Deranged-Trump-Deranged-MSM-social media censorship campaign is
globalization trying to maintain its monopoly of ideas by force, since it knows it can never
win in a free clash of ideas.
Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides
its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the
culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees
with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too
damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think
they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest
of the world.
Since impeachment's going to fail, we can expect the system to try other ways.
hey b... i like your title - "How The Deep State Sunk The Democratic Party" ... could change
it to" How the Deep State Sunk the USA" could work just as well...
Seven of the 11 security state representatives who had joined the Democrats in 2018 gave
the impulse for impeachment.
is this intentional?? it sort of looks like it...
good quote from @ 26 lk - "The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be
mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones."
@babyl-on 35
yes that is about right. The top power networks are all a tight mix of names from govt, MIC,
and private equity (incl. top 2-3 investment banks). With the latter group naturally paying
the salaries of the whole policy making ecosystem, and holding the positions that select
future generations who will eventually take their place.
They want the security of knowing noone in the world will mess with them. This
necessitates that noone in the world *can* mess with them. Pretty straightforward from
there.
All pretense of our country being a representative democracy@snoopydawg
is gone. Our two party uniparty government has completely turned its back on serving
the needs of the vast majority of the people of this country, and of the wider world. Profit
sits at the head of our government. The monikers "Fascist" and "Totalitarian" are apt
descriptors of the direction of our current trajectory. A dystopian future surely awaits us on
this beautiful, fragile and life sustaining planet that we are trashing with such abandon.
Other than that, things are going quite nicely. Nancy is wearing her power pants and fools
are applauding.
It still amazes me... that people actually think impeachment accomplishes anything other
than diverting attention from the Dems giving Trump everything he wants.
Kayfabe.
Impeachment without conviction means next to nothing.
The Senate will not convict. Trumps chances of being re-elected are continuing to improve as
Democratic Party insiders work overtime to see to it that Bernie Sanders has to fight the
Republican Party, a MSM that either dismisses or ignores his candidacy, AND the Democratic
Party which has, once again, stacked the deck against him.
... Never-Trump conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin released a scorching
assessment ... "Even Trump knows he will be lumped in with the 'losers' in the presidential
history rankings such as Richard Nixon and Andrew Johnson," wrote Rubin. "Impeachment will
define his presidency, dwarfing any other foreign or domestic action. No wonder he rages
against a speaker he is powerless to stop. His worst nightmare is to be humiliated, and if
not now, history certainly will regard him as a pitiful, damaged man utterly unfit for the
role he won through a series of improbable events ... Just as Watergate figures ... were
lionized as defenders of the Constitution, so too will Pelosi and House Democrats ... be
among those admired for their lucidity, intellect and character. ... For every clownish,
contemptible, screeching and dishonest House Republican, there is a sober, admirable,
restrained and honest Democrat.
"No letter, no tweet, no Fox News spin can repair the reputations of Trump enablers," Rubin
wrote. The right-wing media that cheered them on will, like outlets that rooted for Jim Crow
and demonized Freedom Riders, be shunned by decent, freedom-loving people who reaffirm
objective reality. The Republican Party will be known not as the Party of Lincoln but the
Party of Trump, a quisling party that lost its bearings and its soul to defend an unhinged
narcissist.
The Trump Card was and is a masterstroke of scripting live, non-stop, divisive, politically
paralytic distraction while the US oligarchy goes all-tard-in for private power.
Since the whole impeachment farce already has been a political loser for the idiot Democrats,
they'd have to be doubly stupid to double down on political stupidity by obstructing the
transmission to the Senate, when most Americans just want this crap to be over with.
Meanwhile the Senate Republicans, once they get the charges, would be stupid to do
anything but vote them down immediately. Otherwise they'll become complicit in the odious
circus and rightly incur their share of the political blame.
So from now on the party which hold the House can start impeachment process on false premises
the day the President from other party was elected. As simple as that.
That open a huge can to worms for future Presidents,
Notable quotes:
"... Let me explain something. This will set a precedent for house of reps to come. When we have a liberal president and a republican house we will do the same and impeach him for nothing because this just shows that if you own the house you can impeach him for nothing and that isn't good for the future ..."
I don't know anything about politics but i know that impeaching a president with radical
fans might not be the smartest move for a country that's all ready divided , just my
opinion.
The claim its a danger to our constitution when they have no pronlem with infringing our
2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment and pledge to do away with the elctorial college...
Hypocrisy
Let me explain something. This will set a precedent for house of reps to come. When we
have a liberal president and a republican house we will do the same and impeach him for
nothing because this just shows that if you own the house you can impeach him for nothing and
that isn't good for the future
Trump is doing a great job,and doing every thing he promises. The only high crime was
defying Dems authority.He has become a clear and present danger to their chances of ever
winning another election.
"... Zlochevsky is actually the decoy, but the real person who has majority-ownership of Burisma, after Zlochevsky sold to him most of his shares in 2011, is the key Ukrainian billionaire who had backed Obama's February 2014 coup, Ihor Kolomoysky. ..."
"... Kolomoysky is now far more interested in recovering his bankrupt PrivatBank, Ukraine's largest bank, than in trying to extract the relative pittance that might still be entailed in Burisma. ..."
"... Thus far, in the American press, all of the attention has been on the agents. Given the way in which Trump's State Department buried the release of that data-dump, Trump has not been eager to get the real story out there. Nor, of course, are the Democratic Party billionaires whose "American Oversight" has likewise done nothing to facilitate the exposure of the actual historical narrative in this case. ..."
On November 22nd, a 100-page Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data-dump was made by the
U.S. Department of State, to the Democratic-Party-aligned nonprofit "American Oversight," which
had been founded in March 2017 by liberals (really by the main billionaires who fund the
Democratic Party) after the 2016 Democratic electoral defeat (to Republican billionaires). The
now Republican-headed U.S. State Department made as difficult as possible for news-media to
pick up on and report about the contents of this dump; they did this by providing only a
photographic image of each page, impossible on most systems to do any "Edit" "Find"; and also
impossible to perform any "Edit" "Copy" "Paste" of any quotation from the document.
Consequently, I made the first copy of that document to the Web Archive, in order to expedite
its coming onscreen, and I am herewith pasting below an extended passage in the document, which
I then manually transcribed from it, where President Trump's lawyer Rudolphe Giuliani, on
January 23, 25, and 26, took depositions from both Viktor Shokin, whom Joe Biden had forced in
April 2016 to be fired as Ukraine's Prosecutor General, and also from Yuriy Lutsenko, who
replaced Shokin and thereby freed-up from the Obama Administration in 2016 a one-billion-dollar
donation from America's taxpayers to the then-recently-installed-by-Obama anti-Russian
Government of Ukraine.
Shokin/Lutsenko Notes
U.S. Department of State
January 23, 2019
445 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Shokin:
On January 23, 2019, a telephone interview with Mr. Viktor Shokin the former General
Prosecutor of Ukraine was conducted. Present in the New York location were: Rudolph Giuliani,
Mr. Igor Fruman, Mr. Lev Parnas and Mr. George Boyle. The conversation was conducted through
the use of two (2) interpreters one (1) in Ukraine and one (1) Lev Parnas in New York. The sum
and substance of the conversation are as follows:
Mr. Shokin stated that he was appointed to the position of General Prosecutor of Ukraine
from 2015 until April of 2016 when he was removed at the request of Mr. Joseph Biden the Vice
President of the United States. Mr. Shokin was a Deputy Prosecutor prior to becoming the
General Prosecutor. He became involved in a case against Mr. Mykola Zlochevsky the former
Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine. The case was opened as a result of Mr.
Zlochevsky giving himself/company permits to drill for gas and oil in Ukraine. Mr. Zlochevsky
is also the owner of Burisma Holdings, which is a corporation registered in Cyprus. Mr. Shokin
stated that there are documents that list five (5) criminal cases in which Mr. Zlochevsky is
listed, with the main case being for issuing illegal gas exploration permits. The following
complaints are in the criminal case.
Mr. Zlochevsky was laundering money
Obtained assets by corrupt acts bribery
Mr. Zlochevsky removed approximately twenty three million U.S. dollars out of Ukraine
without permission
While seated as the Minister he approved two addition[al] entities to receive permits for
gas exploration
Mr. Zlochevsky was the owner of two secret companies that were part of Burisma Holdings
and gave those companies permits which made it possible for him to profit while he was the
sitting Minister
The above cases were closed after Mr. Zlochevsky was dismissed from the Ministry.
Mr. Shokin further stated that there were several Burisma board appointees [that] were made
in 2014 as follows:
Hunter Biden son of Vice President Joseph Biden
Joseph Blade former CIA employee assigned to Anti-Terrorist Unit
Aleksander Kwasnieski former President of Poland
Devon Archer roommate to Christopher Heinz the step-son of Mr. John Kerry United States
Secretary of State
Mr. Shokin stated that these appointments were made by Mr. Zlochevsky in order to protect
himself.
Mr. Zlochevsky left Ukraine while the above mentioned cases were open.
Mr. Shokin stated that the investigations stopped out of fear of the United States. Mr.
Shokin attempted to continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015 the U.S.
Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white
gloves, which, according to Mr. Shokin, implied to do nothing. On or about September 2015, Mr.
Pyatt gave a speech in Odessa where he stated that the cases were not investigated correctly
and that Mr. Shokin may be corrupt.
Mr. Shokin stated that in 2014 Mr. Zlochevsky was in the UK and that the twenty three
million dollars were frozen in the UK in the BNP Bank. Mr. Shokin stated that false documents
were prepared and the money was released so Mr. S[sp]lochevski before Mr. Shokin took office.
That release of the money made Mr. Shokin look into the above cases again. Mr. Shokin stated
that there were several articles written about bribes being taken during the investigation of
the cases. The bribes were an effort to have the cases closed. On April of 2016 Mr. Shokin was
dismissed as the General Prosecutor of Ukraine. In November of 2016 the cases were closed by
the current Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko.
Mr. Shokin further stated that on February of 2016 warrants were placed on the accounts of
multiple people in Ukraine. There were requests for information on Hunter Biden to which
nothing was received. It is believed that Hunter Biden receives a salary, commission, plus one
million dollars. Mr. Shokin stated he was warned to stop by Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt.
President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko told Mr. Shokin not to investigate Burisma as it was not
in the interest of Joe and/or Hunter Biden. Mr. Shokin was called into Mr. Poroshenko's office
and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter Biden is on
the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine.
Mr. Shokin stated that on or around April of 2016 Mr. Petro Poroshenko called him and told
him he had to be fired as the aid to the Ukraine was being withheld by Joe Biden. Mr. Biden
told Mr. Poroshenko that he had evidence that Mr. Shokin was corrupt and needed to be fired.
Mr. Shokin was dismissed in April of 2016 and the U.S. aid was delivered within one and one
half months.
On a different point, Mr. Shokin believes the current [U.S.] Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch
denied his visa to travel to the U.S. Mr. Shokin stated that she is close to Mr. Biden. Mr.
Shokin also stated that there were leaks by a person named Reshenko of the Ukrainian State
Secret Service about the Manafort Black Book. Mr. Shokin stated that there is possible deceit
in the Manafort Black Book.
End of interview.
–
January 25, 2019 445 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022
Yuriy Lutsenko:
On January 25, 2019, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine was
present at 445 Park Av e, New York, NY. He was present to speak about corruption in Ukraine. He
was accomapnied by Glib Zagoriy, Gyunduz Mamedov, Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman. Also present were
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and George Boyle.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that he is currently the Prosecutor General for Ukraine. He was the
Minister of Interior from 2007 to 2010. He further stated that he was placed in jail for two
and one half years as a political prisoner.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that his office has the following units under his purview:
1 Police Department
Fiscals
Secret Service
Investigative Department
Mr. Lutsenko stated that his office has recovered several billion dollars and has had two
thousand six hundred thirty-seven [2,637] verdicts of corruption. Mr. Lutsenko went on to
explain that there is a unit called Specialized Anticorruption Prosecutors Office (SAP) which
has under its purview National Anticorruption Bureau Ukraine (NABU) which investigates
corruption cases that involve public figures from Mayors upward. He stated that the current
U.S. Ambassador protects SAP and NABU. He feels they are good organizations but have terrible
leadership. His office has absolutely no control over SAP or NABU and can't even ask what they
are working on, however they fall under his 'control'.
He further state[s] that he believes Mr. Viktor Shokin, the former Prosecutor General, is
honest.
Mr. Lutsenko went on to say that he began looking at the same case Mr. Shokin was looking at
(mentioned above) and he believes Hunter Biden receives millions of dollars in compensation
from Burisma. He produced a document from Latvia that showed several million dollars that were
distributed out of Burisma's account. The record showed two (2) companies and four (4)
individuals receiving approximately sixteen million dollars in disbursements, as follows [the
breakdown is shown].
Mr. Lutsenko feels that the total disbursements can be as high as $100,000,000.
Ambassador Pyatt gave a speech on September 25, 2015 in Odessa against the Prosecutor
Generals' Office.
Yuriy Lutsenko Continued:
On January 26, 2019, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine, was
present at 445 Park ave., New York, NY. [His second day of testimony contained only one
specific mention which was not vague and which had not been indicated previously by Shokin: A
"system was set up in order to remove money from the Ukraine, have it laundered, and then
collect the laundered money. These companies were all headed by one Chief Financial Officer.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that about twenty (20) to forty (40) of these companies were shell
companies. He further stated that there were twenty-three (23) companies located off shore, and
that two of them had approximately seven billion dollars that were placed in the Templeton
Fund. The system ran similar to a 'pyramid' scheme and all of the beneficiaries were
pro-Russian [which was undefined but presumably meant associated with the pre- coup Ukrainian Government].
Zlochevsky is actually the
decoy, but the real person who has majority-ownership of Burisma, after Zlochevsky sold to him
most of his shares in 2011, is the key Ukrainian billionaire who had backed Obama's February
2014 coup, Ihor Kolomoysky.
And Kolomoysky is now far more interested in recovering his
bankrupt PrivatBank, Ukraine's largest bank, than in trying to extract the relative pittance
that might still be entailed in Burisma.
Apparently, Trump hasn't yet decided whether to
continue the Obama-installed regime in Ukraine or else to expose it and to go after both Obama
and Kolomoysky, and abandon the cover-story of Biden and Zlochevsky. If he does decide to go
after the principlals in the case, then he'll have to expose who were the actual principals,
and who were merely their agents.
Thus far, in the American press, all of the attention has
been on the agents. Given the way in which Trump's State Department buried the release of that
data-dump, Trump has not been eager to get the real story out there. Nor, of course, are the
Democratic Party billionaires whose "American Oversight" has likewise done nothing to
facilitate the exposure of the actual historical narrative in this case.
On the Republican side, Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee,
was the first Republican to respond, accusing the Dems of running an unfair and deeply partisan
impeachment inquiry...
"This is an impeachment based on presumption," Mr. Collins said. "This is a poll-tested
impeachment about what actually sells to the American people. Today is going to be a lot of
things. What it is not is fair. What it is not is about the truth."
...While failing to prove their case against Trump.
...fully one half of Americans believe the president is innocent, and that the impeachment
push is merely a politically calculated smear job.
Trump started to play victim and this is really dangerous situation fro neoliberal democrats,
as he is a master in this genre. The President Doth Protest Too Much. While the Schiff
impeachment trial was neocon clowns show, he did committed crimes while in office (Douma false
flag, Oil grab in syria, Yeamen, etc) . But both Republicans and DemoRats are ob board for those,
and are afraid to talk about the real issues, converting impeachment into a second rate Kabuki
theatre
Pelosi now probably has the second thought about impeachment. There is a profound belief
among neoliberal Dems that politically things for them are much worse than they really are. but
while neoliberal is dead people still are voting for those jerks became the other party is even
worse.
Looks like neoliberal Democrats (aka DemoRats) made a political mistake
Notable quotes:
"... "This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history." ..."
"... Maybe we should rename the Trump impeachment and call it what it really is... ..."
The following are ten of the key highlights from that letter
#1 "This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by
Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative
history."
#2 "By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office,
you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on
American Democracy."
#3 "Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith
by continually saying you pray for the President when you know this statement is not true,
unless it is meant in a negative sense."
#4 "You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of
US aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company
paying his son millions of dollars."
#5 "Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what Joe Biden has
admitted he actually did."
#6 "You have developed a full-fledged case of what many in the media call Trump
Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it!"
#7 "You view democracy as your enemy!"
#8 "You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the ones subverting
America's Democracy."
#9 "More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials."
#10 "Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment against every shred of
truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle, is showing how deeply they revile the voters and
how truly they detest America's Constitutional order."
If you would like to read the entire letter for yourself, you can find it
right here . It only takes a few minutes to read, and I think that most of you will find it
very enjoyable.
... ... ...
Following Trump's letter, Pelosi sent out one of her own to her Democratic colleagues asking
them to join her on the House floor
on Wednesday morning
... ... ...
Pelosi and her minions intended to destroy Donald Trump, but they may have just guaranteed
him four more years in the White House. And for Trump, that would be the sweetest revenge of all.
"Trump definitely understands that the primary reason why they are trying to impeach
him is because they deeply hate him..."
"Hate" may be a useful shorthand here, but it really has nothing to do with what's going
on. "Drain the swamp" is useful shorthand, too, that means Trump is shutting off the flow of
billions of dollars in corrupt money to corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, and threatening
to properly prosecute them for their crimes. The impeachment is really another crime waiting
to be prosecuted, where the legislative branch has been hijacked to commit obstruction of
justice on behalf of themselves.
When a Chief Justice Reminded Senators in an Impeachment Trial That They Were not Jurors
December 18, 2019
•
4
Comments
Save
With an eye on Trump's impeachment trial, Steven Lubet points out that senators at such
a trial are not the equivalent of a jury and are not held to a juror's standard of neutrality.
Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., fields questions from reporters about an impeachment trial in the Senate,
Dec. 10, 2019. (
AP/J.
Scott Applewhite
)
S
enate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell created a predictable
stir
when he told
Fox News host Sean Hannity that he would structure the impending impeachment trial of
President Donald Trump in "total coordination with the White House counsel's office." He added, "There will be no
difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this."
This outright rejection of
neutrality drew immediate protests from Democrats. Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.),
who may well be one of the House impeachment managers
in the Senate trial, called for McConnell's recusal,
saying
"No court in the country would allow a member of the jury to
also serve as the accused's defense attorney."
House Judiciary Committee
Chair Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) likewise
slammed
"the foreman of the jury" for saying he would "work hand and glove with the defense attorney."
Demings and Nadler made a
valid point, but they used the wrong analogy. Senators at an impeachment trial are not the equivalent of a jury and
they are not held to a juror's standard of neutrality.
Tasked with delivering an
opening statement for the House Managers – who present the House's case to the Senate –
Rep. Robert Barr (R-Ga.) reminded the senators
of Clinton's tendency to "nitpick" over details or "parse a
specific word or phrase of testimony." To Barr, the conclusion was obvious: "We urge you, the distinguished jurors in
this case, not to be fooled."
"
Mr.
Chief Justice
,"
he said, addressing William Rehnquist, who was presiding over the trial,
"
I
object to the use
and the continued use of the word 'jurors' when referring to the Senate."
Sen.
Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, raised a crucial point about senators' roles in the impeachment trial of President Clinton in
1999. (
AP/Joe
Marquette)
He explained that
"the framers of the Constitution meant us, the Senate, to be something other than a
jury."
Instead, Harkin continued,
"What we do here today does not just decide the fate of one man. Future generations will look back on this trial
not just to find out what happened, but to try to decide what principles governed our actions."
"The Senate is not simply a
jury," he ruled. "It is a court in this case."
Rehnquist thus admonished
the House Managers "to refrain from referring to the Senators as jurors." For the balance of the trial, they were
called "triers of law and fact."
Rehnquist and Harkin got it
right.
Article III of the
Constitution
provides that "Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury," and
for good reasons.
Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist, shown in this video image, presides in the impeachment trial of President Clinton on
the Senate floor, Feb. 8, 1999, in Washington.
(
AP
Photo/APTN)
Recognizing the Senate's
all-encompassing responsibility, and his own limited role, Chief Justice Rehnquist referred to himself throughout the
proceeding only as
"
the
Chair
."
As the U.S. Supreme Court
has
put
it
, impeachment presents a "political question," in which all of the "authority is reposed in the Senate
and nowhere else."
Oath or Affirmation
Required
McConnell, the Senate's
leader, has more leeway and far more power than any juror or even a jury foreperson.
The Constitution's only
procedural limitation is the requirement in
Article I
that
the senators be placed under "oath or affirmation."
Although the Constitution
does not specify any particular wording (unlike
the
presidential oath
, which is included word-for-word), the Senate
adopted
rules for impeachment trials in 1986
requiring each senator to affirm or swear to do "impartial justice
according to the Constitution and laws."
"Impartial justice" does
not demand the enforced naiveté of jury service, which would be impossible in an impeachment trial. For example, the
senators all have prior knowledge of at least some of the facts, and several of them are currently vying to run
against Trump in 2020, while others are backing his reelection campaign.
But the Senate's oath of
impartiality clearly calls for at least some commitment to objectivity. Thus, the problem with McConnell's
announcement was not that he failed to behave like a juror.
Rather, he has declared an
intention to disregard the Senate's prescribed oath, which was fixed long ago by the very body that elected him its
leader.
When Tom Harkin disclaimed
a juror's role at the Clinton trial, his purpose was not to affect the outcome of the case, but rather to underscore
the full scope of the Senate's decision-making responsibility. In contrast, Mitch McConnell appears to have boldly
renounced open-mindedness itself on the impeachment court, whether as juror, judge or "trier of law and fact."
When they got Clinton, it felt like a big deal. Now, it's just another episode in the Kabuki
threat of Washington, DC
"Anyway, when the hammer came down on Bill Clinton (21 years ago tomorrow, in fact), it felt
right. Justice had been served. Two months later, the GOP-run Senate would acquit Clinton of the
charges. He served out the rest of his term, and went on to become very rich, a globalist grifter
of great renown. One day, he will die peacefully in bed. His bed, one hopes. Life went on."
"I hate that we have such a lowlife as the American president. But do you know what else I
hate? That the Democratic Party went crazy over the last 20 years. That it's for open borders.
That the Democratic Party is for writing into federal civil rights law the destruction of one of
the most fundamental building blocks of human civilization: the gender binary. I hate that the
Democrats are so drunk on identity politics that a Democratic-run government would create a legal
and policy framework in which my own sons would be considered public enemies because of the color
of their skin, their sex, and depending on the context, their religion."
TRUMP WILL WIN THIS IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION AND IN THE SENATE, WHERE IT WILL BE
CODIFIED.
Trump and Mitch are actually doing the democrats a favor by throwing this crap out in the
Senate after a very short debate. Otherwise, if by the tiniest of margins some of the repubs
turn on Trump because they too are guilty of crimes against humanity which many will be found
to be, the resultant pitch-fork mobs would rip them apart...
Democrats just sent a strong message to people. Don't investigate crooks named Biden. Just
don't touch this. Biden must walk free and any person who dares to challenge crooks,
Democratic party crooks, or any other crooks is now to face Democrats.
Good guy named Trump dared to ask a foreign country to investigate corrupted crooks. Bad
idea.
It is no longer democratic thing to defend the law, preserve and promote honesty, not to
mention integrity and ethics. Nah. Vote for Democrats, because they support mafia, sell guns
to criminals, vigorously defend crooks in power and make no mistake - they laugh at Americans
every day.
Trump is no saint, but for gods sake impeach because of Bidens? My God.
Some House Democrats push Pelosi to withhold impeachment articles, delaying Senate
trial
"WASHINGTON -- A group of House Democrats is pushing Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other
leaders to withhold the articles of impeachment against President Trump that emerged from the
House on Wednesday, potentially delaying a Senate trial for months.
The notion of impeaching Trump but holding the articles in the House has gained traction
among some of the political left as a way to potentially force Senate majority leader Mitch
McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, to conduct a trial on more favorable terms for Democrats.
And if no agreement is reached, some have argued, the trial could be delayed indefinitely,
denying Trump an expected acquittal.
The gambit has gained some traction inside the left wing of the House Democratic Caucus
this week. Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon, said Wednesday, as his
colleagues debated the impeachment articles on the House floor, that he has spoken to three
dozen Democratic lawmakers who expressed some level of enthusiasm for the idea of ''rounding
out the record and spending the time to do this right.''
''At a minimum, there ought to be an agreement about access to witnesses, rules of the
game, timing,'' Blumenauer said of a Senate trial.
Another Democrat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal
deliberations, said there is ''serious concern about whether there will be a fair trial on
the Senate side'' and acknowledged active talks about withholding the articles.
After the impeachment vote Wednesday, Pelosi would not rule out the idea of withholding
the articles.
The notion has been most prominently advocated by Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School
professor who has advised the House Judiciary Committee on the impeachment process. In a
recent Washington Post op-ed, he wrote that ''the public has a right to observe a meaningful
trial rather than simply learn that the result is a verdict of not guilty.''..."
The Dems have given Trump's insane military budget more than he asked for, they got no
bargains in renewing the NDAA (both of which betray the lie they think Trump is compromised),
and finalized a huge new trade deal with him.
The impeachment farce and most of the battle
with Trump is kabuki for the rubes. Business as usual continues in DC, except the swamp
realizes more and more that their grip on power is slipping. They are far more frightened of
Bernie Sanders. These are dangerous times.
"The Democrats did the "right" thing - considering their options.
Option A: Counter Trump with real policy issues; policies that the majority of Americans
support: ending unending wars, healthcare, environmental protection, income equality, etc..
But that would cost them money from their BIG DONORS, and as such all privileges of the Dem
bosses. Not a good option
Option B: Follow the Russiagate/Ukrainegate/Impeachment path and thereby avoid having to
oppose Trump on policy. Their BIG DONORS are happy (because there is no policy change). Even
if the Dems lose 2020 election, the party bosses still retain their privileges.
Disclaimer: The Dims and the Repugs are the same party - just two different brands of it.
Anyone doubting this assertion should check out who finance them .... big oligarchy, even if
there may be slight differences in composition.
Posted by: Nathan Mulcahy | Dec 18 2019 23:07 utc | 31
This IMO is the best synopsis posted to date. Salient, and to the point. Thanks NM!!
"... But as we know it has become politically incorrect on the left to do anything but to put on your clown makeup and join the circus. ..."
"... But Tulsi Gabbard as usual doesn't play their game. And because of that, like Trump she is also a target of the deep state and not just the deep state of America--it is the deep state of the entire 5-Eyes security apparatus who together work overtime to overthrow Trump and any and all who resist their attempt to rule the world. ..."
"... Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring their power to bear on domestic policy as well. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard did the smart thing and abstained in the vote from the circus. But as we know
it has become politically incorrect on the left to do anything but to put on your clown
makeup and join the circus.
But Tulsi Gabbard as usual doesn't play their game. And because of that, like Trump she is
also a target of the deep state and not just the deep state of America--it is the deep state
of the entire 5-Eyes security apparatus who together work overtime to overthrow Trump and any
and all who resist their attempt to rule the world.
Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep
State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials,
often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and
incipient tyranny.
Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of
European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring
their power to bear on domestic policy as well.
Although both halves of the One-Party really want the effective tyranny of state and
corporate bureaucracies, it's not surprising that it's the Democrats (along with the MSM)
taking the lead in openly defending the tyrannical proposition that the CIA should be
running its own foreign (and implicitly domestic) policy, and that the president should be
just a figurehead which follows orders. That goes with the Democrats' more avowedly
technocratic style, and it goes with the ratchet effect whereby it's usually Democrats which
push the policy envelope toward ever greater inequality, ecocide and tyranny.
Now is a time of rising irredentism and the decline of all the ideas of
globalization and technocracy, though the reality is likely to hang on for awhile. The whole
Deep State-Zionist-Russia-Deranged-Trump-Deranged-MSM-social media censorship campaign is
globalization trying to maintain its monopoly of ideas by force, since it knows it can never
win in a free clash of ideas.
Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides its
more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the
culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees
with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too
damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think
they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest
of the world.
Since impeachment's going to fail, we can expect the system to try other ways.
But also may I compliment Kali@18 and Russ@19 for their terrific comments. I have just
finished reading the link provided by Kali, which is an outstanding essay by Pam Ho- a
paradigm shifter if ever there was one! I have been making a determined effort to liberate my
thinking from ideological partisanship and reading this essay was like pressing a refresh
button in my brain.
Despite the ra ra b. s.,Trump's letter will become an historical document, as it does
encapsulate all the manufactured tribulations that have been foisted on his presidency,
though I would have liked b to include all those words which were CAPITALIZED. He's quite a
personality, your president The best summation of the man is, curiosly enough, provided by
Syria's president Assad. There is an honesty about him even when he's uttering a bald-faced
lie!
Tulsi has been newsworthy for a number of years now and right from the getgo I said to
myself "she's my kind of gal"
Here is a woman of courage and presence. She's young and principled, even if she's a
member of a very corrupted party.
@ Posted by: Australian lady | Dec 19 2019 3:26 utc | 71 who ended her comment expressing
support for Tulsi Gabbard
When the impeachment vote was taken today, there were two Dems that voted against and
Tulsi voted Present
She will be ostracized for her non vote but I give her credit for distancing herself from
the impeachment circus. Given that she has stated that she won't run again for Congress, I
speculate that she may jump to the Green Party if given the chance to run ahead of or with
Jill Stein.....any barflies know how the Greens are shaping up for this coming election?
I read in a couple of places today that the strategy of the Dems is to not forward the
impeachment to the Senate for an indeterminate amount of time......let the stew, the Senate
and Trump simmer a bit.....more kabuki for the masses while the public continues to be
screwed economically.
That can increase Trump popularity further, as it portrays DemRats as unprincipled, dirty political Schemers, Washington pond scam,
so to speak. Two gangs fighting for dominance while nation became poorer and poorer.
They failed (or more correctly were too afraid as it implicates them too) to discuss real issues on which Trump could be impeached
and not Pelosi gambit backfired.
Notable quotes:
"... "How do Democrats impeach and withhold when they've been telling everybody Trump must be removed right now because he poses an immediate threat to our elections? Would Dems go straight from pre-emptive impeachment to deferred impeachment?" ..."
"We have legislation approved by the Rules Committee that will enable us to decide how we will send over the articles of impeachment,"
Pelosi told reporters Wednesday.
" We cannot name [impeachment] managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side."
She added that "so far, we haven't seen anything that looks fair to us" in the Senate.
Nancy Pelosi:
"We have legislation approved...that will enable to decide how we send over the articles of impeachment."
The
Conservative Treehouse blog describes this as a "cunning Lawfare ploy" that was a "pre-planned procedural process by design."
"Now the delay in sending the articles of impeachment allows the House lawyers to gather additional evidence while the impeachment
case sits in limbo."
"The House essentially blocks any/all impeachment activity in the Senate by denying the transfer of the articles from the House
to the Senate. Additionally, the House will now impede any other Senate legislative action because the House will hold the Senate
captive. Meanwhile the Democrat presidential candidates can run against an impeached President. "
This additional evidence could include Mueller grand jury material, a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn and
less Trump's financial and tax records.
Knowing that the Senate will never vote to impeach Trump, Democrats plan to use the House impeachment vote as yet another tool
with which to undo the results of the 2016 election, keeping Trump under a permanent cloud of suspicion right through 2020.
However, as Byron York noted rather pointedly, this is entirely disingenuous considering the Democrats pre-impeachment utterances:
"How do Democrats impeach and withhold when they've been telling everybody Trump must be removed right now because he poses
an immediate threat to our elections? Would Dems go straight from pre-emptive impeachment to deferred impeachment?"
And remember, the public is now against impeachment broadly...
Mitch doesn't need Nanzi to "send" anything over to the Senate. The U.S. Constitution states that " The Senate shall have
the sole Power to try all Impeachments. " Art. I, Sec. 3. That power is not dependent on the House "sending" anything to the
Senate. Moreover, the Articles of Impeachment have been published, and the House vote has been published, so the Senate can print
those off and start the trial today . Get on with it, Mitch, and dismiss this charade.
This is just more unconstitutional behavior and yet another attempt by house Dems to usurp power the constitution does not
grant to them:
"The Senate shall the time and place of the trial"
If turtle doesn't get the show on the road, Trump will have to force the issue. However the turtle acknowledged that the Senate
must act in a way which throughly rebukes the Dems for this attempt to lower the bar and prevent it from moving forward.
If she doesn't send the impeachment articles to the Senate then that is something the founding fathers didn't anticipate. If
not resolved the Supreme Court could get involved to define the gray into black and white. I could see Trump taking it to the
courts.
On another note it is pretty funny to see Pelosi griping about the unfairness of McConnell coordinating with the white house
while at the same time coordinating with Schumer.
"Now the delay in sending the articles of impeachment allows the House lawyers to gather additional evidence while the impeachment
case sits in limbo."
What the hell is going on? What new evidence are they gathering? The House voted and they impeached. There is no ongoing investigation
any longer. They cannot reconvene.
The Republican Senate, must do its duty and move forward to the conclusion on this, as quickly as possible.
Pelosi is clearly overreaching by trying to control the Senate. McConnell should remind her that she is not a Senator, and
should stick to controlling her own chamber.
McConnell should also have the Senate pass a resolution that any measures passed by the House must be turned over to the Senate
within 30 days, or the Senate will dismiss such measures as void and invalid.
The Democrats and Republicans are well aware of what is coming. They hope these acts of desperation will somehow delay the
inevitable. Most Americans aren't prepared for the level of corruption, deceit and debauchery that will be exposed. It's almost
time to pay the piper. It is going to shock the world.
Criminally manufactured treasonous conspiracy with fraud perpetrated by DNI/IG Atkins, Ciaramella and Brennan, Schiff, Pelosi,
Nadler, and Obama cohorts and holdovers.
This gets described and prosecuted in their conspiratorial sedition if it goes to Full senate.
They don't dare send it, because they will be arrested, and may be subject to grand jury even before then on FISA related findings.
All the Democrats have is Impeachment. Without it they have nothing to do until November. So, they plan to Impeach President
Trump again, and maybe another time after that to run out the clock.
If House Dems refuse to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial it would be a breathtaking violation of the Constitution,
an act of political cowardice, and fundamentally unfair to President
@realdonaldTrump .
Going to have to have an amendment to the Constitution. No open ended impeachment motions. Time limitation on when the
House sends impeachment motion to the Senate, after Congress passes motion for impeachment.
I would hope this goes to the supreme court and they rule that this denies the right to a speedy trial. Because the senate
vote is actually considered a trial.
Pelosi risk to turn the case into personal vendetta and DemoRats will be burned as the
result. McConnell just need to wait a couple on months as time works for him.
This pressure from Pelosi actually helps Trump opening interesting lines of the attack:
"McConnell said on the Senate floor that Pelosi and House Democrats "may be too afraid to even
transmit their shoddy work product to the Senate." Trump tweeted as Pelosi spoke Thursday
morning, saying that "Pelosi feels her phony impeachment HOAX is so pathetic she is afraid to
present it to the Senate".
The Deep State Sunk The Democratic Party
Notable quotes:
"... she would delay naming impeachment managers -- who would argue the House case in the Senate -- until the Senate lays out its procedures for the trial. ..."
41 Million people in the US suffer from hunger and lack of food security"--US Dept. of
Agriculture. That number of people constituted a crisis for FDR when he delivered his One-Third
of a Nation speech for his 2nd Inaugural. About four years later, FDR expanded on that issue in
his Four Freedoms speech: 1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship; 3.Freedom from want;
4.Freedom from fear.
Faced with a similar situation, Trump advances plans to cut more people from the food stamp
program thus increasing immiseration. One might say Trump's out of step with traditional
American values; but were Obama, Bush, or Clinton any better?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday extended her standoff with Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell over starting President Donald Trump 's impeachment trial,
insisting she's waiting to see whether Republicans will agree to a "fair" process.
Pelosi surprised many House Democrats Wednesday night after the House impeached Trump when
she said she would delay naming impeachment managers -- who would argue the House case in
the Senate -- until the Senate lays out its procedures for the trial.
"When we see what they have, we'll know who and how many we will send over," she said at a
news conference Thursday. Pelosi cast it as a procedural matter and cited the Senate's
ability to come up with a bipartisan trial plan after President Bill Clinton was
impeached.
... ... ...
McConnell and other GOP senators have been indicating they want a quick
trial, with arguments presented by the House managers and Trump's counsel without witnesses.
McConnell was giving no ground.
"It's beyond me how the speaker and Democratic leader in the Senate think withholding the
articles of impeachment and not sending them over gives them leverage," he told reporters at
the Capitol. "Frankly, I'm not anxious to have the trial."
... ... ...
McConnell called the House impeachment process rushed and shoddy.
"If the speaker ever gets her house in order, that mess will be dumped in the Senate's
lap," he said on the Senate floor. "If the nation accepts this, presidential impeachments may
cease being a once-in-a-generation event."
World News is reporting that
the US House of (Non) Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump on two
counts, "Abuse of Power" and "Impeding Congress".
(Never mind that the US Congress itself is the source of almost all the impeding Congress
faces!)
Please feel free to add any and all new details in the Essay's Comments.
regarding the failure of the house to move the articles of impeachment to the Senate I recommend reading:
theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/18 article entitled:
cunning-lawfare-maneuver-house-will-withhold-submission-of-articles-from-senate/
The article breaks down the legal strategy behind Pelosi's move, the strategy is quite clever, evil actually and the article
tracks how it was done, what it means and what it will allow the Dems to do; well worth a read.
I agree that this is the likely outcome. Surer than Hillary winning the 2016 election. It would mean that Pelosi, Schiff, et.
al. are really politically stupid.
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, has 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.
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.
From my article: Impeachment:
What Lies Beneath?
Trump's chances of being convicted in the Senate are essentially zero (though we're sure
Mitch McConnell will enjoy the leverage that presiding over such a trial will inevitably
bring). And on Wednesday night, as the Dems voted to impeach, Trump told supporters in Battle
Creek exactly what they wanted to hear. That the Dems were the real lawbreakers, having abused
the Constitutional process to persecute a president against whom they harbor an almost
pathological antipathy.
"This lawless, partisan impeachment is a political suicide march for the Democratic
party," Trump told supporters in Battle Creek, Michigan, a Republican stronghold that helped
him win the traditionally Democratic state in 2016.
Across the battleground states of the midwest, polls and anecdotal evidence suggest Trump
will have the upper hand in 2020. Some 52% of registered Wisconsin voters oppose Trump's
impeachment and removal from office, according to a recent Marquette University Law School
poll. The amount who support impeachment is just 40%.
Independent voters across the state sing Trump's praises.
Trump also enjoys a receptive audience across swaths of Wisconsin. Dawn Anderson, 60, said
that she and her husband are independents who voted for Trump in 2016 and can't wait to do it
again next year.
"I'm mad," she said in an interview outside a Woodman's Markets grocery store in Kenosha.
"He shouldn't have to defend himself the way he is."
Trump won Wisconsin by some 22,000 votes in 2016, a margin of less than 1%. It was the first
time a Republican won the state since 1984.
When discussing the impact of impeachment on Trump's share of the vote in Wisconsin, one
Republican Party official in the state compared the impact of impeachment to the impact of the
recall vote on Gov. Scott Walker, which also galvanized the state's conservatives to take a
stand against Democrats who were believed to be unfairly persecuting another. People who never
voted before registered and supported Walker because they were so annoyed at the Democrats.
Trump's letter notes that talk about impeachment started as soon as he stepped into
office:
IMO the Deep State wanted to initiate a new McCarthyism.
Russiagate was the means to do so and that means that Impeachment was always a possibility
(though likely a red-herring, as I explain below).
IMO After the Mueller investigation progressives pressed for Impeachment but establishment
Democratics (led by Pelosi and Hillary) wouldn't allow it. People were (rightfully) asking
why establishment Democrats were protecting Trump.
With this in mind, Ukrainegate is a convenient diversion from Russiagate while providing
the Impeachment satisfaction that progressives had clamored for.
It's difficult NOT to notice that ...
... America First Trump actually furthered Russiagate when he hired Manafort
(who was known to have worked for pro-Russian Parties in Ukraine and had NO recent
experience in US elections) and called upon Russia to publish Hillary's emails (which were
KNOWN to contain top-secret information - making any publication a crime under US law);
... and America First Trump furthered Ukrainegate by the mentioning the
name of an announced political opponent when talking about investigating corruption on a
call with Zelensky.
One might excuse this in many ways: Trump's ego; his unfamiliarity with politics
and statecraft; or just bad luck. But one can also see these actions, in a larger context, as
disturbing part of the effort to initiate the new McCarthyism.
No this contradict Occam razor: the scheme is too complex to implement and which requires
perfect coordination of the actors. This is really two oligarchic gangs struggling for
power.
I'm starting to think the whole trump presidency is a con by making him look like a target
for the deep state and anti establishment, he continues the empire while people who want real
change get sunk
"I'm starting to think the whole trump presidency is a con by making him look like a
target for the deep state and anti establishment, he continues the empire while people who
want real change get sunk."
Pretty much his only domestic policy achievements have been to deliver what Wall Street,
real estate and the oil and gas sector wants. The benefits of the tax cuts and gutting of
enforcement activity by the regulatory agencies (including the IRS) are weighted towards
those industries.
Also, on the foreign policy front, keeping oil prices artificially high by
keeping Iranian and Venezuelan crude off the markets is a boon to the E&P sector.
"... Surely the only reason for doing this is to obscure and hide the Democratic Party's involvement with (and meddling in) Ukrainian politics and Ukrainian political issues through people like Alexandra Chalupa and her sisters Andrea and Irena, and Dmitri Alperovich and his company Crowdstrike that looked after the DNC's cyber-security. ..."
It would seem that the Democrats need this impeachment circus over and done with before the
end of 2019 so they can concentrate on cleaning up Joe Biden as their Presidential candidate
and pretend he had no history before April 2019 when Volodymyr Zelensky became President of
Ukraine. That must explain their strange and shaky choice of issue on which to try to impeach
Donald Trump: so that during the campaign season,
Biden's past and his son having been on the
Board of Directors of a shady energy company (with a licence to explore and drill for oil in
an area of eastern Ukraine not far from where a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet was shot down
in 2014) can be kept off-limits to the MSM and anyone who dares to challenge Biden on his
record. If the President of the United States can be punished for pursuing the Bidens on
their record of corruption, then that alone should (in theory) stop anyone else from pursuing
them.
There are so many other issues on which to impeach Trump but the issue of Joe Biden's
conflict of interest regarding his son's involvement in Burisma Holdings and eastern Ukraine
generally is the weakest and the oddest.
Surely the only reason for doing this is to obscure
and hide the Democratic Party's involvement with (and meddling in) Ukrainian politics and
Ukrainian political issues through people like Alexandra Chalupa and her sisters Andrea and
Irena, and Dmitri Alperovich and his company Crowdstrike that looked after the DNC's
cyber-security.
"... The absurd race between the Repugnants and Democrazies to smash each other appears to have only one unfortunate outcome at this point and the Democrazies are not the winner. They are certainly going to lose Biden or lose because of Biden. That's how much they care for their electoral base. Meanwhile the Trump oligarch private finance capital team march up the hill. Tragic. ..."
Thanks b, it sure looks like distraction politics from the avoid doing anything for
people party. I am astounded at how pathetically weak their case is. But most astonishing
is the failure to have the LEAKER not whistleblower attend any public hearing to give
evidence.
We are now well aware of Ciaramella's role in this absurd theatre. But he gives no
evidence, fails to submit to a cross examination. He is a real Star Chamber performer.
The absurd race between the Repugnants and Democrazies to smash each other appears to have
only one unfortunate outcome at this point and the Democrazies are not the winner. They are
certainly going to lose Biden or lose because of Biden. That's how much they care for their
electoral base. Meanwhile the Trump oligarch private finance capital team march up the hill.
Tragic.
BREAKING BIG: John Durham Is Investigating Former CIA Director John Brennan's Role in 2016
Election Interference and His LIES TO CONGRESS! (Video)
The New York Times reported tonight that federal prosecutor John Durham is
investigating former CIA Director John Brennan's role in the 2016 election. Durham has called
for Brennan's emails, call logs and other documents.
"With impeachment imminent, Kushner has pushed out his enemies, installed allies, and
taken control of the campaign and large swaths of policy -- only Kellyanne Conway is still
pushing back.
Inside the West Wing, Kushner has both eliminated opponents and installed acquiescent
officials. "Jared was very frustrated with [Reince] Priebus and John Kelly," a Republican
close to the White House, said. Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney "was Jared's pick," the
source said, and has allowed Kushner to function as de facto chief of staff. "Mick has
decided not to be in control," a former West Wing official said. "Jared treats Mick like the
help. There's no pushback," a prominent Republican said. John Bolton, who recently mocked
Kushner in a private speech, has been replaced by Robert O'Brien, a Kushner ally. Sources say
that Vice President Mike Pence and his advisers don't challenge Kushner after a string of
leaks that Kushner wanted to replace Pence on the ticket with Nikki Haley. "Pence people look
at Jared apprehensively. Pence treats Jared as a peer," said former Trump aide Sam Nunberg.
(The White House did not respond to a request for comment.)"
Jared the Jew Prince is the number one reason not to reelect Trump.
"... "The sworn statements of Mr. Flynn and his former counsel belie his new claims of innocence and his new assertions that he was pressured into pleading guilty," Sullivan said in his Dec. 16 opinion ( pdf ). ..."
"... In June, he fired his lawyers and hired former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell , who has since accused the government of misconduct, particularly of withholding exculpatory information or providing it late. ..."
"... Powell has argued that Flynn's previous lawyers had a conflict of interest because they testified in a related case against Flynn's former business partner. Flynn had previously told the court he would keep the lawyers despite the conflict, but Powell said prosecutors should have asked the judge to dismiss the lawyers anyway. Sullivan disagreed, saying Flynn failed to show a precedent that the prosecutors had that obligation. ..."
"... Powell also said the government had no proper reason to investigate Flynn in the first place and that it had set up an "ambush interview" with the intention of making Flynn say something it could allege was false. ..."
"... Sullivan disagreed again and said that previously, with the advice of his former lawyers, Flynn never "challenged the conditions of his FBI interview." ..."
"... Powell said Flynn's answers to the agents weren't "material," meaning relevant to the FBI investigation of election meddling. ..."
"... Sounds like Flynn got bad advice from his previous lawyers, and the judge is requiring Flynn to live with the consequences. In other words, it is as if the judge is prohibiting Flynn from changing legal representation because Flynn cannot do anything different than what his first team of "counselors" advised. ..."
"... Flynn is as deep state as it gets. He would throw the book at any one of you. Make no mistake. Being a general is a political appointment. ..."
"... Flynn was also a ******* lobbyist for foreign governments, including Turkey,...without disclosing his advise was paid for. He sold himself out like a whore. ..."
"... "Michael Flynn reportedly filed paperwork on Tuesday for the $530,000 worth of work he did last year that "could be construed to have principally benefited the Republic of Turkey." https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/03/08/michael-flynn-admits-turkey-lobbying ..."
"... NATO Alliance member Turkey? How about a list of Israel friends with benefits. MIC grifters and aipac. Bloated orange imbecile can not fight only tweet. ..."
"... They say Dems and other psychos always accuse others of what they themselves are doing. Ever heard of the Clinton Foundation? Operating expenses: 95%.Benevolent aid: 5%. Suck on that for awhile. ..."
"... Flynn did nothing wrong. Was framed setup and then blackmailed to plead. Who will pay a price. Brennan Comey Strzok? Those who stood with Trump were ruined under false pretenses. ..."
"... Oh how soon you forget that Flynn commited war crimes in Grenada. ..."
"... Then bring him up on those charges. In court those kinds of leaps are inaddmissable. ..."
"... Hahahaha Grenada. Reagan's signature military victory. Flynn should be a super hero. Grenada and Panama are the only victories the Pentagon clowns have managed. What should we expect they only get $1,000,000,000,000.00 a year ..."
"... Remember that Michael Flynn waived his right to appeal this judge's decision when he plead guilty. This won't be going to a higher court. He's going down and the judge who is sentencing him is PISSED. ..."
"... Flynn is going to prison. Hillary is not. The sooner you jackoffs accept that, the sooner you'll be able to move on with your lives instead of living out your pitiful existence in bitterness and regret. And no, you won't be doing any civil war. You'll just be angry, your anger will turn inward, and you'll poison yourselves with resentment, living out your days alone. Don't say you weren't warned. ..."
"... They threatened his son if he did not plead guilty. Of course, to you Dems the means justifies the end. He will be pardoned, and deservedly so. ..."
"... I don't expect Clinton to go to jail ... committing crimes or not she is untouchable. People may wish it but it will never ever happen she has too much on all the other criminals. ..."
A federal judge has denied requests by Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn to prompt the government to
give him information he deems exculpatory and to dismiss the case against him .
District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan sided with the government in arguing that Flynn was
already given all the information to which he was entitled. The judge also dismissed Flynn's
allegations of government misconduct, noting that Flynn already pleaded guilty to his crime and
failed to raise his objections earlier when some of the issues he now complains about were
brought to his attention.
"The sworn statements of Mr. Flynn and his former counsel belie his new claims of
innocence and his new assertions that he was pressured into pleading guilty," Sullivan said
in his Dec. 16 opinion (
pdf ).
Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, pleaded guilty on Nov. 30, 2017, to
one count of lying to the FBI. He's been expected to receive a light sentence, including no
prison time, after extensively cooperating with the government on multiple investigations.
In June, he fired his lawyers and hired former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell , who has since accused the
government of misconduct, particularly of withholding exculpatory information or providing it
late.
Powell has argued that Flynn's previous lawyers had a conflict of interest because they
testified in a related case against Flynn's former business partner. Flynn had previously told
the court he would keep the lawyers despite the conflict, but Powell said prosecutors should
have asked the judge to dismiss the lawyers anyway. Sullivan disagreed, saying Flynn failed to
show a precedent that the prosecutors had that obligation.
Powell also said the government had no proper reason to investigate Flynn in the first place
and that it had set up an "ambush interview" with the intention of making Flynn say something
it could allege was false.
Sullivan disagreed again and said that previously, with the advice of his former lawyers,
Flynn never "challenged the conditions of his FBI interview."
Flynn was interviewed by two FBI agents, Joe Pientka and Peter Strzok, on Jan. 24, 2017, two
days after he was sworn in as President Donald Trump's national security adviser.
The prosecutors argued that the FBI had a "sufficient and appropriate basis" for the
interview because Flynn days earlier told members of the Trump campaign, including soon-to-be
Vice President Mike Pence, that he didn't discuss with the Russian ambassador the expulsion of
Russian diplomats in late December 2016 by then-President Barack Obama.
Flynn later admitted in his statement of offense that he asked, via Russian Ambassador to
the U.S. Sergei Kislyak, for Russia to only respond to the sanctions in a reciprocal manner and
not escalate the situation.
The FBI was at the time investigating whether Trump campaign aides coordinated with Russian
2016 election meddling. No such coordination was established by the probe, which concluded more
than two years later under then-special counsel Robert Mueller.
Powell argued that whatever Flynn told Pence and others in the transition team was none of
the FBI's business.
"The Executive Branch has different reasons for saying different things publicly and
privately, and not everyone is told the details of every conversation,"
she said in a previous court filing .
"If the FBI is charged with investigating discrepancies in statements made by government
officials to the public, the entirety of its resources would be consumed in a week."
Powell said Flynn's answers to the agents weren't "material," meaning relevant to the FBI
investigation of election meddling.
Sullivan, however, thought otherwise, using a broader description of the investigation. The bureau, he said, probed the "nature of any links between individuals associated with the
[Trump] Campaign and Russia" and what Flynn said was material to it. The description Sullivan used appears to omit the context of the probe, which focused
specifically on the Russian election meddling.
Powell was dealt a bad hand by Flynn's previous corrupt and incompetent attorneys. The
judge has an obligation to honor the new views of new counsel. He can't assume that Flynn had
been well advised by former counsel. There's no evidence or history of that. They sold him
out.
Sounds like Flynn got bad advice from his previous lawyers, and the judge is requiring
Flynn to live with the consequences. In other words, it is as if the judge is prohibiting
Flynn from changing legal representation because Flynn cannot do anything different than what
his first team of "counselors" advised.
He's so Deep State that Brennen and Clapper went to Soetoro to get him fired after the
election. Flynn was going to rat them out on the treasonous Iran deal. When Obama said no
because it was too close to the end of his presidency they then criminally framed Flynn.
Flynn was lied to. Flynn was a 30 year veteran and General. Flynn couldn't imagine his
country turning against him like this. None of us could. But with the cabal running our
country, it could and did happen. Now we have to stamp out the cockroaches before it's too
late.
Flynn was also a ******* lobbyist for foreign governments, including Turkey,...without
disclosing his advise was paid for. He sold himself out like a whore.
NATO Alliance member Turkey? How about a list of Israel friends with benefits. MIC grifters and aipac. Bloated orange imbecile can not fight only tweet.
This ***** judge will give him a mouse sentence to protect his own *** . We don't know the half of it . How close is the judge to Obama ? I think we are going to find out .
President Trump should step in now and Pardon Gen.Flynn and Roger Stone both trial were
fixed unethical and not based on fact and law. In Stones case a radical jury of Demon
Rat-Brains were assembled to hand down a guilty verdict.
They say Dems and other psychos always accuse others of what they themselves are doing.
Ever heard of the Clinton Foundation? Operating expenses: 95%.Benevolent aid: 5%. Suck on that for awhile.
Flynn did nothing wrong. Was framed setup and then blackmailed to plead. Who will pay a price. Brennan Comey Strzok? Those who stood with Trump were ruined under false pretenses.
Those who violated the constitution and rule of law are media pundants and
undisturbed.
Orange dotard please divert some of your swamp creatures from destroying Iran, Venezuela
and Bolivia.
America needs the secret police smashed and held accountable for sedition and treason.
Hahahaha Grenada. Reagan's signature military victory. Flynn should be a super hero. Grenada and Panama are the only victories the Pentagon clowns have managed. What should we expect they only get $1,000,000,000,000.00 a year
The minute they let Flynn off he talks and they sure as hell don't want that. They want to drag this out as long as possible and hope for a miracle (Trump gets beat
) or at least time enough for them to bugger off. FISA has known for years they were lied to by the FBI and now it has been confirmed . So why didn't they do anything then or now ? Were they in on it ? How do you draw any
other conclusion ?
Remember that Michael Flynn waived his right to appeal this judge's decision when he plead
guilty. This won't be going to a higher court. He's going down and the judge who is
sentencing him is PISSED.
Flynn is going to prison. Hillary is not. The sooner you jackoffs accept that, the sooner
you'll be able to move on with your lives instead of living out your pitiful existence in
bitterness and regret. And no, you won't be doing any civil war. You'll just be angry, your anger will turn
inward, and you'll poison yourselves with resentment, living out your days alone. Don't say
you weren't warned.
I don't expect Clinton to go to jail ... committing crimes or not she is untouchable. People may wish it but it will never ever happen she has too much on all the other
criminals.
Flynn can ask to withdraw plea, but he's turned down that opportunity three times, so
judge might not allow it. Then everything Powell has been doing becomes relevant. Up to this point it's just a bunch
of noise, unfortunately.
So let me just be sure I understand this: he is being denied evidence that could prove
innocence on a trial related to a guilty plea, which was largely the result of persecution by
the FBI and we ALLOW this to happen in America? What has happened to this country?
"... After a Western-backed coup overthrew the legitimate Ukrainian president in February 2014, it brought to power a government largely picked by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. People in the Donbass region did not accept the new government and made two conditions for remaining a part of Ukraine: special autonomy status and two state languages. This is exactly what Canada provides for its large French-speaking minority. ..."
"... Those with even rudimentary knowledge of Ukrainian history and its huge ethnic Russian population would agree that these demands are not unreasonable, but the post-coup government called the separatist forces terrorists, sent aviation and tanks, and started a civil war that has been raging for five years. Washington, which was in total control of the Ukrainian political class, could have resolved this crisis easily by telling the new government to accept these modest conditions. Instead, the U.S. supported Kyiv with money, weapons, military training and political support. ..."
At a time of one of the greatest political upheavals in American history that could spill
over into foreign affairs, especially U.S.-Russian relations with unpredictable and devastating
results, I thought Christmas might offer a chance for all
of us to take a pause and search for an exit from the megacrisis.
Many people believe miracles do happen at Christmastime. However, it looks like we need
President Trump , Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to perform
at least three of them.
Those who wonder why Mr. Zelensky is on this list
should recall that the Trump impeachment process started
because of his phone call with this guy whose country the Democrats and their pathetic
witnesses deem no less than vital to America's national security.
Let us start with Mr. Putin because someone has to take the first difficult step and he is
the only one in a clear position to do it.
Dear Mr. Putin, please make a public statement that Russia pledges not to interfere in the
next and future American elections. It would be good if the two chambers of the Russian
parliament, the Duma and Federation Council, ratify this pledge as well. Please do it
unilaterally without asking Mr. Trump and the U.S. Congress to
respond in kind.
Dear Mr. Trump , please return to your
earlier thinking about NATO as an obsolete organization that lost its purpose in 1991 after the
collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw military bloc. Since then, it has been searching
desperately for new missions and enemies to justify its existence.
Recall that NATO's continuous expansion drive is the major factor that squandered the
exceptional opportunity for U.S.-Russian rapprochement that all Russian leaders, starting with
Mikhail Gorbachev, kept proposing. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York Democrat, and 18
other senators voted against President Clinton's first round of NATO expansion. "We'll be back
on a hair-trigger. We're talking about nuclear war," they said.
At the same time, NATO has failed to counter international terrorism -- the real threat to
European and American security. It is NATO that boosted the jihadi peril by overthrowing
Libya's government, allowing that prosperous country to morph into a terrorist playground and
staging point for millions of unvetted migrants crossing the Mediterranean to Europe.
Is NATO making America and our allies more secure? During the Cold War, when NATO allowed
the West to stand firm against Soviet communist designs on Europe, the answer was an easy yes,
but today, with NATO's reckless poking of the Russian bear, the answer is a resounding no.
A rebuilt NATO or a new organization, IATO -- International Anti-Terrorist Organization --
specifically targeting global jihad, would have a future with new partners including Russia,
for which terrorism represents a major security threat. Georgia and Ukraine could join IATO as
well, thus taking the first step toward reconciliation with Russia that NATO's insatiable
expansion drive helped destroy.
French President Emmanuel Macron is the first Western leader who agrees with this point of view
and is not afraid to say that "NATO's brain is dead." However, the U.S. president must take the
lead to move past legacy NATO.
Dear Mr. Zelensky , I believe that you
sincerely want to end the war in your country. It is not an easy job since you face a strong
and vocal radical nationalistic opposition with strong neo-Nazi overtones that declares that
any compromise on your side will be met with the violent resistance and another "Maidan
revolution" that may lead to your overthrow. The leader of this opposition is former President
Petro Poroshenko, whom Washington supported all these years and who was given a rare privilege
to speak at a joint session of Congress, where members greeted him with numerous standing
ovations. At the same time, Ukrainian people hated him so much that they decided to replace him
with a Jewish comic actor with no political experience.
Mr. Zelensky , I wonder if you
have read the book "Shooting Stars" by Austrian novelist Stefan Zweig, which describes some
important episodes in which fate gave an individual a chance at a historical turning point.
Zweig says fate usually chooses for this purpose a strong personality, but sometimes it falls
to mediocrities who fail miserably.
You are in a position to decide which you will be, and the pass to historical Olympus is
obvious.
After a Western-backed coup overthrew the legitimate Ukrainian president in February 2014,
it brought to power a government largely picked by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria
Nuland. People in the Donbass region did not accept the new government and made two conditions
for remaining a part of Ukraine: special autonomy status and two state languages. This is
exactly what Canada provides for its large French-speaking minority.
Those with even rudimentary knowledge of Ukrainian history and its huge ethnic Russian
population would agree that these demands are not unreasonable, but the post-coup government
called the separatist forces terrorists, sent aviation and tanks, and started a civil war that
has been raging for five years.
Washington, which was in total control of the Ukrainian political class, could have resolved
this crisis easily by telling the new government to accept these modest conditions. Instead,
the U.S. supported Kyiv with money, weapons, military training and political support.
Mr. Zelensky , nowadays you and
your country are used as pawns in the attempts to impeach Mr. Trump , but your prime
responsibility is before Ukrainian people who dismissed the party of war and placed the fate of
your country and its people in your hands. They expect you to make the right decision by
choosing the road to peace.
While waiting for these miracles to materialize, I wish all a merry Christmas , happy Hanukkah and peace on
earth in 2020.
Edward Lozansky is president of American University in Moscow.
Neocons lie should properly be called "threat inflation"
The underlying critical
point-at-issue is credibility as I noted in my comment on b's 2017 article. I've since
linked to tweets and other items by that trio; the one major change seems to have been the
epiphany by them that they needed to go to where the action is and report it from there to
regain their credibility.
The fact remains that used car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking
credibility sans a confession as to why they feel the need to lie to sell cars.
Their actions belie the guilt they feel for their choices, but a confession works much
better at assuaging the soul while helping convince the audience that the change in heart's
genuine. And that's the point as b notes--genuineness, whose first predicate is
credibility.
"... House Democrats should seriously consider dropping this second article in light of the recent Supreme Court action. In fairness, this development involving the high court occurred after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made up their minds to include obstruction of Congress as an impeachment article. Yet the new circumstances give some Democratic members of Congress, who may end up paying an electoral price if they support the House Judiciary Committee recommendation, meaningful reason for voting against at least one of the articles of impeachment. ..."
"... The first article goes too far in authorizing impeachment based on the vague criterion of abuse of power. But it is the second article that truly endangers our system of checks and balances and the important role of the courts as the umpires between the legislative and executive branches under the Constitution. It would serve the national interest for thoughtful and independent minded Democrats to join Republicans in voting against the second article of impeachment, even if they wrongly vote for the first. ..."
The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed
toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment
that passed the House Judiciary Committee along party lines last week.
That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with congressional
subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power
to decide the validity of its subpoenas, as well as the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized,
both powers that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch. The House of Representatives
will do likewise, if it votes to approve the articles, as is expected to occur on Wednesday.
President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas
requiring the production of privileged executive material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has
argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches.
Therefore, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides
support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation.
The cases that are being reviewed are not identical to the challenged subpoenas that form the basis for the second article of
impeachment. One involves authority of the New York district attorney to subpoena the financial records of a sitting president, as
part of any potential criminal investigation. The others involve authority of legislative committees to subpoena records as part
of any ongoing congressional investigations.
But they are close enough. Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that
the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional
subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court.
It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order
before sending possibly privileged material to Congress. Even before the justices granted review of these cases, the two articles
of impeachment had no basis in the Constitution. They were a reflection of the comparative voting power of the two parties, precisely
what one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned would be the "greatest danger" of an impeachment.
House Democrats should seriously consider dropping this second article in light of the recent Supreme Court action. In fairness,
this development involving the high court occurred after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made up their minds to include
obstruction of Congress as an impeachment article. Yet the new circumstances give some Democratic members of Congress, who may end
up paying an electoral price if they support the House Judiciary Committee recommendation, meaningful reason for voting against at
least one of the articles of impeachment.
It would be a smart way out for those Democrats. More important, it would be the right thing for them to do. It would be smart
and right because, as matters now stand, the entire process smacks of partisanship, with little concern for the precedential impact
which these articles could have on future impeachments. If a few more Democrats voted in a way that would demonstrate greater nuanced
recognition that, at the least, the second article of impeachment represents an overreach based on current law, it would lend an
aura of some nonpartisan legitimacy to the proceedings.
The first article goes too far in authorizing impeachment based on the vague criterion of abuse of power. But it is the second
article that truly endangers our system of checks and balances and the important role of the courts as the umpires between the legislative
and executive branches under the Constitution. It would serve the national interest for thoughtful and independent minded Democrats
to join Republicans in voting against the second article of impeachment, even if they wrongly vote for the first.
"... an inquiry by cabinet secretary Lord Hunt in 1996 concluded that "a few, a very few, malcontents in MI5" had "spread damaging malicious stories". ..."
"... Well, if a cabinet secretary says that it must be true. MI5, not MI6 - I think MI5's the heavy mob - but I just wondered if our spooks had passed these tricks on to the lads who put the Steele dossier about. ..."
Massive win, Colonel, that as far as I know nobody predicted. Not the polls, not the political blogs. But I didn't follow it that
closely so that's just a general impression.
My man, Nigel Farage, got squeezed mercilessly. I was looking around the BBC site to find out how mercilessly when I came across
a picture of the bete noir of my father's time, Harold Wilson. Wilson was convinced that MI something was out to get him - bugged
his office, spread smear stories about him around the press, even a possible coup.
The odd rumour of all this had spread to my corner of the English provinces and I'd always wondered if there was anything in it.
So I clicked on the BBC article -
" .. A 1987 inquiry concluded the allegations of a security service plot against Wilson were untrue. However, an inquiry
by cabinet secretary Lord Hunt in 1996 concluded that "a few, a very few, malcontents in MI5" had "spread damaging malicious stories".
Well, if a cabinet secretary says that it must be true. MI5, not MI6 - I think MI5's the heavy mob - but I just wondered if
our spooks had passed these tricks on to the lads who put the Steele dossier about.
On another security matter I note with concern above - "Those are Jacobite tribesmen at the top. Some of my ancestors were
such as they." I thought so. '15 and '45 caused us a lot of trouble and just in case the tradition remained in your family I'm
opening a file. We're very happy with our present Queen, thank you, and we don't want you replacing her with some Stuart relic you
might happen to have dug up.
Though I suppose it would only be poetic justice. We've just had a go at toppling your President so why shouldn't you return the
compliment and topple Her Majesty.
USSR, Yugoslavia, US, EU, and the Indian Union are predicated on the ideas of the
Enlightenment Tradition. So far, USSR and FRY have disintegrated. If EU fails, could US and
EU be too far behind. In US, we have the political ascendancy of foolish Protestantism, in
India that of Hindu masses.
Can any states, predicated on secularism of the Enlightenment Tradition survive the rise
of religious politics?
"... But I think that from a practical standpoint, it's difficult to prosecute a serious case based almost solely on the idea that you claim to know what the other guy was thinking. ..."
President Trump explicitly stated in a private conversation with one of the Democrats'
witnesses that he wanted "no quid pro quo." But the mind-reading Democrats know
Trump meant the opposite ; Trump did want a quid pro quo.
Though Ukrainian experts say a holdup of U.S. aid would not have impacted their ability to
fight the Russians, since they manufacture their own lethal weapons (and sell a lot to other
countries), the Democrats can read minds: They say people
died because of the delay.
Each of the Democrats' witnesses also drew conclusions about President Trump, his supposedly
corrupt motivations and thought processes, that would require them to read minds. (Most of them
said they'd neither met nor spoken to Trump.)
Lastly, Democrats can read Joe Biden's mind, too. They know that when Biden insisted on the
firing of the prosecutor investigating his son's company, that his son didn't factor into the
decision.
Democrats could be correct on all counts.
But I think that from a practical standpoint, it's difficult to prosecute a serious case
based almost solely on the idea that you claim to know what the other guy was
thinking.
"... Andrew O'Hehir personifies the sore loser. The EU is fascism. In their attempt to overthrow Ukraine, the EU armed and trained Nazis. The EU helped start both the Libya and Syria wars. Obama was only their errand boy, trying to give them back two colonies. ..."
"... The EU destroyed Greece for the banks. The EU is a far greater threat to Europe than the Third Reich was. Is Andrew stupid enough to think European powers should give up their power to print money to these corporate fascists? ..."
Andrew O'Hehir personifies the sore loser. The EU is fascism. In their attempt to
overthrow Ukraine, the EU armed and trained Nazis. The EU helped start both the Libya and
Syria wars. Obama was only their errand boy, trying to give them back two colonies.
The EU destroyed Greece for the banks. The EU is a far greater threat to Europe than the
Third Reich was. Is Andrew stupid enough to think European powers should give up their power
to print money to these corporate fascists?
Fascist EU enablers, like the author, have called the Brits racists for years, simply
because they want out of the Nazi-arming EU. Andrew doesn't want any lessons from his
crushing defeat -- they relate to the perils of being a fanboy for corporate war-mongering
fascists.
The interesting info here is that the article states Haftar's "eastern-based Libyan
National Army (LNA), backed by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, France, Russia and
Turkey".
The NATO rift between Turkey and its other members has escalated with the Evil Outlaw US
Empire's Senate voting to recognize the Armenian Genocide and Greece to help the LNA (Bengazi
gov't) defend against Turkish shipments of militia/terrorists and weapons to the besieged GNA
in Tripoli. This
site is very helpful and up-to-date regarding what's occurring. And
this PDF Briefing Paper is very good and quite detailed.
All of the above's added to the tense situation around Cyprus, Turkey's threat to close
Incirlik, and Greek offers to house those NATO facilities. It increasingly looks like the
Turkish S-400s are aimed at Greece and NATO.
/div>
Viking guy at 40
"Today we are not members of the EU, but all the "regulations" are forced upon us anyway. The
EU is a non-democratic nightmare that must be demolished."
Absolutely. The EU is the 2nd biggest imperialist asshole on the block, benefitting from the
fact that 1st place is taken by the USA, which is far more blatant, in-your-face and
universally obnoxious when at it, and doing it even to the EU. The EU not being the ultimate
superpower, it can't bully the US or China and only does it when dealing with lesser powers.
That's why it's practically impossible for anyone living inside a major EU-member to actually
notice and be aware of the typical EU behaviour: to crush any lesser country and to force it to
abide by its very own rules, whether independent countries want it or not.
That the EU is that bad should have been clear and obvious to all during the Greek crisis, but
most Europhiles prefer to think this was just an accident, due to some bad apples, and that "If
only the Czar knew", this wouldn't happen. Well, UK is going to get hit badly with the future
deal, because an imperalist neo-liberal power like the EU - just like the US, but most of the
time without the military part of it - can only crush any opposition and make an example out of
it.
If the EU were a truly democratic endeavour, they would allow at least popular referendum at
EU-wide level, and possibly even initiatives, for starter. The way it works, the people have no
checks on it. Not a bit surprise though, most of its core members function this un-democratic
way.
Viking guy at 40
"Today we are not members of the EU, but all the "regulations" are forced upon us anyway. The
EU is a non-democratic nightmare that must be demolished."
Absolutely. The EU is the 2nd biggest imperialist asshole on the block, benefitting from the
fact that 1st place is taken by the USA, which is far more blatant, in-your-face and
universally obnoxious when at it, and doing it even to the EU. The EU not being the ultimate
superpower, it can't bully the US or China and only does it when dealing with lesser powers.
That's why it's practically impossible for anyone living inside a major EU-member to actually
notice and be aware of the typical EU behaviour: to crush any lesser country and to force it
to abide by its very own rules, whether independent countries want it or not.
That the EU is that bad should have been clear and obvious to all during the Greek crisis,
but most Europhiles prefer to think this was just an accident, due to some bad apples, and
that "If only the Czar knew", this wouldn't happen. Well, UK is going to get hit badly with
the future deal, because an imperalist neo-liberal power like the EU - just like the US, but
most of the time without the military part of it - can only crush any opposition and make an
example out of it.
If the EU were a truly democratic endeavour, they would allow at least popular referendum at
EU-wide level, and possibly even initiatives, for starter. The way it works, the people have
no checks on it. Not a bit surprise though, most of its core members function this
un-democratic way.
So all other presidents who claimed privilege were actually obstructing Congress and were
subject to impeachment as will be all future presidents who claim privilege. Burisma, a
Ukrainian company, can not be investigated because a Biden is on the board. Hunter has a very
lucrative future ahead of him as an insurance against investigation.
The Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau is a U.S. creation. It is therefore not astonishing to
find that it is corrupt.
@kooleksiy 16:29 UTC
· Dec 13, 2019
Director of Ukraine's National Anti-corruption Bureau Sytnyk will pay a ~$140 fine for
"violation of restrictions on accepting gifts" [valued at ~$1 thousand in his case] - his
lawyer stated today after Appellate Court ruling @dw_ukrainian reports
www.dw.com/uk/
"As part of your rehabilitation, it's crucial that you admit you have a problem - you are
hijacking the Intelligence Committee for political purposes while excusing and covering up
intelligence agency abuses ." -Devin Nunes to Adam Schiff
This b
recommends at his Twitter, saying "Some interesting and quite believable claims in this
thread "
Rudy Giuliani:
"Budapest | Kiev | Vienna
"After hundreds of hours & months of research, I have garnered witnesses &
documents which reveal the truth behind this impeachment, which includes NO wrongdoing by
@realDonaldTrump.
"These threads only touch the surface. Read & watch all. More to come."
The following tweet:
"Evidence revealed that corruption in 2016 was so extensive it was POTUS's DUTY to ask for
US-Ukraine investigation.
"Also, DNC collusion w/ Ukraine to destroy candidate Trump."
Need to separate the partisan chaff from the genuine evidence, but IMO b's correct that
there's more than a few things here that will stick. One political cartoon in the thread
comments is beyond apt.
by Rob Urie
Russiagate, Ukrainegate and impeachment aren't conspicuously economic issues. But they are, to
a large extent, class issues. They are inside-the-beltway dramas about foreign policy arcana
that are important to people who see their lots tied in one way or another to the established
order. This includes, by degree, those of us who would like to make room for
outside-the-beltway concerns like ending militarism, solving environmental crises, providing
meaningful employment for all who want it and creating functioning healthcare and educational
systems.
This isn't to suggest that these are equivalent concerns. And in fact, they aren't. Absent
something akin to a revolution, the worst possible outcome for the connected insiders engaged
in impeachment-tainment will be moving on to lucrative 'careers' working for private equity and
/ or investing their family fortunes in one world-ending enterprise or another. Four plus
decades into the neoliberal overthrow of 'managed' capitalism, circumstances aren't quite so
universally advantageous for the rest of us. Rising global political unrest seems destined to
bring this division to the fore.
The document argues that the American president "betrayed the Nation" by delaying "the
release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated for the
purpose of providing vital military security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian
aggression."
This is the first impeachment of a sitting president on the claim that he is a "threat to
national security." The types of extraconstitutional arguments used by the US intelligence
agencies to justify mass warrantless wiretapping, torture, "rendition," and the assassination
of an American citizen, within the framework of the "war on terror," are now being used in an
effort to remove a president.
The impeachment drive and the anti-Russia campaign that predated it have involved an
enormous intervention by the CIA and FBI in domestic politics. The impeachment inquiry was
itself triggered by a CIA agent working at the White House, while a recently-released report
shows that the FBI justified a wiretap of a former Trump aide by citing a Ukraine policy change
in the Republican Party's platform.
This process is the first time -- with the possible exception of the dark and murky
events surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy -- that the CIA and associated
intelligence agencies have sought to remove a sitting president. Anyone who supports the
Democrats' impeachment operation, in the hope that removing Trump on these grounds can have
some sort of progressive consequence, is simply ignoring everything the Democrats and their CIA
allies have done and said.
The most extraordinary element of the impeachment proceedings was its almost complete
domination of the issue of US policy in Ukraine. It is of the greatest political significance,
not to mention strangely ironic, that the United States' instigation of the 2014 fascist-led
coup in Kiev has had far reaching consequences for political life in the US. In order to carry
through the implementation of the confrontation with Russia, which was the rationale behind the
coup, the intelligence agencies that determine the policy of the Democratic Party have been
compelled to seek the impeachment of Trump.
In 1986, the Iran-Contra scandal was triggered by the revelation that the Reagan
administration had concocted a scheme to sell arms to Iran, in order to buy weapons to finance
an illegal war against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. That investigation revealed that the
Reagan administration flagrantly violated the Boland Amendment, passed by Congress to prohibit
US government assistance to the Contras.
But in this case, the main charge is that Trump held up the disbursing of money that was
allocated by Congress to promote a war that is being planned entirely behind the backs of the
American people.
The antidemocratic impulses behind the impeachment drive were summed up by the comments of
the arch-warmonger Thomas Friedman, who wrote in the New York Times yesterday,
"Generally speaking, I believe presidents should be elected and removed by the voters at the
polls. But when I hear Trump defenders scream, 'Impeachment subverts the will of the people,' I
say: "Really?"
To say that "generally speaking" the leadership of the country should be selected by voters,
is to say that this should only be the case when it suits the CIA, FBI, and the military.
Friedman's real complaint is not that Trump was subverting "the will of the people," but
that he was subverting what dominant factions of the intelligence agencies consider the
geostrategic imperatives of the American ruling class.
For all the Democrats' talk of "corruption," "obstruction of justice," "bribery," and an
"organized crime shakedown," the real reasons for the impeachment stand starkly revealed as
differences over how best to conduct the predatory policies of American imperialism.
Both the Trump presidency and the impeachment campaign of the Democrats are different
manifestations of the deep and intractable crisis of American democracy. Trump has threatened
to turn the impeachment struggle into a "civil war," implying that he could appeal to his
armed, far-right supporters to defend him against what he has called a "deep-state coup."
The Democrats' campaign against "foreign meddling" that framed the impeachment drive has
provided the framework for imposing domestic censorship measures, with the intelligence
agencies and representatives of both parties recruiting Google, Facebook and Twitter to demote
and delete left-wing, anti-war and socialist publications, pages, and groups.
But even as Trump and his Democratic opponents frantically denounce one another as traitors
and demand each other's prosecution, there has, at the same time, emerged a remarkable
bipartisan unity on fundamental issues facing US imperialism.
This was made perfectly clear this week with the rapid-fire announcement, by congressional
Democrats, of agreements on two landmark pieces of legislation: The USMCA anti-China trade deal
and the passage of the biggest military budget in US history.
The military budget, passed overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives yesterday,
establishes a new branch of the US armed forces, the Space Force, while levelling sanctions
against Russia, China, Turkey and North Korea.
"Wow! All of our priorities have made it into the final NDAA," Trump gloated, noting in
particular the removal of language preventing Pentagon funds being used for his immigration
crackdown. Amid soaring social inequality, all factions of the American ruling elite are
dedicated to war abroad and attacks on democratic rights at home.
The political crisis in Washington is framed by the global upsurge of the class struggle and
the deepening crisis of US imperialism.
The past six months have seen an unprecedented expansion of the class struggle all over the
world. Mass protests against inequality have broken out from Chile, to Puerto Rico, to Lebanon
and Iraq. Autoworkers have gone on strike in Mexico and the United States, while much of the
Paris Metro remains shut down, amid a strike wave throughout France. A recent issue of
Time magazine, entitled "How America's Elites Lost Their Grip," notes with concern the
growing audience for socialism throughout the country.
Just as important is the series of setbacks for US imperialism's efforts, in the wake of the
dissolution of the USSR, to preserve its global hegemony through military violence.
In 2003, when the US invaded Iraq, the World Socialist Web Site noted , "Whatever the outcome of
the initial stages of the conflict that has begun, American imperialism has a rendezvous with
disaster. It cannot conquer the world. It cannot reimpose colonial shackles upon the masses of
the Middle East. It will not find through the medium of war a viable solution to its internal
maladies. Rather, the unforeseen difficulties and mounting resistance engendered by war will
intensify all of the internal contradictions of American society."
We will see... I am skeptical about idea that Brennan will be indicted.
But this article supports the idea that impeachment was a counterattack of Brannan faction of CIA and Clinton mafia against
Barr and Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... Former CIA officer and counter-intelligence expert Kevin Shipp says that former Obama Administration Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder gave a big Deep State panic signal when he wrote in an Op-Ed last week in the Washington Post trashing current AG William Barr and his top prosecutor John Durham ..."
"... We have to understand it was Eric Holder that Barack Obama used to target the heads of corporations that spoke out publicly about Barack Obama. We know Holder was held in 'Contempt of Congress.' He spied on AP reporters, ran guns to drug cartels and blacked out the information. He spied on over a hundred journalists, and on and on we go... ..."
"... when Holder comes out and puts out this bombshell in the Washington Post, which is another indication that indictments are coming. John Brennan, former Obama Administration CIA Director, is going to be at the top of the list. " ..."
"... during the entire Trump Presidency, the mainstream media (MSM) has operated as a propaganda arm of the Deep State and the Democrats ..."
"... Shipp says the hoax of Russia collusion and the impeachment sham of President Trump is distracting us from other very big problems such as the extreme debt the country and the world is facing . Shipp says, ..."
Former CIA officer and counter-intelligence expert Kevin Shipp says that former Obama
Administration Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder gave a big Deep State panic signal when he
wrote in an Op-Ed last week in the Washington Post trashing current AG William Barr and his top
prosecutor John Durham. Shipp explains,
"This is very significant. We all remember that Holder was Obama's right hand man. Eric
Holder was Barack Obama's enforcer. The fact that Holder comes out this quickly after the
Inspector General (IG) Horowitz Report comes out... and makes this veiled threat against
Durham's reputation. The fact that Eric Holder came out and made this statement is a clear
indication to me they are running scared.
We have to understand it was Eric Holder that Barack Obama used to target the heads of
corporations that spoke out publicly about Barack Obama. We know Holder was held in 'Contempt
of Congress.' He spied on AP reporters, ran guns to drug cartels and blacked out the
information. He spied on over a hundred journalists, and on and on we go...
They (Deep State) are convinced there are going to be indictments. Secondly, there is AG
Barr's outrage over (IG) Horowitz's report and what it did not do. He made statements that
there was spying and actions by government officials that need to be criminally looked into.
Barr's outrage over this shows me that there are going to be indictments, and that he is
taking this seriously. Again, when Holder comes out and puts out this bombshell in the
Washington Post, which is another indication that indictments are coming. John Brennan,
former Obama Administration CIA Director, is going to be at the top of the list. "
Shipp says during the entire Trump Presidency, the mainstream media (MSM) has operated as a
propaganda arm of the Deep State and the Democrats . Shipp contends,
"They put these stories out intentionally because they are creating their own story, and
that is what the propaganda mainstream media does. It creates its own story...
They want to frame their latest story that there really wasn't any spying on Trump. That's
what FISA warrants and applications are all about. They are all about spying ."
Shipp thinks this will be a big nail in the coffin of the MSM. Shipp says, "The mainstream
media will never come back from this..."
"...because finally, through shows like this and others, the real information is coming
out as to what the mainstream media has done . At the top of that list is the New York Times,
the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC...
What they did is they created the Russia collusion story as if it was reality, as if it
was real. That is part of the procedure in doing this. Then, they invented the evidence, and
that was the Steele Dossier. They portrayed this as evidence to create this false narrative.
Then they sent this story out to each outlet, and all repeat the same story over and over and
over again knowing the more they repeat it, the more people were going to believe it. Then,
the FBI leaked information to the mainstream media. The FBI took that information leaked to
the media and used their stories as evidence. Brennan leaked the dossier to the mainstream
media as part of this whole machine."
Shipp says the hoax of Russia collusion and the impeachment sham of President Trump is
distracting us from other very big problems such as the extreme debt the country and the world
is facing . Shipp says,
"Trump inherited a financial monster that was not his doing. When he was sworn into
office, it already existed. It is very serious, and I think now or very soon the U.S.
government will not be able to afford the interest on the national debt, much less paying off
the debt itself."
It is reported that central banks are buying record amounts of gold, and even Goldman Sachs
is telling its clients to buy the yellow metal. Shipp says,
" This is a solid indicator that we are headed for the financial rapids with Goldman Sachs
especially. Goldman Sachs is a global bank, and it's one of the main banks in the United
States. The fact that Sachs and others are building up gold reserves is a clear indication
that they expect a financial downturn, to put it mildly, that is coming. "
Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with former CIA Officer and whistleblower Kevin Shipp.
I kinda think that everyone is holding off to see if Trump gets re-elected.
If he does then there will be indictments, jail time, and a real cleaning of the
house.
The guys in the middle of this investigation depose the "liberal" old guard and offer
sacrifices to their own "conservative" god of filth. Same Mammon, just a different order of
worship.
If he doesn't get re-elected then the guys that are investigating this can just slink back
into the current slime and survive in some basic way.
I have seen this dynamic when companies merge as equals. Everybody is afraid to act
because the stakes are so high. It's a chess game played by ruthless cowards.
This article is so much weaker then his testimony that it is a great disappointment. May be threats has had a shilling effects.
This is a Kabuki theater. Both sides are afraid to talk about the real issues such as CIA/FBI intrusion in 2016 elections and the
coup d'état to depose Trump after it. As well as Trump support of Yemen war, Douma false flag operation, the role of Obama
administration in Ukraine, Libya, Syria and Skripals poisoning false flag operation, etc
Notable quotes:
"... Yet, they would prefer guaranteed failure rather than build a credible case for removal. Why? The reasons put forward by House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and others are not credible and, given the paucity of examination given these claims, it is worth closer scrutiny. ..."
"... he flopped on his face when he said " It certainly was not akin to the Russian hacking operation in 2016." ..."
"... WHAT Russian hacking operation, fella? Technology has already proven the "hacking" was a download to a thumb-drive done MANUALLY. ..."
"... Here is another article that says "the Russians hacked". If they use this lie enough than it will become fact. ..."
"... Turley asks, but doesn't answer. The obvious answer, is they don't have any good reason or case to impeach Trump, and they just disagree with him politically. As Turley says, the case will be "summarily rejected". There are many elections in the coming months, though mostly at the state level: https://election-calendar.com/ ..."
"... Turley thinks there is a case if the Dems just spend more time developing it? I think this guy is just trying to get out from under all the hate mail for himself he generated telling the truth at the impeachment tribunal. ..."
"... Turley dishonors himself trying to look now more in the impeachment camp when he told the truth in the first place...at the Hearing....It is obvious now he is trying to save his job at a left wing school....maybe he needs to find some independent or moderate school to teach at for he is now showing a yellow streak down his back. ..."
"... If Washington DC were NOT a den of crooks, it shouldn't need a newspaper like The Washington Post to paint everything pearly white. ..."
"... The crookedness is proportional to the count of starched collars ..."
The House Judiciary Committee is about to approve two articles of impeachment as member after member last night declared that
time is of the essence. The House is now set to fulfill its pledge to impeach President Donald Trump by Christmas. For some us, the
mad rush toward impeachment by the Democrats has been utterly incomprehensible. It is difficult enough to go to the Senate in a presidential
impeachment without an accepted crime and on the narrowest basis in history. However, the Democrats know that they have combined
those liabilities with the thinnest record of any modern impeachment – a record filled with gaps and conflicts. The Democrats know
that this record is guaranteed to fail and could easily justify the Senate holding a trial as cursory as its hearings.
Yet, they would prefer guaranteed failure rather than build a credible case for removal. Why? The reasons put forward by House
Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and others are not credible and, given the paucity of examination given these
claims, it is worth closer scrutiny.
So why? The answer to that question will likely occupy historians for decades after this slipshod impeachment is summarily rejected.
In the impeachment hearing, I testified that President Donald Trump could be impeached for abuse of power but that the record was
facially inadequate and incomplete. I encouraged the Committee to just take a few more months to subpoena roughly ten witnesses with
direct evidence and secure judicial orders that I believe would support the Committee on its obstruction article. While I was relieved
to see the Committee drop the allegations of bribery, extortion, and other crimes that I testified against, it refused to simply
take a little more time to develop a more complete case.
None of the excuses for the pledge to impeach by Christmas are even remotely plausible. They can be divided into two basic groupings:
court challenges would take too much time and there is a crime in progress that must be stopped.
No Time To Wait
First, there is the argument by Chairman Schiff in response to the criticism over the short investigation (which even the New
York Times has challenged). Schiff insisted that waiting will mean a guarantee of that there will be no impeachment while also guaranteeing
that there will be foreign meddling in the 2020 election: "People should understand what that argument really means. It has taken
us eight months to get a lower court ruling that Don McGahn has no absolute right to defy Congress. Eight months for one court decision."
As has consistently been the case, no major media outfit seemed interested to fact check that statement. It happens to be untrue.
The House waited until August 7th to go to court to compel McGahn's appearance. That was roughly four months ago, not eight. It
was also filed before the House voted to start the impeachment inquiry on October 31st. Back in January, I testified in the House
Judiciary Committee and pushed the Committee to hold such a vote to allow for expedited cases over testimony like McGahn's. At the
time, I warned that the House was running out of runway to get an impeachment off the ground. With such a vote, these cases could
have moved at the accelerated pace of an impeachment.
The question is why would the House not only refuse to try to secure these witnesses but actually withdraw a subpoena before
a ruling in the Kupperman.
Turley asks, but doesn't answer. The obvious answer, is they don't have any good reason or case to impeach Trump, and they
just disagree with him politically. As Turley says, the case will be "summarily rejected". There are many elections in the coming
months, though mostly at the state level: https://election-calendar.com/
Half the Dems want impeachment to get the TDS vote from their gerrymandered heavily Democrat districts. They've gerrymandered
their districts into ones that do not represent the majority of the country, and it's going to bite them as the few socialists
that get elected, will get nothing done, and swing districts will swing to the GOP giving them a House majority, and GOP control
of all branches. They got rid of more competitive districts, so they don't have to serve conservatives, and they won't regardless
if they win or lose. They've manufactured their own demise.
At least Trump reaches out to liberals, while liberals denigrate and show their hate for conservatives, as their reps like
Mad Maxine call for more hate.
Turley thinks there is a case if the Dems just spend more time developing it? I think this guy is just trying to get out
from under all the hate mail for himself he generated telling the truth at the impeachment tribunal.
Funny you are saying that, I thought the same thing. Screw him, you either have honor all the time or not at all. Some of the
clowns think it is like being funny, sometimes you are not at all.
Turley dishonors himself trying to look now more in the impeachment camp when he told the truth in the first place...at
the Hearing....It is obvious now he is trying to save his job at a left wing school....maybe he needs to find some independent
or moderate school to teach at for he is now showing a yellow streak down his back.
NYT fails to state that the most plausible scenario was that CIA send Page to join Trump
campaign, then to establish contacts with Russians and after that obtain FICA warrants in a
typical false flag operation manner. Essentially Trump campaign was entrapped.
First, when agents initially sought permission for the wiretap, F.B.I. officials scoured
information from confidential informants and selectively presented portions that supported
their suspicions that Mr. Page might be a conduit between Russia and the Trump campaign's
onetime chairman, Paul Manafort.
But officials did not disclose information that undercut that allegation -- such as the fact
that Mr. Page had told an informant in August 2016 that he "never met" or "said one word" to
Mr. Manafort, who had never returned Mr. Page's emails. Even if the investigators did not
necessarily believe Mr. Page, the court should have been told what he had said.
Second, as the initial court order was nearing its expiration and law-enforcement officials
prepared to ask the surveillance court to renew it, the F.B.I. had uncovered information that
cast doubt on some of its original assertions. But law enforcement officials never reported
that new information to the court.
Specifically, the application included allegations about Mr. Page contained in a dossier
compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent whose research was funded
by Democrats. In January 2017, the F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Steele's own primary source, and he
contradicted what Mr. Steele had written in the dossier.
The source for Mr. Steele may, of course, have been lying. But either way, officials should
have flagged the disconnect for the court. Instead, the F.B.I. reported that its agents had met
with the source to "further corroborate" the dossier and found him to be "truthful and
cooperative," leaving a misleading impression in renewal applications.
Finally, the report stressed Mr. Page's long history of meeting with Russian intelligence
officials. But he had also said that he had a relationship with the C.I.A., and it turns out
that he had for years told the agency about those meetings -- including one that was cited in
the wiretap application as a reason to be suspicious of him.
That relationship could have mitigated some suspicions about his history. But the F.B.I.
never got to the bottom of it, and the court filings said nothing about Mr. Page's dealings
with the C.I.A.
The inspector general's report contains many more examples of errors and omissions. Mr.
Horowitz largely blamed lower-level F.B.I. agents charged with preparing the evidence, but he
also faulted high-level supervisors for permitting a culture in which the inaccuracies took
place.
Clapper and Brennan will be shaking in their boots after watching Barr's interview: done in
"bad faith" = SEDITION !!!! Deep State operatives...ie, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Stork, Lisa,
McCabe, should be held accountable. Obama should probably be impeached.
The hard fact is, that the top of the FBI knew, in advance, that the "dossier" was just bs
invented by Russian liars, for money, to be used as political lies for kilary's campaign. It
Wasn't evidence and Comey knew far in advance of crossfire hurricane. I can't see less than 20
years in comey's future. That same includes barak, brennan and clapper, who were all informed,
willing accomplices in this crime.
10:30
Whoever in FBI that intentionally misled the court using the Steele dossier knowing that the
dossier was "total rubbish" as Barr states, needs to be inditing immediately. Why we are
continuing to investigate instead of inditimg while continuing to investigate. Until these people
are held accountable I don't think our country will begin to heal and media and others apologize
to the country for the damage they have done.
7:49 -
"Comey refused to sign back up for his security clearance, and therefore couldn't be questioned
about classified matters." Well now, isn't that interesting. Haven't heard that one before.
In an exclusive interview, Attorney General William Barr spoke to NBC News' Pete Williams
about the findings on the Justice Department Inspector General's report on the Russia
investigation and his criticisms of the FBI.
I'm So glade we have a competent attorney General pushing back on the massive
disinformation narrative that comes from Giant News outlets of which are used to being
unchallenged, unchecked by today's "journalistic standards"
so this guy really asked Bahr"why not open an investigation even with little evidence?"
because is a violation of civil liberties to invade the privacy of law abiding citizens. You
need compelling evidence for something so huge
Horowitz should be instructed to edit or update his Report to discuss The Question of Bias
and Evidence of Bias. He has clearly misguided Americans with his choice of words and has
omitted important facts underpinning bias.
AG Barr is an outstanding role model, a man of integrity and wisdom, calm in a raging
political storm. I have full confidence he will make those who fabricated evidence and hid
exculpatory evidence finally face justice. AG Barr for President 2024!
Barr is a straight shooter and I love it. It sounds like we will get to the real truth
eventually through Durhams investigation I just hope it doesnt take another year to get to
the prosecutions.
So, I watched the interview... The video is called, "Full Interview: Barr Criticizes
Inspector General Report On The Russia Investigation." Not once did I hear him criticize the
I.G.'s report. In fact, A.G. Barr clarified that the I.G.'s report was limited in scope
because of the limitations put on the I.G. He said that the report was appropriate.
It's scary to see how powerful the corruption of the Democratic Party has grown. It
represents a serious threat to all our personal freedom. The Democratic Party has to be
stopped.
Ok after watching this interview its quite clear that Barr and Durham is going after these
criminals and people are going to jail. Maybe there is hope for US yet becuase this dane
consider US atm a banana republic. Spying on political candidates? Forging documents? You FBI
behaving like Stalins secret police. Lets see what happen.
Amazing for the AG to go in deep into enemy territory at the heart of the opposition media
to lay out a case for the criminal activities that undermined our country prior to and after
the 2016 election. The deep state is trembling at the prospect of being held accountable
after all the facts are laid out to the american people that these activities cannot be
brushed aside or swept under the carpet if we are to continue as a country.
The corrupt media is trying to act like they have not been involved in this treasonous
scam since the beginning working directly with the treasonous cabal. The media has been lying
and pushing fake news for 3 years calling Trump a Russia agent and called him treasonous. I
knew the whole time that they were lying there was evidence from day one that this was all
lies and if I can see that from the public then they can definitely see that from the inside
they are purposefully lying.
I dare anyone on here to research Barr's History back to his involvement in the
assignation of JFK, the cover up, defending Nixon, Epstein, and many other illegal and
immoral activities. After reviewing the evidence, I walked away believing that Barr is trying
to cover up his tracks so he does do jail time. No need to reply. Either take my dare or not.
God Bless America and ALL her people, Stephan
The public are sick of waiting . I find myself skipping through a half hour news show in 5
minutes flat looking for arrests ,whereas before I was rivited to every minute of the half
hour show but it goes on and on and at the there is Nothiing .The Democrats are the masters ,
it's obvious . If they break the law they get off scott free . If you are republican wave bye
bye , you will be in jail for years . America is not the free and fair country it is all
cracked up to be . It is corrupted by the democrats who have peoiple in high places that
thwart real justice.
Mifsud approached George! Who was Mifsud working for (western asset) and why did he
approach George? He’s the one who offered George dirt on Hill. Then invited him to meet
the fake “niece”, of Putin, in England! What about this information? Someone set
George up to make this happen outside the US, because of EO 12333. It had to happen outside
the US so they could go to the fisa court!
I dont trust Christopher Wrey. He keeps slow-walking all the FBI documents and
declassifications. He also fights judicial watch and judges that rule in their favor and
continue not giving over what is ordered! This last judge was ready to hold him in contempt
for refusing to cooperate with court ordered documents.
Why did the FBI continue to investigate Trump after January when the case collapsed? To
try and find a way to impeach Trump. Remember the Washington Post headlined article right
after the inauguration "The effort to impeach President Donald John Trump is already
underway." The FBI "insurance" policy was essential!
The USA "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine requires weakening and, if possible, partitioning Russia.
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin tells the audience that Skripals poisoning was a false flag operation. 7:00
He also point several weak points in Western politicians narrative about MH17
Notable quotes:
"... Cold War patterns of thinking about Russia show no sign of weakening in America ..."
"... Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it. ..."
"... The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans). ..."
"... I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!) ..."
"... There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause". ..."
"... Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic. ..."
"... "Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined." ..."
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin, in conversation with former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr, says the West is unnecessarily
determined to undermine Russia.
A t an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive campaign
to destabilize Russia, without cause.
When Kevin said he returned to Russia after more than 40 years in 2016 he realized he "had to take sides" in the U.S.-Russia standoff
when all Nato countries boycotted the Moscow celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
"I had to take a moral position that it is not right for the West to be ganging up on Russia," Kevin says in his conversation
with the former Australian foreign minister.
The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating
a disinformation" campaign today against Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders
and Russiagate.
Watch the hour-long in depth discussion which was filmed and produced by Consortium News' CN Live! Executive Producer Cathy
Vogan.
Putin & the Russian citizenry play chess on this 3-dimensional world.! The Americas and their inane elites attempt checkers
on their flat Earth . Pity, some such as Noam Chomsky are admirable world citizens..! Pity again.! WE will miss men of this honest
calibre and down- to-earth intelligence. Bob Carr is of this cohort.
Eugenie Basile , December 10, 2019 at 03:36
The 'Russia did it' mantra is a gift for the powers in the Kremlin. It rallies most Russians behind their leaders because they
are proud of their country and don't accept the West's moral hypocrite grandstanding.
Just recently the WADA proclaimed sporting ban against Russia is a perfect example. It excludes all Russian athletes because
they happen to represent their country while U.S. athletes who have been caught cheating in the past are allowed to participate
.
It is very encouraging to know there are good people like Mr. Tony Kevin and Mr. Bob Carr alive and sharing their powerful
wisdom at this dangerous historical point on planet Earth. Mr. Kevin and Mr. Carr's immensely important and courageously honest
discussion should become – immediately, and for many years to come – required study in university classrooms and government halls
around this world.
Peace.
ElderD , December 9, 2019 at 15:03
Tony's (especially!) and Bob's sane and sensible view of this dangerous and destructive state of affairs deserve the widest
possible distribution and attention.
George McGlynn , December 9, 2019 at 13:27
A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and little has changed. Cold War patterns of thinking
about Russia show no sign of weakening in America. The further we distance ourselves from the end of the Cold War, the closer
we come to its revival. Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States. It is now
so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured.
It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first. Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then,
it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of
nuclear deterrence doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation is.
Lois Gagnon , December 9, 2019 at 17:30
I agree. Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are
unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it.
AnneR , December 9, 2019 at 07:48
The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed
oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events
including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans).
Then there were allegations – of those "highly likely" (therefore one knows to be untrue and unadulterated propaganda to increase
Russophobia) sort – about Russian hackers (always giving the impression that the "Kremlin" is behind itl) being the Labour Party's
source of the Tory party's US-UK trade deal which would/will deliberately and finally destroy the NHS and replace it with (of
course) US "health" insurance company profiteering.
(Always the Tory intention from the NHS's initiation in May of 1948; only its popularity among many Tory party supporters among
the working and lower middle classes prevented them from a full-frontal killing off the NHS; the Snatcher's government began the
undermining, via installing a top-heavy bureaucratization, siphoning off a sizable proportion of the funds that would otherwise
have gone to medical care, demanding that hospitals not "lose" money – a concept completely beyond the remit of the NHS as originally
conceived and constructed and like exactions.)
Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov (Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how
either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the
neo-Nazis of western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the Donbass). The Donbass fighters
are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile
the support for the neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the Ukrainian military,
thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency).
Someone even suggested that President Putin needed to be diplomatic. Really? From what I've read the man is the most diplomatic
and intelligent politician (not just political leader) along with Xi Jinping and the Iranian government that exist on the world
stage. None of them are hubristic, solipsistic, eager beaver killers of peoples in other countries. Unlike their western "world"
political counterparts.
Jeff Harrison , December 8, 2019 at 18:30
Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they agreed they were defeated. The US merely
assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said
any such thing.
St. Ronnie's whole thing back in the 80's was to outspend Russia militarily and it worked well. We're trying to
do it again but Russia isn't playing the same game this time and now it is the US that has a mountain of debt and Russia that
doesn't.
SIPIRI tags US military spending at $650B and Russian military spending at $62B. But we know that the $650B number is
bogus because it doesn't include our in-violation-of-the-NNPT nuclear program which is in the energy department or our veteran's
expenses which are in HHS. I don't know what's missing from Russia's $62B but I'll bet they can sustain that a whole lot better
than we can sustain our $650B and rising bill.
Antonio Costa , December 9, 2019 at 13:17
Good point regarding Russia's downsizing the Soviet Union. From Gorbachev to Putin there was NEVER a surrender, intended in
any way. The intent has been multilateral partnerships. For Russia the US/West won nothing at all except the opportunity to live
and work in peace. (By the way this policy has a long Russian history.)
They gave up the Warsaw Pact and America with our worthless "word" expanded NATO.
The US foreign policy has lost even the semblance of sanity. Our naked aggression is clear as never before, a mad man throwing
a global fit armed with megaton nuclear projectiles on trigger first strike alert. What could go wrong?
nondimenticare , December 8, 2019 at 15:56
If, magically, Consortium News/CN Live! were a mass-distribution network/magazine (hence universally consulted), allowing the
light in for the mass of the viewing and listening public, it could change the world – both an exalting and despairing thought.
Lily , December 8, 2019 at 09:52
It is a great joy to listen to this conversation!
I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus.
Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more.
(The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!)
I wish people would have the courage to break away from the group pressure originated by a nation which has been started by
killing more than 90% of the indigenous people in their country and since then has turned the worl into a very insecure place.
Chapeau, Tony Kevin! Thanks to Bob Carr and Consortiums News.
Lily , December 9, 2019 at 01:18
It seems that some facts are beginning to be realized in the military department.
"At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive
campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause."
The American establishment's problem with Russia is simply that Russia is the only country on earth capable of obliterating
the United States. Not even China has yet reached that capacity.
"Carthago delenda est"
Skip Scott , December 9, 2019 at 06:13
There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian
citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause".
Bruno DP , December 8, 2019 at 02:34
The West is ganging up on Russia? Replace "West" by "United States of America", and I will agree.
Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election
interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a
very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic.
Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all
of "the Western" intelligence combined.
I'm German, living in the US, and I agree with your comment. I especially love the last two sentences:
"Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international
conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined."
The recent shootings of three U.S. soldiers in Florida at the hands of a Saudi citizen raises a standard question in the U.S.
government's perpetual "war on terrorism": "Why do they hate us?"
Soon after the 9/11 attacks, the official mantra began being issued: The terrorists just hate us for our "freedom and values."
No other explanation for motive was to be considered. If anyone suggested an alternative motive -- such as "They are retaliating
for U.S. governmental killings over there" -- U.S. officials and interventionists would immediately go on the attack, heaping a mountain
of calumny on that person, accusing him of treason, hating America, loving the terrorists, and justifying their attacks.
It happened to me and other libertarians who dared to challenge the official motive behind the 9/11 attacks. Shortly after the
attacks, I spoke at a freedom conference in Arizona consisting of both libertarians and conservatives. When I pointed out that the
attacks were the predictable consequence of a foreign policy that kills people over there, another of the speakers was filled with
anger and rage over such an "unpatriotic" suggestion. Then, a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, FFF published an article by me entitled,
" Is This the Wrong Time
to Question Foreign Policy? " in which I pointed out the role that U.S. interventionism had played in the attacks. FFF was hit
with the most nasty and angry attacks I have ever seen.
Eighteen years later, the evidence is virtually conclusive that the reason that the United States has been suffering a constant,
never-ending threat of terrorism is because U.S. military and CIA forces have been killing people in the Middle East and Afghanistan
since at least the end of the Cold War, and even before.
After all, if the terrorists hate us for our "freedom and values," why haven't they been attacking the Swiss? They have pretty
much the same freedom and values that Americans have. And they are much closer geographically to Middle East terrorists than the
United States is. Why haven't the terrorists been attacking them?
The answer is simple: the Swiss government, unlike the U.S. government, hasn't been killing, maiming, and injuring people and
hasn't been bombing and destroying countries in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
A long history of U.S. interventionism
U.S. interventions in the Middle East began, of course, long before the 9/11 attacks. There was the 1953 CIA coup that destroyed
Iran's experiment with democracy with a coup that replaced the democratically elected prime minister of the country with a tyrannical
pro-U.S. dictator. Not surprisingly, that produced the violent Iranian revolution almost 25 years later. The Iranian revolutionaries
didn't hate America for its "freedom and values." They hated America for the U.S. government's installation, training, and support
of the tyrannical regime against which they revolted.
In the 1980s, there was the sending of U.S. troops into Lebanon as interventionist "peacekeepers." The terrorists ended up blowing
up a Marine barracks, killing 241 U.S. soldiers. The terrorists didn't hate America for its "freedom and values." They hated America
for the federal government's interventionism into Lebanon. As soon as all U.S. troops were withdrawn from Lebanon, which was the
right thing to do, there were obviously no more deaths of U.S. soldiers in that country.
It was after the Pentagon and the CIA lost their official Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia), that they proceeded
headlong into the Middle East and began killing multitudes of people. There was the Persian Gulf War, waged without the constitutionally
required congressional declaration of war, where thousands of Iraqis were killed or injured. That was followed by a decade of brutal
sanctions against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.
Thus, when Ramzi Yousef, one of the terrorists who tried to bring down the World Trade Center with a bomb in 1993, appeared before
a federal judge for sentencing, he angrily told the judge that it was U.S. officials who were the butchers, for killing multitudes
of innocent children in Iraq.
As those Iraqi children were dying, there were retaliatory terrorist strikes on the USS Cole and the U.S. embassies in East Africa.
Once again, however, U.S. officials continued to steadfastly maintain that was all about hatred for America's "freedom and values"
and had nothing to do with the deadly and destructive U.S. interventionism in the Middle East.
Then came Osama bin Laden's declaration of war against the United States, in which he expressly cited U.S. interventionism in
the Middle East as his motivating factor. That was followed by the 9/11 attacks, along with other terrorist attacks both here and
abroad. Through it all, U.S. officials and interventionists have blindly maintained that the terrorists hate us for our "freedom
and values," not because the U.S. government kills, maims, injures, and destroys people over there.
The recent Florida killings
And now we have the latest killing spree, this one at the hands of a Saudi citizen in Florida. According to
a story in yesterday's Washington Post about the killing of three U.S. soldiers, the killer, Ahmed Mohammed al-Shamrani
was described as "strange" and "angry." "He looked like he was angry at the world," said one person who knew him. Another said that
he looked at people in an "angry, challenging" way.
The article says that "the FBI has not yet determined a motive for the mass shooting."
Well, of course it hasn't. That's undoubtedly because the FBI hasn't yet found any statements in which the killer states that
he hates America for its "freedom and values."
But the Post article does point out something quite interesting. The article states: "The gunman, who was shot dead by
a sheriff's deputy responding to the shooting, is thought to have written a 'will' that was posted to the account a few hours before
the rampage. In it, he blasts U.S. policies in Muslim countries."
Well, isn't that interesting! Unfortunately, the Post didn't provide a verbatim transcript of the killer's "will" in which
he "blasts U.S. policies in the Muslim countries." The Post does point out though that "the writer says he does not dislike
Americans per se -- 'I don't hate you because of your freedoms,' he begins -- but that he hates U.S. policies that he views as anti-Muslim
and 'evil.'"
I n an article at antiwar.com entitled, " Pensacola: Blowback Terrorism ," Scott Horton provides a verbatim transcript of the
killer's "will," in which the killer states in part:
I'm not against you for just being American, I don't hate you for your freedom, I hate you because every day you supporting,
funding, and committing crimes not only against Muslims but also humanity. I am against evil, and America as a whole has turned
into a nation of evil. What I see from America is the supporting of Israel which is invasion of Muslim countrie, I see invasion
of many countries by it's troops, I see Guantanamo Bay. I see cruise missiles, cluster bombs and UAV.
Now, if one goes back to Ramzi Yousef's sentencing hearing in 1995 -- some 24 years ago -- one will see that Yousef angrily said
much the same thing to the federal judge who was getting ready to sentence him to jail for his 1993 terrorist attack on the World
Trade Center.
Americans have a choice:
One, continue the U.S. government's decades-long killing spree in the Middle East, in which case America will continue to experience
never-ending terrorist retaliation, the perpetual "war on terrorism, and the ongoing destruction of our liberty and privacy at the
hands of our government, which is purportedly protecting us from the terrorist threats that it produces with its foreign interventionism.
Or, two, stop U.S. forces from killing any more people, bring them all home and discharge them, which would help get America back
on the right track, one toward liberty, peace, prosperity, morality, normality, and harmony with the world.
This post was written by: Jacob G. Hornberger
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received
his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for
twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987,
Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced
freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren
shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show Freedom Watch . View these interviews at
LewRockwell.com and from
Full Context
. Send him email .
The Hill reports that a man in Illinois has been charged after allegedly threatening to
shoot Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) and accusing the congressman of "backing the Russians."
Rodney Lee Davis
64-year-old Randall Tar of Rochester, Ill. was charged with communicating threats to injure
a person and threatening to assault, kidnap or murder a federal official, according to court
documents released this week (full release below).
Contacted at his home Thursday, Tarr said he saw a television ad in which Davis, a
Republican from Taylorville, claimed that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for meddling in
the 2016 U.S. elections , and it angered him enough to call.
Prosecutors say Tarr called Davis's district office last month and left a profanity-filled
voicemail, saying:
"I just saw you ... on the TV. You backing the Russians, boy?"
"Stupid son of a bitch, you're gonna go against our military and back the Russians?" he
allegedly added.
"I'm a sharpshooter. ... I'd like to shoot your f---ing head off you stupid
motherf---er."
The bigger story is the number of mentally unstable Americans. When you go driving next,
remember that about 20% of them are gorked on prescribed medications. The behavior you will
observe makes complete sense in that context.
It's surprisingly easy to get bogged down in the nonsense of the moment when this is what's
actually happening: the impeachment of the president, and a struggle over the power of the
presidency and of the Congress, over the integrity of elections in the United States, and over
the Constitution and the republic.
We're almost certainly heading for a party-line vote in the House with only a handful of
defections, and there's every reason to believe the Senate trial will yield similar results.
But there are some unanswered questions that could prove quite important in the long
term.
Will Trump, and will future presidents, be more restrained because even impeachment and
acquittal is still a sufficient punishment? Or will it backfire? Will Trump believe, if he is
not removed, that pressuring a foreign nation to help his re-election bid and then stiff-arming
Congress when they investigate it now has a seal of approval? We don't know. Nor do we really
know how the specifics of the Senate trial -- whether witnesses are called, what the final vote
is -- will matter.
Judge Marcus Alfonso Paralapalos of the conservative 51st District Court of Warrants, has
ordered the medical treatment files for Nancy Pelosi's alcoholism unsealed and available to the
general public. While technically a violation of about 11 laws, Judge Paralopolos stands by his
ruling, fully expecting it to be overturned:
"The public has a right to know if the Speaker of the House is undergoing treatment for
alcoholism and bloogie addiction. The 9th Circuit Court will certainly overrule this, but I
cannot in good conscience deny the motion to the plaintiff."
The plaintiff, Rudy Giuliani on behalf of the people of the United States, will now have to
find a way to convince a panel of liberals that it's in the country's best interests to see the
private treatment notes of one of our most powerful elected officials.
Let's face it. Even Trump had his doctor weigh in on his mental and physical well-being,
calling him the healthiest 78-year-old of all time. It's not like they're asking for her tax
returns. Nancy Pelosi should have to be seen and certified by a mental health professional. She
sits way too close to power not to.
This whole Schiff-Show is just bizarre. Why are the Dems doing this? In an election
year to boot? There is just zero chance that the Senate will remove Trump from office, and
the case against him is a total laughing stock anyway. All that's going to happen is that the
senators are going to start discussing L'affaire Biden openly and loudly, thereby
killing the Dem's current front-runner. Is that what Pelosi wants? Meanwhile, none of their
other three dozen or so candidates are going to get any media at all, once this impeachment
sucks all the oxygen right out of the room. Is that intentional?
Notable quotes:
"... Stating that he had not voted for Trump in 2016, GWU Law P rofessor Jonathan Turley who is a registered Democrat (as is yours truly) opened with a brilliant statement as he set the tone for an extraordinarily compelling testimony throughout the day, carefully explaining to the Democrats why they had not met a credible legal threshold for impeachment. ..."
"... Factually concise with rational, impartial explanations, Turley effectively disputed Democratic claims that an abuse of power stemming from a presumed effort to help one's own re-election is " inferred " and does not constitute proof of intent or direct knowledge of what was in the President's mind. ..."
"... What the Democrats fail to grasp is the double-standard that every politician makes decisions based on what is best for their reelection just as the Dems are hoping to benefit electorally in 2020 with the farcical impeachment. ..."
"... After his testimony, Mr. Turley tweeted. " Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with (death) threatening messages and demands that I be fired from GW. " ..."
"... For instance, Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala) asked the defining question regarding the purpose of the hearing with "no fact witnesses " via a process that has been " insufficient, unprecedented and grossly inadequate ." Roby pointed out that the Dems had apparently not considered: that a constitutional law panel should come " only after specific charges have been made known and underlying facts presented in full due to an exhaustive investigation. How does anyone expect a panel of law professors to weigh in on legal grounds for impeachment prior to knowing what the grounds brought by this Committee are going to be ? ..."
"... Did any of those 31 notice when the Constitutional law experts were asked by Rep. Matt Gaetz " Can you identify one single material fact in the Schiff Report? – all four remained silent. ..."
"... As the Democratic party appears to have lost whatever is left of its sanity and integrity, the question remains why are the Democrats willing to sacrifice losing some of those 31 House seats in 2020? ..."
"... You recall Bill Maher's comment before a previous election. "The Republicans have shifted to the right and the Dems have shifted right into the insane asylum." ..."
"... It is always good to hear of committed political activsts demanding that their own party stick to fundamental principles of justice, adherence to the Constitution etc etc. There does come a point when you have to ask whether this is temporary insanity or metastatic terminal cancer. If it is the latter, America needs new political parties ..."
Despite an inadequate performance last week by Constitutional law experts before the House
Judiciary Committee, Chair Jerrold Nadler released a unilateral committee report on Saturday
entitled " Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment ." The Report came the day after
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's press conference
in which she directed the formation of Articles of Impeachment.
As has become apparent to any objective observer; that is one who prefers facts over
fiction, the Democrats remain locked in an imaginary world struggling to maintain relevance, a
stature of standing that no longer exists.
Presumably with no Quid Pro Quo, no allegation of criminal conduct, no legally substantial
evidence or factual basis and no bipartisan support, in defiance of previous impeachment norms,
the Democrats are hell bent on making public jackasses out of themselves.
In a hearing with
Constitutional legal experts expected to score big legal points in support of impeachment,
the witnesses instead turned out to be smug, hyper partisan activists as they were consistently
unpersuasive and unimpressive .
All three displayed not a wit of objectivity or neutrality while touting their own personal
political agenda with a foreign policy ax to grind, leaving the unmistakable impression that
their testimonies were nothing short of conflated.
Condescending as if pontificating to a class of mediocre law students,
Professor Noah Feldman had suggested in 2017 that Presidential tweets could be grounds for
impeachment, indicative of the depth of his thinking as he repeatedly impressed himself with
his own rhetoric.
Professor Pamela Karlan opened with a shrillness that grew into a hyperbole spewing
divisiveness among the American people and went on to revisit the Russiagate and foreign
electoral influence myth ad nauseam. Those dim witted Democrats on the committee repeated the
mantra as if held in a spellbound trance whenever "Russiagate" was mentioned. There was no
mention of Israel interference in US elections. Testimony of
Professor Michael Gerhardt .
Stating that he had not voted for Trump in 2016, GWU Law P
rofessor Jonathan Turley who is a registered Democrat (as is yours truly) opened with a
brilliant statement as he set the tone for an extraordinarily compelling testimony
throughout the day, carefully explaining to the Democrats why they had not met a credible legal
threshold for impeachment.
Factually concise with rational, impartial explanations, Turley effectively disputed
Democratic claims that an abuse of power stemming from a presumed effort to help one's own
re-election is " inferred " and does not constitute proof of intent or direct knowledge of what
was in the President's mind.
However, it did not appear that any of the Democrats had the acute sensibility to understand
Turley's point as there is an edge of lunacy to the collective Democratic mind these days.
What the Democrats fail to grasp is the double-standard that every politician makes
decisions based on what is best for their reelection just as the Dems are hoping to benefit
electorally in 2020 with the farcical impeachment.
After his testimony, Mr. Turley tweeted. " Before I
finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with (death) threatening messages and
demands that I be fired from GW. "
While it was surprising that there was no Democratic Star on either the Intel or Judiciary
Committees who stepped forward to make a credible, cogent case for impeachment, it was somewhat
surprising that the Republicans had an energetic array of participating Members not limited to
Intel ranking member Devin Nunes (Calif), Judiciary ranking minority Rep. Doug Collins (NC),
Rep. Jim Jordan (Oh), Rep. John Ratcliffe (Texas) and Rep. Mark Gaetz (R-Fla) all of whom can
be expected to continue their Bulldog approach as the Committee begins preparing Articles of
Impeachment.
For instance, Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala) asked the defining question regarding the purpose of
the hearing with "no fact witnesses " via a process that has been " insufficient,
unprecedented and grossly inadequate ." Roby pointed out that the Dems had apparently not
considered: that a constitutional law panel should come " only after specific charges have been
made known and underlying facts presented in full due to an exhaustive investigation. How does
anyone expect a panel of law professors to weigh in on legal grounds for impeachment prior to
knowing what the grounds brought by this Committee are going to be ?
At her news conference the day after the Judiciary committee hearing, Pelosi was asked by a
reporter " Do you
hate President Trump ?" Pelosi responded with a shaky false piety as if she knows the votes
are not there:
We don't hate anybody. Not anybody in the World. And as a Catholic, I resent your using
the word 'hate' in a sentence that addresses me. I don't hate anyone. I was raised in a way
that is full – a heart full of love and always pray for the president, And I still pray
for the president. I pray for the president all the time, So don't mess with me when it comes
to words like that.
It is a curiosity that with the 2020 election a scant twelve months away, the Democrats have
not made the case for the urgency of why impeachment needs to occur right now, immediately,
before the Christmas holidays when the Spirit of Good Cheer, Universal Love and Peace for all
Americans should take precedence over the Democrat's divisive animosity, pitting one American
against another.
In 2018, thirty-one new Democrats were elected to the House; predominately from districts
that voted for Trump in 2016 assuring a tough 2020 re-election campaign.
Let's assume that every one of those 31 newbies have been paying very close attention to the
Intel and Judiciary committee hearings with two questions in mind:
Is there sufficient legal evidence to convince my constituents to support Articles of
Impeachment and is this flawed impeachment campaign worth losing my seat in Congress?
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-0SC) has already indicated that he does
not intend to 'whip" the Dems in preparation for an Impeachment vote on the House floor and
that the Dems "expect to lose some votes."
Let's do the math: With 233 Dems and 197 Republicans, if 18 of the 31 House newbies do not
vote to impeach, the Democratic Motion to approve Articles of Impeachment will fail with a tie
of 215 votes. Whether the Dems lose 18 votes or less, the damage will be irreversible.
As the Democratic party appears to have lost whatever is left of its sanity and integrity,
the question remains why are the Democrats willing to sacrifice losing some of those 31 House
seats in 2020?
Seamus Padraig ,
This whole Schiff-Show is just bizarre. Why are the Dems doing this? In an election
year to boot? There is just zero chance that the Senate will remove Trump from office, and
the case against him is a total laughing stock anyway. All that's going to happen is that the
senators are going to start discussing L'affaire Biden openly and loudly, thereby
killing the Dem's current front-runner. Is that what Pelosi wants? Meanwhile, none of their
other three dozen or so candidates are going to get any media at all, once this impeachment
sucks all the oxygen right out of the room. Is that intentional?
All I can say is, you have to really dig all the way to the bottom of the tinfoil-cooler
to find an explanation for this one. Others it makes no sense whatsoever.
wardropper ,
This person has made herself ridiculous by refusing to impeach GWB in 2003, when she knew he
was lying about Iraq's weapons.
What has Trump done which is comparable to that death toll?
Proof enough that Washington has nothing more to say to human beings.
The place belongs in The Book of Revelation – and not in the optimistic part
George Cornell ,
So your argument consists essentially of name-calling to exercise your own demons. You make
Trump look good, like the other stark raving lunatics opining on this , many in the
Democratic Party. You have zero chance of unseating Trump by impeachment and by the looks of
things that might not be such a bad thing, he said, making the sign of the cross and mouthing
pagan incantations, begging forgiveness from the ether.
You recall Bill Maher's comment before a previous election. "The Republicans have shifted
to the right and the Dems have shifted right into the insane asylum."
Rhys Jaggar ,
Would Ms Parsons like to write an OpEd on the US Senate pushing forward false narratives that
Russia is 'a promoter of terrorism'?
The biggest promoter of terrorism workdwide since 1945 is the USA, be it through OSS, CIA,
or other outsourced channels of coup-promoting violence .
Is it not time a motion were voted upon in the UN on precisely that postulate?
wardropper ,
Unfortunately, as you know, the UN, like NATO, to all intents and purposes actually IS the
USA, and vetoes all criticism of itself. And if vetoing doesn't work, it just ignores the
criticism. Other recent farces at the UN show the US and Israel sitting alone while the rest
of the world condems them, and the condemnation is simply shrugged off.
Astonishing that educated adults put up with it, but there it is.
Rhys Jaggar ,
It is always good to hear of committed political activsts demanding that their own party
stick to fundamental principles of justice, adherence to the Constitution etc etc. There does come a point when you have to ask whether this is temporary insanity or
metastatic terminal cancer. If it is the latter, America needs new political parties
wardropper ,
This person has made herself ridiculous by refusing to impeach GWB in 2003, when she knew he
was lying about Iraq's weapons.
What has Trump done which is comparable to that death toll?
Proof enough that Washington has nothing more to say to human beings.
The place belongs in The Book of Revelation – and not in the optimistic part
The impeachment . The two articles of impeachment are so anemic as to invite ridicule.
1. "Abuse of power" by expressing concern over thievery by Ukrainians and Americans? This is
a charge? The Washington Post has been running a series of articles based on "leaked" US Afghan IG reports and interviews with people involved in that wretched place. These articles reveal
the massive scale of the thievery that lost America enormous amounts of money taken through
graft and bribery. Was it unreasonable for this president to solicit the Ukrainian president's
cooperation in trying to deal with a similar situation in that country. He mentioned Uncle Joe
Biden and his drug addled son? Well, why not? The younger of the two has IMO been used as the
family bag man for collecting protection money. Joe Biden himself looks to me to be a political
version of Jimmy Hoffa the mobbed up Teamsters boss of long ago, but, with less charm, "a
little for you, a lot for me," etc. He was potentially a rival for the 2020 election? He was
not then a candidate. Is every human or semi-human to be exempt from investigation and
prosecution because he MIGHT become a political rival? The Democrats know full well this would
be absurd.
2. "Obstructing congress" What we are seeing in the behavior of the Democratic majority in
the House and minority in the senate is an attempt to seize control of the federal government
using the constitutional powers to "advise and consent" on appointments and the ability to
impeach in the House.. They have not yet tried to impeach federal judges appointed by the other
party but IMO they will try that soon. In this article of impeachment they claim that the
president has obstructed their function by relying on the doctrine of Executive Privilege to
deny them access to his present and past staff. Trump did not invent this doctrine. It is a
well established feature of American law. Without it no president could conduct internal policy
discussions or confidential discussions with foreign leaders. The Democrats know full well that
the principal of Executive Privilege is often contested in the courts. That is what they should
have done this time, but instead they have chosen to charge the president for impeachment for
claiming Executive Privilege. They do not claim this is a violation of law. They merely stamp
their feet and scream that they are unhappy and want him gone.
This farce will end in a trial in the US Senate with the Chief Justice of SCOTUS presiding.
The Republicans control the senate and will not allow Trump to be deposed. The senate can
dismiss the charges by a simple majority vote and that is what Senator Lindsey Graham wants to
see happen. Trump does not want that. He wants to be tried for the purpose of turning the
tables on the Democrats.
I think he is correct in wanting that. If that occurs, witnesses must be subpoenaed and
examined in open court. The Bidens must be so called to demonstrate the reasonable nature of
Trump's concern over their behavior in Ukraine . pl
Just wondering. Suppose the Senate dismisses the Impeachment. Won't the Chief Justice have to
rule on the question of whether or not there is at least probable cause for the democrats'
determination that this is probable cause to Impeach?
Chief Justice could rule on a demurrer which would dismiss the case without a trial - failure
to present prima facie elements of the underlying charge. Therefore nothing of fact is
triable - case dismissed.
Which is probably why Democrats ditched the more specific treason, bribery and extortion
charges, leaving only the garbage can of "abuse of power" and "obstruction" behind. By what
standards of evidence are both those remaining elements - abuse of power and obstruction --
even tried, let alone judged?
Biden on camera bragging about a quid pro quo to fire a prosecutor examining corruption at
a company where Biden's son is on the board taking a fat paycheck with no experience or
expertise to have that position.
I agree that Trump should get his wish. He has endured a lot of false "reporting." And those
untruths need to be shown for what they are. I wonder if Mitch McConnell would be able to
arrange that despite Graham.
I know that Trump's personality attracts that sort of shocked response from some people.
Heck, I'm a Republican and was first also opposed to Trump because of his personality. But
I'm of the opinion that the Democrats and their fawning media characters have earned a lot of
the same sort negative responses and disgust on the part of the people because their
personalities are pretty off-putting also.
I'm still suffering from cognitive dissonance because Adam Schiff has somehow actually
remained in his elected position. I can't imagine a high school principal allowing someone
who does "parody" to continue as a student council candidate.
I do believe that Nancy Pelosi may be really sinking into dementia or alcoholism--just
on the basis of her inability to control her dentures. To have those two criticize the
character of Trump really seems strange. I feel that I'm watching a Dickens novel performed
on national news each day. I can't laugh, though, because this is happening in
reality.
Given the corruption on both sides of the Senate it is probable that no-one wants an in depth
trial during which unwanted facts might accidentally appear. Much better to whisk it through
without it touching the sides so to speak.
OK so Trump doesn't get the exoneration he wants but then nothing will explode in his
face. Its not a win win but then its not a lose either and it is unlikely to seriously affect
his chances next November. Plus as a quid pro quo he might have got his defence spending
increase and the trade bill through.
I'm trying to remember the site I read it on, maybe south front, where the point was made the
graft flows through these governments we give billions to, back through the various
institutes and global initiatives the US politicians set up. McCain and Clinton being the two
mentioned. So neither side wants it looked into too deeply.
A conversation between two heads of state is not and should not be conducted as though the
subject matter of the conversation is subject to the rules and assumptions of a court of
justice.
Graham has a vested interest in not having an extensive trial with many witnesses as it
may uncover his own culpability in the Ukraine corruption. And of course may drag in Saint
McCain too!
His and Mitch's argument to Trump likely would be, that with no trial they can guarantee
acquittal but with a trial they can't.
An article in the Duran indicates that and why Senate Republicans may buck Trump's wishes, as
they are as deep in Ukraine corruption as any of the Dems are. Lindsay, the late John M and
Sleep Joe are perhaps the most deeply planted ...
You mean that with the same investigative power the Obama administration had he has none
of the alleged evidence on senators you allude to? What a wonderful implication from a Cyprus
based media outlet founded in 2016 and run by the host of an RT political show. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-duran/
As of today Trump's approval rating is 43.9% and Congress's approval rating is 24%. I gather
that the House Democrats don't realize how unpopular they are and how many Americans support
"obstruction of Congress". Are they trying to turn Trump into a national hero?
In the legitimate focus on the impeachment, a stunning revelation in the Horowitz report has
been largely overlooked. In January 2017, the FBI conducted three interviews with the key
source to Christopher Steele for his dossier. He told interviewed on all three occasions that
the material he passed on to Steele was gossip and second and third-hand rumors with no
proof. He even said that the sexual allegations were actually a joke and he never meant for
them to be taken serious. The FBI in seeking the follow-on FISA warrant merely reported they
interviewed Steele's source and he was "cooperative and candid." No content reported.
In addition, Horowitz found email exchanges between FBI and CIA, in which the FBI inquired
if Carter Page was a CIA source. Three times the CIA responded "yes." But the FBI agent
preparing the affidavit for the FISA renewal lied and wrote "no" to the question of Page's
CIA work. That was the false statement Horowitz referred to.
These are serious crimes by FBI officials and they should not go unnoted in the MSM or
left to be ignored. I hope that Durham is carefully reading every word of the Horowitz report
for points of criminal misconduct to present to his Federal grand jury.
You can't fully discuss impeachment of Trump without going back to the first cause, and in
this case it was clearly criminal misconduct by Federal law enforcement.
that a bipartisan agreement exists that the Democrats can introduce the impeachment but
the majority Republicans will vote it out without trial.
An approach which seems plausible. But after nigh on four full years of a campaign against
initially a candidate and for the majority of the time the holder of the presidential office
involving lurid allegations might not a trial be helpful in restoring some public confidence
in the body politic? And in reducing the levels of vitriol.
Earlier today a person asked me what was going to happen in the impeachment trial, and I said
that the senate will decide that after the case gets to them. The rules of procedure and
rules of evidence (if any!) will be determined by the senate.
The U.S. Constitution says in Article 1, section 3 that--
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that
Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is
tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: and no Person shall be convicted without the
Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office,
and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, trust, or profit, under the
United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law".
Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Repub. Kentucky) appeared on the Sean
Hannity television show on FoxNews and said in essence that how a trial will proceed is up in
the air, as he explains at the 1 minute mark until 2 minutes and 17 seconds into the
video--
McConnell, as usual, carefully maintains his position, and says that everything he does
about an impeachment trial, "I am coordinating with White House counsel". And, "There will be
no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this to
the extent that we can".
What McConnell is obviously doing is protecting himself no matter what the political
effect of the content of the trial may be.
He says: "We all know how it's going to end. There is no chance the president is going to
be removed from office".
It is worse than that. Groups of current or former high level employees band together to
bid on large scale development contracts. They have local partners and the loot is
tremendous.
"... While the typical BubisAmericanus will have forgotten all the details by then, me thinks the hard core democrats, I mean nomal'ish people that usually vote blue, simply stay home. ..."
"... Was this whole impeachment thing completely designed for the dems to fall on their sword and put the Donald back in for another 4? Dunno. ..."
They want to do it by Christmas in the vain hope that this circus will all blow over by
November. I think not.
While the typical BubisAmericanus will have forgotten all the details by then, me thinks
the hard core democrats, I mean nomal'ish people that usually vote blue, simply stay
home.
Part of me, however, thinks back to something that Harry Truman said, "in politics there
are no accidents" .
Was this whole impeachment thing completely designed for the dems to fall on their sword
and put the Donald back in for another 4? Dunno.
The Republicans will have both houses when in 2024 the the tax take will barley cover
interest.
designed for the dems to fall on their sword and put the Donald back in for another 4?
Dunno.
Been thinking along the same lines. May be the last thing they want is to be "on line" in
2021. I even wonder if CNN and BSNBC, etc, are there to DRIVE the decent Democrat to the
Republicians.
"... And in the case of Carter Page, the FISA judges initially denied a warrant to surveil the former Trump aide until the agency padded the application with the wildly unverified Steele Report , lying about Steele's credibility, and then fabricating evidence to specifically say Page was not an "operational contact" for the CIA , when in fact he was - and had a "positive assessment." ..."
"... Let's not forget that FISA court judge Rudolph Contreras recused himself from overseeing the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn due to his personal friendship with former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok. ..."
"... And the only reason Contreras did so was because his friendship with Strzok was revealed in their anti-Trump text messages found by the Inspector General. ..."
The shadowy Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court) and the processes behind
obtaining a warrant from it has fallen under harsh scrutiny by lawmakers following the release
of the DOJ Inspector General's report which found that the FBI was able to easily mislead the
judges to surveil Trump adviser Carter Page.
"The goal is to make sure this doesn't happen again, so you tighten up the system right,"
said Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC), adding: "Quite frankly, I'm looking at
the FISA court itself. ... I'm looking for the court to tell the public, 'Hey, we're upset
about this too,' and, you know, take some corrective steps."
Graham said his committee will look into legislation to introduce more "checks and balances"
to the FISA process, according to
The Hill .
When asked if he thought there would be bipartisan support for FISA reform, Sen. Dick Durban
(D-IL) said "I hope so," adding "This was a real wake-up call that three different teams can
screw this up at the FBI."
The renewed interest comes after five hours of partisan barb trading during a Judiciary
hearing Wednesday with Horowitz that resulted in one clear bipartisan interest: overhauling
the FISA court.
"One of the only points I've heard with bipartisan agreement today is a renewed interest
in reforming the FISA process," said Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.). -
The Hill
Created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the FISA court is made up
of 11 judges who are chosen by the chief justice of the Supreme Court to serve seven-year
terms. They are responsible for approving warrant applications for intelligence gathering
purposes and national security operations, which - as The Hill notes, "more often than not,
they sign off."
And in the case of Carter Page, the FISA judges initially denied a warrant to surveil the
former Trump aide until the agency padded the application with the wildly unverified Steele
Report , lying about Steele's credibility, and then fabricating evidence to specifically say
Page was not
an "operational contact" for the CIA , when in fact he was - and had a "positive
assessment."
Last year the government filed 1,117 FISA warrant applications, including 1,081 for
electronic monitoring. The court signed off on 1,079 according to a DOJ report.
That said, reform may come slowly.
But the timeline for any legislative reforms is unclear. Congress already faces a
mid-March deadline to extend expiring surveillance authorities under the USA Freedom Act.
Durbin suggested the discussions could merge, while Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a longtime privacy advocate,
appeared skeptical that Republicans would ultimately get on board with broader changes to
surveillance powers.
"Why after YEARS of blocking bipartisan FISA reforms are senior Republicans suddenly
interested in it? There is no question that we need to improve transparency, accountability
and oversight of the FISA process," Wyden tweeted. -
The Hill
Still, the IG report appears to have 'enlightened' some GOP lawmakers who previously
resisted the notion of reining in FISA courts . Several GOP senators gave credit to their
libertarian-minded colleagues on the hill, who have pushed for surveillance reform after
accurately predicting the potential for abuse.
Those who have long-advocated for reform include GOP Sens. Thom Tillis (N.C.) and Ben Sasse
(Neb.), according to Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT).
"I wish Mike Lee weren't sitting here two people from me right now, because as a national
security hawk I've argued with Mike Lee in the 4 1/2 or five years that I've been in the Senate
that stuff just like this couldn't possibly happen at the FBI and at the Department of
Justice," said Sasse during the Horowitz testimony, who added that the IG's findings marked a
"massive crisis of public trust" since we should know about FISA applications that aren ' t as
high-profile as Page's.
Horowitz reported a total of 17 "significant inaccuracies and omissions" in the
applications to monitor Page , taking particular issue with applications to renew the FISA
warrant and chastising the FBI for a lack of satisfactory explanations for those
mistakes.
Horowitz stressed that he would not have submitted the follow-up applications as they were
drafted by the FBI . Kevin Clinesmith, an FBI lawyer, altered an email related to the warrant
renewal application, according to Horowitz's report.
" [The] applications made it appear as though the evidence supporting probable cause was
stronger than was actually the case ," Horowitz said. " We also found basic, fundamental and
serious errors during the completion of the FBl's factual accuracy reviews. "
Horowitz also found that there were errors that "represent serious performance failures by
the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications." -
The Hill
Let's not forget that FISA court judge Rudolph Contreras recused himself from overseeing the
case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn due to his personal friendship with
former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok.
No reputable legal authority would fear ensuring due process for an accused, unless it had no evidence of an actual crime
to justify prosecution...but DID have ulterior motives and nefarious purposes for doing so.
Let's be clear.
To date, not a single shred of actual evidence has ever been produced to prove Russian involvement or interference in the
2016 presidential election.
***.
Nada.
We have the opinion of domestic intelligence agencies, but we have no physical or direct evidence.
On the contrary, we have as much reason to believe some or all of them interfered in the Trump campaign, to orchestrate
and execute a foreign interference hoax against Trump, before and after his election.
Daily, and throughout this sick prog left congressional abuse of power, we have repeatedly heard claims of an "ongoing
war with Russia" in Ukraine.
Which war is this? Is this a continuation of the non-invasion of the Donbas in 2014? The specious and false claims of Russian troop concentrations, and tanks rolling, that even spy satellites didn't see? Are we still lying about this? If so, where are the media reports of Russian airstrikes, burning Ukrainian villages, or body bags?
In any "on-going" war with Russia, we would've been treated to near-constant news video of Russian armor all over eastern Ukraine. Have we? Perhaps this war they keep telling us about is like the Russian "invasion" of Crimea that didn't happen either.
We clearly remember the two Crimean-initiated referenda which put them back in their ancestral Russian
homelands, but none of that had anything to do with invading Russians, who already had a substantial military
presence in Crimea for decades.
No sir, Professor Turley.
There is no basis whatsoever for Trump's impeachment.
There is mounting evidence of a continued coup against this president, and the substantial number of Americans
who actually elected him.
We too are closely monitoring the actual situation...
As Tony Kevin reported (watch-v=dJiS3nFzsWg) at one small fundraiser
Bill Clinton made an interesting remark. He said that the USA should always have enemies. That's absolutely true, this this
is a way to unite such a society as we have in the USA. probably the only way. And Russia simply fits the
bill. Very convenient bogeyman.
Notable quotes:
"... The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium. ..."
One aspect of this report in the NYT is very troubling but not a great surprise to those who
pay attention to Asian affairs.
The reports that US military leaders had no idea of what to
do in Afghanistan and constantly lied to the public should rouse citizens in America to take
a different view of military leaders. That view must be to trust nothing coming from the
Pentagon or from spokespersons for the military. Included must be any and all secretaries of defence, and all branches of the military.
It is totally unacceptable that 1-2 trillion dollars and several thousand lives were spent
by America for some nebulous cause. This does not include many thousands of civilians.
During the Vietnam disaster, it became obvious that American military was lying to the
public and taking many causalities in an unwinnable war. Nothing was learned about Asia or
Asian culture because America entered Afghanistan without a real plan and no understanding of
the country or it's history.
The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up
all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and
America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in
Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which
has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium.
It would be amusing to watch. However, the end result is a lose-lose for The United States
no matter who wins.
Crook(D) v Crook(R) is the perception – much as it is with impeachment with Pelosi
playing the part of Biden – with Trump standing a good chance to win. As of right now,
the 2020 election is Democrats to lose. They are doing a great job of that so far and it is
not even 2020.
Centrist Democrats will be trying to court the same voters – suburban center-right
Republicans – that Trump will be angling to get. Should it be Biden that wins the
nomination.
If Sanders somehow is nominated and Trump refuses to engage in debats? Run a "Trump Tucks
Tail and Runs" campaign with a massive highlight of his policy failures. Trump excels in the
arena of personal attacks. Biden would lose. Sanders could keep it clean and focused on
policy, dropping nuke after nuke on Trump. With Biden? Given how Centrist Democrats and
Republicans are both guilty of cooperating on issues such as Syria, Libya, Wall Street,
torture, Iraq, etc?
Centrist Democrats have no powder or if they do? Their powder is all wet. It was amazing
the number of policy attacks and opportunities that Centrist Democrats had to use against
Trump in 2016 yet were too afraid to. Opting for personal attacks. I still remember that
ambush by Andersen Cooper and Hillary Clinton against Trump at the 2nd(?) debate discussing
the allegations against Trump regarding rape, etc.
Never mind that Hillary Clinton had Bill with his prior allegations of sexual abuse. That
was the lamest ambush I've ever seen. You could practically see Hillary Clinton's vein pop
out on her forehead when Trump responded. I thought she was going to have a stroke. That
ambush wasted approximately 25 minutes of debate time and achieved less than nothing.
As we've seen with the latest funding bill? Centrist Democrats gave Trump what he wanted.
So, what do Centrist Democrats have to run on?
In a rare interview on Fox News' "Hannity" Thursday night, Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) expressed certainty that President Donald Trump would stay in office
despite the fact that there has yet to be a vote on
impeachment .
"There's no chance the President's going to be removed from office," McConnell told
Hannity.
Further, McConnell said he expects all Republicans and even some Democrats to vote against
impeachment.
"This is a thoroughly political exercise. It's not like a courtroom experience, It's a
political exercise. They've been trying to do this for three years. They've finally screwed up
their courage to do it," McConnell said.
He continued,
" It looks to me like it may be backfiring on them particularly in swing districts that
the Speaker's party managed to win in order to get the majority. Most of the nervousness I
see on this issue with politicians since it's a political process is on the Democratic
side."
When the Impeachment gets finally voted on in the Senate, what will Sanders do? He will do
best by being true to his own self, regardless of what votes he loses whichever way he
votes.
But I hope that being true to himself involves voting NOT to remove. Because depending on
how bitter the Democratic Convention is, a Nominee Sanders may get few or zero Clintonite
Democratic votes by definition, regardless of what he does. Whereas if he votes TO remove, he
will lose any votes, or even respectful hearing, that he might have had otherwise among the
deplorables.
"... no doubt that entire RussiaGate extravaganza was spawned by Fusion GPS's utterly false Steele dossier and the so-called "Intel Community's" zeal for weaponizing it to overthrow the president. ..."
"... The utter falsity of the Steele dossier seems not to have yet penetrated the minds of Dean Baquet and Martin Baron, editors of The New York Times and The Washington Post , the head cheerleaders for the seditious coup by the security state. ..."
"... All the week long, the Horowitz Report and its aftershocks were attended by the impeachment show in Jerrold Nadler's House Judiciary Committee -- an exercise so devoid of sense and prudence that it would embarrass all the kangaroos ever assembled in the courts of legend. As I write early Friday morning, Mr. Nadler's majority is preparing to report out two dubious articles of impeachment: "abuse of power" and "contempt of congress." As is always the case with the Resistance, Mr. Nadler's posse is projecting on its enemy the very offenses it commits. One senses that the voters are seeing through this feeble hocus-pocus, and that even members of the greater Democratic caucus in the house may be getting the heebie-jeebies about staking their political futures on a vote for this idiocy. ..."
"... Eric Ciaramella does not qualify as a “whistleblower” but is rather a rogue CIA agent ..."
"... his enabler Michael Atkinson, the “Intel Community” Inspector General who flouted and altered the rules in the whistleblower ploy — and who, by the way, was formerly at the center of the RussiaGate mess when he worked as chief counsel to then assistant attorney general John P. Carlin, one of the instigators of the “Crossfire Hurricane” overture to RussiaGate ..."
"... It could benefit the nation to hear testimony from shrinking violet Gina Haspel, the current CIA Director nobody has ever heard of. What does she know about Mr. Ciaramella’s role in this melodrama, who detailed him to the National Security Council, who supervised him, and who exactly were his associates? ..."
"... And, of course, not a few fair-minded people would be interested to hear from Rep. Adam Schiff, who engineered the “whistleblower’s” entry into his concocted UkraineGate sequel to the now discredited RussiaGate ruse. Get Mr. Schiff under oath. He is almost certain to lie about his activities, and that will certainly get him expelled from congress in disgrace, along with losing his license to practice law. ..."
"... Bring in Hunter Biden and ask him to explain whether he was busted for crack cocaine in a rent-a-car before-or-after he was hired to serve on the board of directors of a Ukrainian gas company. Bring in Lt. Col. Vindman, bring in Daniel Goldman ..."
Hillary Clinton sure got her money's worth with the Fusion GPS deal : it induced a
three-year psychotic break in the body politic, destroyed the legitimacy of federal law
enforcement, turned a once-proud, free, and rational press into an infernal engine of bad
faith, and is finally leading her Democratic Party to an ignominious suicide . And the damage
is far from complete. It's even possible that Mrs. Clinton will return to personally escort the
party over the cliff when, as is rumored lately, she jumps into the primary contest and
snatches the gonfalon of leadership from the ailing old man of the sclerotic status quo, Uncle
Joe Biden.
The citizens of this foundering polity have been subjected to a stunning doubleheader of
political spectacle clear through the week.
On Monday, the Horowitz Report was briefly celebrated by the Left for claiming "no bias" and
a "reasonable predicate" for the RussiaGate mess - until auditors actually got to read the
400-plus-page document and discovered that it was absolutely stuffed with incriminating details
that Mr. Horowitz was too polite, too coy, or too faint-hearted to identify as acts worthy of
referral for prosecution.
Mr. Barr, the attorney general, and US attorney John Durham immediately stepped up to set
the record straight, namely, that this was hardly the end of the matter and that they were
privy to fact-trains of evidence that would lead, by-and-by, to a quite different conclusion.
This reality-test was greeted, of course, with shrieking for their dismissal from the Jacobin
Left. But then at mid-week, Mr. Horowitz put in a personal appearance before the Senate
Judiciary Committee and left no doubt that entire RussiaGate extravaganza was spawned by Fusion
GPS's utterly false Steele dossier and the so-called "Intel Community's" zeal for weaponizing
it to overthrow the president.
The shock-waves from all that still pulsate through the disordered collective consciousness
of this sore-beset republic, and will disturb the sleep of many former and current officials
for months to come as the specter of Barr & Durham transmutes into a nightmare of Hammer
& Tongs, perp-walks, and actual prosecutions. The utter falsity of the Steele dossier seems
not to have yet penetrated the minds of Dean Baquet and Martin Baron, editors of The New York
Times and The Washington Post , the head cheerleaders for the seditious coup by the security
state. Their obdurate mendacity can no longer be attributed to a simple quest for clicks and
eyeballs. It speaks to a sickness of mind that has infected the whole thinking class of America
as it succumbed to the ultimate smashing of boundaries: the one between what is real and what
is not real (or what is true and what is not true.)
All the week long, the Horowitz Report and its aftershocks were attended by the impeachment
show in Jerrold Nadler's House Judiciary Committee -- an exercise so devoid of sense and
prudence that it would embarrass all the kangaroos ever assembled in the courts of legend. As I
write early Friday morning, Mr. Nadler's majority is preparing to report out two dubious
articles of impeachment: "abuse of power" and "contempt of congress." As is always the case
with the Resistance, Mr. Nadler's posse is projecting on its enemy the very offenses it
commits. One senses that the voters are seeing through this feeble hocus-pocus, and that even
members of the greater Democratic caucus in the house may be getting the heebie-jeebies about
staking their political futures on a vote for this idiocy.
For one thing the procedure would ascertain finally that Mr. Eric Ciaramella does not qualify as a “whistleblower” but is
rather a rogue CIA agent (from a rogue agency) helping to carry out a seditious conspiracy.
The defense should call him to the
stand, along with his enabler Michael Atkinson, the “Intel Community” Inspector General who flouted and altered the rules in the
whistleblower ploy — and who, by the way, was formerly at the center of the RussiaGate mess when he worked as chief counsel to
then assistant attorney general John P. Carlin, one of the instigators of the “Crossfire Hurricane” overture to RussiaGate.
It
could benefit the nation to hear testimony from shrinking violet Gina Haspel, the current CIA Director nobody has ever heard of.
What does she know about Mr. Ciaramella’s role in this melodrama, who detailed him to the National Security Council, who
supervised him, and who exactly were his associates?
And, of course, not a few fair-minded people would be interested to hear from Rep. Adam Schiff, who engineered the
“whistleblower’s” entry into his concocted UkraineGate sequel to the now discredited RussiaGate ruse. Get Mr. Schiff under oath.
He is almost certain to lie about his activities, and that will certainly get him expelled from congress in disgrace, along with
losing his license to practice law.
Bring in Hunter Biden and ask him to explain whether he was busted for crack cocaine in a rent-a-car before-or-after he
was hired to serve on the board of directors of a Ukrainian gas company. Bring in Lt. Col. Vindman, bring in Daniel Goldman,
bring them all in and compel their testimony under penalty of perjury. This will eventually get America right in its weakened
mind.
Just as was true when the Mueller investigation closed
without a single American being charged with criminally conspiring with Russia
over the 2016 election, Wednesday's issuance of the long-waited report from the
Department of Justice's Inspector General reveals that years of major claims and narratives
from the U.S. media were utter
frauds .
Before evaluating the media component of this scandal, the FBI's gross abuse of its power
– its serial deceit – is so grave and manifest that it requires little effort to
demonstrate it. In sum, the IG Report documents multiple instances in which the FBI – in
order to convince a FISA court to allow it spy on former Trump campaign operative Carter Page
during the 2016 election – manipulated documents, concealed crucial exonerating evidence,
and touted what it knew were unreliable if not outright false claims.
If you don't consider FBI lying, concealment of evidence, and manipulation of documents in
order to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a presidential campaign to be a major scandal,
what is? But none of this is aberrational: the FBI still has its headquarters in a building
named after J. Edgar Hoover – who constantly blackmailed elected officials with dossiers
and tried to blackmail Martin Luther King into killing himself – because that's what
these security state agencies are. They are out-of-control, virtually unlimited police state
factions that lie, abuse their spying and law enforcement powers, and subvert democracy and
civic and political freedoms as a matter of course.
In this case, no rational person should allow standard partisan bickering to distort or hide
this severe FBI corruption. The IG Report leaves no doubt about it. It's brimming with proof of
FBI subterfuge and deceit, all in service of persuading a FISA court of something that was not
true: that U.S. citizen and former Trump campaign official Carter Page was an agent of the
Russian government and therefore needed to have his communications surveilled.
"... the Deep State is "deep" because it is supposed to be hidden far below ( "deep" below) surface appearances. The fact that people are now openly discussing it in and of itself constrains the actions of the Deep State. If this attention on the Deep State continues it could lead the public to demanding legal remedies, and you can safely bet the Deep State doesn't want that to happen. ..."
"... the Congress Critters are principally servants of the business elites (and Big Finance elites most of all) and that the Deep State is a tool used by those business elites to get their way, so why would those elites deliberately hamper their own servants and damage their own tools? ..."
"... damage control on these two points is precisely the reasoning behind the impeachment deal that our host discusses. ..."
"... First, the empire is ruled by an oligarchy, but the oligarchs all have differing bases of power and wealth. The most powerful of the oligarchs are, of course, the Big Finance power brokers... the bankers, basically. They make money with money. They need almost no fixed capital to maintain and feed their wealth. The finance oligarchs are not tied to any location and can easily move their wealth from place to place as their profit needs dictate. At the other extreme are oligarchs whose wealth is based upon real estate. These oligarchs cannot shift their wealth around to avoid local problems. In between are oligarchs whose wealth is based upon tangible fixed capital (factories, for example) who can move their wealth around somewhat, but such moves impact their profits. ..."
Hopefully readers can now clearly see that the bunny persona is disingenuous and is here primarily for spin management.
psychohistorian @36 , on the other hand, is quite legit and raises points that are worth discussing.
So we have to ask, cui bono?
Lets start answering that question by identifying who is not benefitting:
The American public economically...except the top X%
The Congress Critters that are being made to look corrupt
The Deep State of various branches of government
Many, but not all national and multi-national corporations
Point #1 is no big surprise. The elites (including Trump) firmly believe that what is good for them personally is good for
everyone. What is good for the lord of the land is good for his serfs, right? There is, however, a caveat to this that I want
to touch on later.
Points #2 and #3 are problematic. ...the credibility
of the Congress Critters is undeniably taking a severe hit. As well the Deep State is "deep" because it is supposed
to be hidden far below ( "deep" below) surface appearances. The fact that people are now openly discussing it in and
of itself constrains the actions of the Deep State. If this attention on the Deep State continues it could lead the public
to demanding legal remedies, and you can safely bet the Deep State doesn't want that to happen.
So points #2 and #3 are absolutely true, but they are problematic because they conflict with the narrative that the circus
we've been watching play out in D.C. since the 2016 elections is all intentional and choreographed by the elites. I don't think
anyone here would dispute that the Congress Critters are principally servants of the business elites (and Big Finance elites
most of all) and that the Deep State is a tool used by those business elites to get their way, so why would those elites deliberately
hamper their own servants and damage their own tools?
No, these two points by themselves expose the falsity of the notion that
what we are witnessing playing out in the imperial capital was the intended outcome of the 2016 elections. Furthermore, damage control on these two points is precisely the reasoning behind the impeachment deal that our host discusses.
Point #4 about who is not benefiting, "Many, but not all national and multi-national corporations" , is related to
the caveat that I mentioned above.
First, the empire is ruled by an oligarchy, but the oligarchs all have differing bases of power and wealth. The most powerful
of the oligarchs are, of course, the Big Finance power brokers... the bankers, basically. They make money with money. They
need almost no fixed capital to maintain and feed their wealth. The finance oligarchs are not tied to any location and can
easily move their wealth from place to place as their profit needs dictate. At the other extreme are oligarchs whose wealth
is based upon real estate. These oligarchs cannot shift their wealth around to avoid local problems. In between are oligarchs
whose wealth is based upon tangible fixed capital (factories, for example) who can move their wealth around somewhat, but such
moves impact their profits.
The reader should be able to see that not all oligarchs are created equal. While all of the oligarchs share the imperative
of maintaining the oligarchy itself and expanding the empire that it operates within, their interests begin to diverge outside
of those issues. In particular, finance oligarchs and real estate oligarchs have a natural antagonism. This antagonism also
exists between the finance oligarchs and the fixed-capital oligarchs. Current imperial policy strongly favors the finance oligarchs.
The other oligarchs are willing to accept that so long as the economy continues to grow in real terms, but that hasn't been
happening for years now within the empire. Because of this we are now seeing infighting among the oligarchs, with Trump being
on the side of the non-finance underdogs.
Does this mean that the reader should become a fan of Trump? Not if one is prone to latching onto powerful individuals as
saviors. If, on the other hand, personal emotional attachment can be kept at the level of rooting for one stranger in a drunken
bum fight over the other stranger then it should be perfectly acceptable. It doesn't hurt to cheer the oligarchs on when they
fight among themselves.
@ Posted by: Nemesiscalling | Dec 13 2019 13:14 utc | 56
The problem is that you don't got to change the rules when they don't fit you anymore. The USA has deprived the rest of
the world of "dignity" for 70 years. Now that China is being better than the USA at its own game, it's going to change the
game?
Unfortunately to the likes of Rubio, that's not how the real world works, because the real world is not a game.
The aggregate household debt balances in the U.S. increased to a record high of $13.95 trillion, or 73 percent of the country's
GDP, in the third quarter of 2019, said a recent report released by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Mortgage balances accounted for 2/3 of the total household debt balances, followed by student loans that took 11 percent
of the share. Besides, auto loans and credit card balances also stood at a high level.
Each household in the U.S. carrying at least one form of debt owed an average of $144,100, said a report issued by America's
Debt Help Organization.
For comparison, the American manufacturing sector makes only 12% of its GDP. Manufacturing is so tiny in the USA that we
had recession in the sector this year and that didn't moved its GDP growth rate at all.
That's why the USA -- which has been failing in this trade war against China -- will ultimately fail in its Trumpian attempt
to revert to isolationism: the empire is now essentially a financial superpower. To maintain your status as a financial superpower,
you have to keep yourself economically open, otherwise the financial architecture that sustains the Dollar Standard will crumble
(since the USD is fiat money).
If your country wants to be the world's sole superpower in a capitalist world, it has to have two titles/belts: financial
and industrial superpower.
In 1946, the USA was both, hence it was the sole capitalist superpower. When Germany and mainly Japan threatened its title
as the sole industrial superpower in the 1970s, the USA maneuvered to curb their developments in the Plaza Accord of 1985,
which forced both nations to value their respective currencies in relation to the Dollar.
The maneuver was providential, but it worked. Germany and Japan would enter into recession in the early 1990s, to never
recover again. However, it came with a cost to the USA: it had to outsource its manufacturing sector to China and content itself
in being just to retain the financial champion belt, scattering the industrial champion belt around Asia, thus letting this
"title" vacant. It stayed "vacant" for 20 years, until China, thanks to its socialist doctrine, was able to free itself from
the commodity cycle and middle income traps to launch itself in the direction of gaining the industrial superpower status.
div> Some people seem to think that for an entity to be classified as an "empire" there needs to be a guy at the top
who likes to wear shiny metal hats. If such individuals cannot update their archaic definitions then perhaps it would be better
for the discussion if new terminology were introduced that does not contain baggage for those individuals. Maybe something like
"supranational wealth extraction gang" would help?
Posted by: William Gruff , Dec 13 2019 13:46 utc |
60
Some people seem to think that for an entity to be classified as an "empire" there needs to be a guy at the top who
likes to wear shiny metal hats. If such individuals cannot update their archaic definitions then perhaps it would be better
for the discussion if new terminology were introduced that does not contain baggage for those individuals. Maybe something
like "supranational wealth extraction gang" would help?
Posted by: William Gruff | Dec 13 2019 13:46 utc |
60
Excellent posting thus far. Just one thing to add to your analysis: the non-finance oligarchs are more dependent on the
finance oligarchs than the other way around.
b's posting says:
"The only reason why the Senate will go the soft way and just vote the impeachment down is because a deal was made between
Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi.."
I can't see those two trusting each other on anything. And the Senate Majority Leader, McConnell, appeared on Fixed News
last night and insisted that he will defer to Trump's lawyers in all strategic matters, including whether or not to call witnesses.
Given that the House Democrats have threatened that if this impeachment doesn't work, they will impeach him again on some other
matter; plus Trump's insane craving for vindication; or for the need to produce juicy sound bites for the re-election campaign;
or simply to stretch out the process past the Iowa caucuses, it is likely that this impeachment will have a more or less full
process, saving the summary treatment for the predictable follow-on impeachments.
Who was it that said "Repeating the same mistake, over and over, and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity"?
This strikes me as a George Zimmerman style impeachment.
Zimmerman's prosecutor purposefully charged him with murder, a case doomed to fail, rather than manslaughter, where it was
likely to fail but would have been more damning in the failure -- i.e. more facts would have been brought in and a big mess
would have been created.
Pelosi purposefully charges Trump with a very narrow impeachment, which is doomed to fail in the Senate, rather than conducting
a months-long investigation that would dig up what Biden was really doing in Ukraine and who he got permission from to operate
there. The investigation wouldn't have made impeachment more likely to succeed, it would have just made a bigger mess.
interesting that trump's numbers have risen so spectacularly in the last couple of weeks with this impeachment thing in my
view because it puts him (falsely or not) squarely back into the "maverick" role that the Public is ravenous to see, with all
its anger and desire to strike back at "the government" which is not doing well by the way (60% country moving in the wrong
direction; 17% approval of congress)--so, to me, the question is: Can Donald resist playing his cowboy savior maverick role
and pretending to straighten things out or not. Will he "do a deal" because McConnell is so convincing to him and he can pass
up a wonderful opportunity to put the Dems on trial for their obvious bullshit in the past three years, including what impetus
will be (coming right up) from Durham? I tend to believe the Donald Ego will welcome a Big Fight in The Impeachment Corral
much as he once delighted in phony wrestling.
--Patriot Act renewed
--New NAFTA passed this week
--New massive Defense bill passes
--New Paid Parental Leave for Fed employees(Clinton and Obama ignored this)
--Maybe a budget or at least easy continuing resolutions.
--Jews now nationality??? not too sure, more like the usual Trump stuff like moving embassy.
This stuff all happened in the last week or so after nothing happened for years.
To me this proves that there really is no difference between Ds and Rs, both side made (are still making) money on the plundering
of Ukraine after the coup.
I don't think McConnell wants to help Trump win re-election and a drawn out impeachment trial will just be more free campaign
time on the TV for Trump.
Both parties need an establishment president in 2020, a short trial is the least shitty option for the establishment.
Posted by: Ed | Dec 12 2019 19:12 utc | 5
=====================
The imperialist foreign policy entails "bipartisan consensus", "interagency consensus" etc. Sometimes I think that establishment
Democrats are patriots [in their self-image] who prefer a political calamity over the betrayal of that consensus. Trump is
an incoherent idiot and he may be attacked in many ways. Should he be attacked for disastrous breach of international agreements,
starting with the crown jewel of Obama's tenure, multilateral agreement with Iran? Or for a mockery he made from negotiations
with North Korea? Or inflicting misery across the globe with "maximal sanctions" policies, pretty much against everybody*?
No, no and no.
As some of the incoherent statements of Trump were "friendly toward Russia" (while he continued Nuland-Boland policies),
THAT was selected as the main target. So we are going back to 2016. In 2018 Democrats switched gears for the duration of election
campaign focusing on health care, something that Trump monumentally botched, but the imperialist circus is back. Lamentably,
the "deplorables" are not impressed and the electorally wobbly Rustbelt may be lost again in 2020 because of this inanities,
but the consensus (bipartisan, inter-agency etc.) will be preserved. History will remember the selfless sacrifice of these
idiots.
=====
* I read an article in Russia, full of gleeful satisfaction, about Lithuanian dairy producers being hit by a round of Trumpian
sanctions, in spite of indefatigable efforts of Lithuanian government to be the most obedient (if often neglected) poodle of
USA.
[Rubio's] Defending against the global mercantilist aspirations of China is a very responsible course of action for a policymaker.
Posted by: Nemesiscalling | Dec 13 2019 13:14 utc | 56
I wonder if Rubio will stay on this topic for full 15 minutes. It is actually very much against GOP ideology, industrial
policy coordinated by the federal government -- is a 5-year plan (as Stalin practiced) next? Or will he revert to plan B, assuring
that American families live better than those in the Marxist hell that is Venezuela through sanctions, sabotage etc.? Plan
A, actually doing something about USAians having decent jobs, would make the likes of Rubio vomiting and defecating uncontrollably
as they couldn't digest it. So my bet is that he will stay with plan B.
Maybe I am dim, but I have read the transcript of the infamous phone call between Trump and Zelensky several times and I do
not understand how it is being interpreted as Trump trying to pressure the Ukrainian president to smear Biden. As I read the
transcript, the favour Trump asked was for Ukraine to look into Crowdstrike. It seems to me that asking about the Bidens was
almost an afterthought, not the main thrust of the conversation.
I'm not American, maybe I am missing something that is culturally obvious to Americans? Do Americans read the transcript
and see something I don't? Would it not be in the USA's interest to know if Crowdstrike was involved in the activities that
are said to have been an interference in the last election?
Not trying to derail the discussion here, but genuinely puzzled.
Posted by: Lorna MacKay | Dec 13 2019 19:50 utc | 69
"Do Americans read the transcript and see something I don't?"
Only the ones that are Trump-Deranged. Everyone else sees what you saw, standard operating procedure among all US elites
including of course all presidents and high officials. Both Obama and Sec. of State Hillary made dozens of calls exactly like
that.
I'll give it a 2-finger shot. The Credentialed 20%ers, along with their center-left-turned-right House masters are furiously
clutching their rosery bead (heres hatin on you and your pitiful brethren, Nancy!) .. while the Red Senators are all taking
turns hold Satan's pitchfork, hoping they don't get pricked .. or worse!, as the republican mope's support starts to melt away
like an iceberg at the equator !!
As an aside .. all one has to do is read the comments over at the Hedge, to see that many (but not all, by far ..) have, over
these past 3+ years, have gone through a phase-change, seeing the blatant bs .. from both legasy parties, without eyes wide
shut !
Both Trump and Zelensky were elected on platforms of peace with Russia. What was in that phone call that got Pelosi onboard
with impeachment, after years of taking it off the table?
I doubt very much that it was the claimed statement of Trump asking for help with a corruption investigation. (Which is perfectly
legal under a 1998 Treaty signed by Clinton).
Something got that CIA spy running to Adam Schiff, and something got Pelosi to move forward. Did Trump and Zelensky speak of
the Forbidden thing, making peace?
Biden was not the front runner until they needed him to be. You would be hard pressed to find an actual Biden supporter. They
are telling us this, because otherwise the ridiculous impeachment charge would not make sense. (Not that it makes a whole lot
of sense anyway).
In the Foreign Relations speech in which Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired, he also said that he was still in
touch with Ukrainian oligarchs, and he then would pass the word to Pence. Pence?
Don't be too surprised if the Senate votes to replace Trump with Pence.
Lorna MacKay at 69, when the media tells you something, it doesn't mean it is true. Of course, the transcript doesn't show
anything wrong. The only Americans who are culturally programmed to see anything there are the ones whose brains have been
turned to mush by TDS. (Trump Derangement Syndrome).
It's not you, it's us.
If I had money to put on the impeachment trial in the Senate, it would be on Donald NOT doing a deal to save various butts
and FOR going for the Dems' jugualar(s) and let the chips fall where they may on the Repug side.
I just cannot see him acting "statesmanlike" and forgoing seeking vindication after the provocations of the past three years.
Would you? I mean, even normal-size egos have a "Make my day" threshold. I reckon that Trump's threshold was the beginning
of the actual impeachment "hearing."
It seems to me that asking about the Bidens was almost an afterthought
This is what I have contended. Trump didn't need to mention Biden at all.
Did he do it innocently? Was it an ego-driven mistake?
Maybe.
But Trump has done other things that suggest that he did so as kayfabe . He engaged in a heated campaign with
Hillary and promised to have a special prosecutor investigate her if he was elected. But within days of being elected announced
that he would not do so (his first broken promise). Was the Hillary-Trump battle really as contentious as it appeared?
Trump invited Nancy Pelosi to a White House meeting days before the vote for Speaker of the House. This gave Pelosi a boost
at a time when Democrats were grumbling that she didn't deserve to be Speaker (she had worked closely with GW Bush Administration).
Result: Pelosi was elected Speaker.
Lastly, it's strange that Hilllary and Pelosi were adamantly against impeachment wrt Russiagate (the Mueller Report
cited possible obstruction of justice), saying that voters should decide in 2020 but approved impeachment for Ukrainegate where
the grounds for impeachment are arguably worse. Their refusal to allow impeachment after the Mueller Report was widely seen
(by progressives) as the establishment protecting Trump. Impeachment over Ukrainegate conveniently ended such speculation
.
Impeachment over Russiagate could have brought unwanted public scrutiny of CIA-MI6 and the Deep State. Instead, AG Wm Barr
will make sure things are 'sorted' in a way that safeguards the Deep State. Not surprisingly, he just announced that the FBI
acted in "bad faith" - a mild rebuke that almost guarantees that no one will be held accountable.
Some believe that the political disaster that Democrats reap from impeachment will be hung around the neck of the progressives
that clamored for impeachment in Spring 2019 (after the Mueller Report). IMO that 'hunch' is likely to prove accurate.
Whereas it is very likely that not just Hunter but Joe Biden can be brought down, it would come at the expense of a massive
draining of a bipartisan Congressional / Senatorial money laundering swamp, with millions, perhaps billions in US tax dollars
being recycled back into campaign contributions, etc. Many heads might roll, including several on the Republican side of
the Senate chamber.
Thank you and exactly that.
There has been brief mention of Biden shenanigans in China too but now studiously avoided. Perhaps the same boondoggle there
as well or maybe that is the country behind the threat from Biden to Lindsay Graham re going down big time.
Would it not be in the USA's interest to know if Crowdstrike was involved in the activities that are said to have been an
interference in the last election?
I fully agree with you. The Crowdstrike bust would give Trump the material needed to truly unravel the CIA (Brennan) and
FBI (Comey/Mueller)saboteurs. These pigs set out to smash Trump and his family, and Presidency. He will no doubt find a way
to extract revenge as he is known for that.
Pressing Zelensky on the Crowdstrike element is mighty good politics as it would likely disable the Democrat machinery for
many election cycles if the dogs of war are loosed on the DNC internal malevolence.
The Agreement to have limited charges (nothing related to Russiagate!) and no calling of witnesses (Bidens are safe) was
likely agreed in late Spring 2019 when the kayfabe was arranged.
Also, although there's been much hand-wringing about Joe Biden's electoral prospects, the kayfabe has helped Biden
as he now says that Trump focused on him because Trump fears him as a political opponent. This plays into the establishment's
main electoral ploy: electability!
In the Foreign Relations speech in which Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired, he also said that he was still
in touch with Ukrainian oligarchs, and he then would pass the word to Pence. Pence?
Don't be too surprised if the Senate votes to replace Trump with Pence.
Fascinating proposition. The Senate calls no witnesses and votes for impeachment? Unlikely, but I wont dismiss either that
or a drawn out trial and votes for impeachment - or not. Strange theatre this stuff.
One thing for sure - if the Senate votes to impeach all hell will break out in the Repugnant party. The USA political serenity
has been totally disturbed by Trump's election (or should I say Hillary Clinton's capitulation and not campaign in three key
states).
If Trump gets re-elected, if Big Tech continues to evade accountability, if imperial
adventures continue abroad, if migrant farmworkers cannot feed their families, you can trace
it back to this Tuesday, and the actions a House Speaker took while nobody was paying
attention .
-- David Dayen, The American Prospect (emphasis added)
As the Impeachment Drama lumbers to a 2020 conclusion, morphing into its variant selves and
sucking life from every other story the media most folks attend to are inclined to tell,
unwatched things are happening in its shadow.
Nancy Pelosi has used end-of-year urgency and the impeachment distraction to pass four
pieces of major legislation, three of which will become law, all on the same day.
NAFTA 2.0 is one of them. Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, agreed under pressure to
approve Pelosi's House version of NAFTA 2.0, rebranded "USMCA," or United States-Mexico-Canada
Agreement, for obvious reasons. This is a deal he should never have made, yet he made it.
Consider who Trumka is -- a bridge between the neoliberal mainstream of the Democratic Party
and the (presumably further left) labor movement that supports and sustains it. In other words,
he's the person who blesses neoliberal policies as "progressive" (thus retaining mainstream
Democratic Party approval) while modifying those policies in the margins to be less terrible
(thus retaining the approval of progressives, who want to think of him as opposed to
neoliberalist policies).
He's the person, in other words, who makes the labor movement look less like a puppy of the
Democratic Party establishment to progressives, while keeping the labor movement (and himself)
firmly in the Party establishment tent. The drama of "Will Trumka approve USMCA?" we recently
witnessed exemplified this role.
To anyone with two cells in their brain, it was obvious as soon as the question was asked
that he would approve USMCA. The stage was set; his arrival on it announced; the spotlight was
ready and bright. Would he really walk onto this stage at this late date and say no to Party
leaders? Of course not.
Would he have been able to stay in his lofty perch if he had? His job was to bless the cake
after it had been baked, not to unbake it.
What pressure was Trumka under? First, obviously, from the Democratic Party and its
billionaire donors, to give them what they and the Republicans -- and Donald
Trump -- all wanted, a neoliberal-lite trade deal that could become in Nancy Pelosi's words "a
template for future trade agreements a good template."
Second, Trumka was under pressure from his union base itself (so say some, including David
Dayen in the piece linked below), many of whom are Trump supporters, to give President Trump a
signature first-term victory, just in time for the start of his second-term campaign.
Do I believe this latter explanation? No, but I believe Trumka believes it. And if indeed it
is true that Trumka has to serve Trump, at least in part, in order to serve his own base, it's
further evidence of the careerism of his actions, in contrast to behavior from actual
labor-movement principles.
Here's Dayen on this sordid tale (emphasis added):
Pelosi got
AFL-CIO president Rich Trumka to sign off on the U.S.–Mexico-Canada Agreement
(USMCA), handing Trump a political victory on one of his signature issues. Predictably, White
House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham immediately gushed, calling USMCA "the biggest and
best trade agreement in the history of the world."
It's, um, not that. Economically, USMCA is a nothingburger; even
the most rose-colored analysis with doubtful assumptions built in shows GDP growth of
only 0.06 percent per year. There's one good provision: the elimination of the investor-state
dispute settlement (ISDS) provision that allowed corporations to sue governments in secret
tribunals over trade violations. There's one bad provision: the
extension of legal immunity for tech platforms over user-generated content, put into a
trade deal for the first time. This will make the immunity shield, codified in Section 230 of
the Communications Decency Act, much harder to alter in the future. Pelosi has called this
deal a "template" for future agreements, though trade reformers have called it a bare minimum
floor.
Pelosi
tried to remove the immunity shield , but abandoned the request. She did succeed in
removing a provision for Big Pharma that extended exclusivity periods for biologics. The
Sierra Club has termed the deal an "
environmental failure " that will not have binding standards on clean air and water or
climate goals. But the threshold question on the USMCA was always going to be labor
enforcement: would the labor laws imposed on Mexico hold, improving their lot while giving
U.S. manufacturing workers a chance to compete? There was also the open question of why the
U.S. would reward Mexico with a trade deal update when trade unionists in the country
continue to be kidnapped and killed.
In his statement, Trumka lauds the labor enforcement, noting provisions that make it
easier to prove violations (including violence against workers), rules of evidence for
disputes, and inspections of Mexican facilities, a key win. But I've been told that the
AFL-CIO did not see the details of the text before signing off, which is unforgivable ,
especially on trade where details matter. There was
no vote by union leaders , just a briefing from the AFL-CIO.
At least one union, the Machinists, remains opposed , and
others were noncommittal until they see text. The Economic Policy Institute, which is
strongly tied to labor, called the agreement " weak tea at
best ," a tiny advance on the status quo that will not reverse decades of outsourcing of
U.S. jobs.
Meanwhile, back at the Trump re-election ranch:
While the economics are negligible (and potentially harmful on tech policy), on the
politics
activists are losing their mind at the prospect of a Trump signing ceremony, with labor
by his side, on a deal that he will construe as keeping promises to Midwest voters . "Any
corporate Democrat who pushed to get this agreement passed that thinks Donald Trump is going
to share the credit for those improvements is dangerously gullible," said Yvette Simpson, CEO
of Democracy for America, in a statement. Only a small handful of Democratic centrists were
pushing for a USMCA vote, based mostly on the idea that they had to "do something" to show
that they could get things done in Congress. Now they've got it, and they'll have to live
with the consequences.
I guess helping re-elect the "
most dangerous president ever " pales in comparison to passing bipartisan-approved
neoliberal trade deals.
One of Richard Trumka's jobs, if he wants to stay employed, is to make sure neoliberal Party
leaders like Nancy Pelosi are happy and well served while simultaneously keeping progressives
thinking that Big Labor is still in their corner even on issues the donor class most cares
about.
"... Ciaramella notably contacted House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's (D-CA) office before filing his complaint , on a form which was altered to allow for second-hand information, after going to a Democratic operative attorney who will neither confirm nor deny his status as the whistleblower. ..."
NY Post Editorial Board Names Eric Ciaramella As Whistleblower by Tyler Durden Fri, 12/13/2019 - 10:30 0
SHARES
The
New York Post Editorial Board has named CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella as the whistleblower at
the heart of the Trump impeachment saga, confirming an October 30 report by
RealClearInvestigation 's Paul Sperry which has been widely cited in subsequent
reports.
Whistleblower lawyers refuse to confirm or deny Ciaramella is their man. His identity is
apparently the worst-kept secret of the Washington press corps . In a sign of how farcical
this has become, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said his name as part of a series of names
during a live hearing Wednesday night aired on television. He never called him the
whistleblower, just said he was someone Republicans thought should testify, yet Democrats
angrily denounced the "outing." If you don't know the man's name, how do you know the man's
name? -
New York Post
Ciaramella, a registered Democrat, is a CIA analyst who specializes in Russia and Ukraine,
and ran the Ukraine desk at the National Security Council (NSC) in 2016. He previously worked
for then-NSC adviser Susan Rice, as well as Joe Biden when the former VP was the Obama
administration's point-man for Ukraine. He also worked for former CIA Director John Brennan,
and was reportedly a highly valued employee according to
RedState ' s Elizabeth Vaughn. He also became former National Security Adviser H.R.
McMaster's personal aide in June 2017, was
called out as a leaker by journalist Mike Cernovich that same month.
He also worked with Alexandra Chalupa , a Ukrainian-American lawyer and Democratic operative
involved in allegations that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 US election by releasing the so-called
'Black Ledger' that contained Paul Manafort's name.
In 2017, former White House chief strategist
Steve Bannon wanted Ciaramella kicked off the National Security Council over concerns about
leaks.
Earlier this year, Ciaramella ignited the Democratic impeachment efforts against President
Trump when, using second-hand information, he anonymously complained that Trump abused his
office when he asked Ukraine to investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his
son Hunter, as well as claims related to pro-Clinton election interference and DNC hacking in
2016.
Ciaramella notably contacted House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's (D-CA)
office before filing his complaint , on a form which was altered to allow for second-hand
information, after going to a Democratic operative attorney who will neither confirm nor deny
his status as the whistleblower.
Steve Bannon was only on the National Security Council for two months, and was removed in
early April 2017 at the direction of the President. So the story about Bannon valiantly
trying to save the day is probably more of his resume padding.
Why did so many people -- from government contractors and high-ranking military officers, to
state department and National Security Council officials -- feel the need to lie about how
the war in Afghanistan was going?
This is because it's easy cash cow for the old boys club by sending working class kids
to be killed in a far off land.
The pentagon with the full cooperation of MSM will sell it as we are defending our ways of
life by fighting a country 10,000 kms away. This show the poor literacy, poor analytical
thinking of US population constantly brain washed by MSM, holy men, clergy, other neo con
organisations like National rifle club etc.
I never knew USA dropped 2.7 millions tons of bombs and now so many left unexploded and
its same in Vietnam, Cambodia as neutral,
but i met so many injured kids etc from the bombs,.
the total MADNESS OF USA IS NAZI SM AT ITS BEST,.NO SHAME OR COMPASSION FOR THE
VICTIMS.
I cannot comprehend the money it cost USA,. AN ALSO PROFITS FOR SOME,.
With the exceptions of two attacks on American soil-Pearl Harbor and 911- the American people
and for the most part their legislative representatives in Congress- will always remain
cluless what the United States Government does overseas.
This country runs on its own drum beats. The ordinary man on the street needs to take care
of his economic needs. The Big Boys always take care of themselves. That includes the
military establishment, that is always entitled to an absurd amounts of monies, fueled by an
empire building machinery, pushed by the elites that control the fate of economic might, and
political orchestra that feeds its ego and prestige.
Time and again, our American sociopaths in power have a strangle hold on us, regardless of
the destruction and animosity they heap on distant peoples and lands the world over in the
name of national security and the democratic spiel, as they like to tell us ....
Richard Nixon, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson- Vietnam and the South East Asian countries of
Laos , Cambodia, are an example .
Years later, the establishment manufactures blatant cover-ups with lies upon lies to accuse
on record, as general Powell eloquently presented at the United Nations: That Iraq has
weapons of mass destruction and needs to be held accountable.And now, this report on
Afghanistan with all this pathological violence.
Is it reasonable to conclude that our democracy and its pathological actors in government
and big business will always purchase it by demagoguery and self vested interest, because the
ordinary man whose vote should count will never have the ultimate say when it comes to war
and destruction!
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- In testimony before Congress this week, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander
Vindman, an Army officer with more than 20 years of service, told lawmakers that he had heard
the president try to pressure Ukraine's president to unearth dirt on a political rival. In
response, the president's allies have decided to make an issue of Vindman's birthplace. They
say his infanthood in Kiev -- he left at age 3 -- reveals something about his character and his
allegiances. They are right, but in exactly the wrong way.
Here, you should pardon the expression, are some facts and a little bit of history. When
Vindman was born on June 6, 1975, Ukraine was enveloped in the Soviet Union. At birth, Vindman
would have been added temporarily to his parents' internal passports, a document that all
Soviet citizens were required to carry starting at 16, mostly to make sure they were not
residing somewhere without official permission.
That passport contained the infamous "fifth line" or "pyati punkt," in Russian, which had
been created under Josef Stalin and listed the holder's "nationality." Vindman was born in
Ukraine, but that line would not have said "Ukrainian" unless his parents had chosen to defy
the law. It would have said "Jew."
In the Soviet Union, Jews were considered separate and apart from other nationalities,
especially in two of the republics, Russia and Ukraine, where the local party enforcers were
particularly happy to do the Kremlin's dirty work. You could be born in Minsk or Pinsk, or Omsk
or Tomsk, or even Alexandrovsk or Petropavlovsk, and if you were born to Jewish parents, your
passport was likely stamped "Jew."
When I first learned this, upon arriving in Moscow in May 1983 as a reporter for the
Associated Press, I was outraged. I saw it like the Nazi's yellow star. I couldn't imagine how
Jewish people could stand it.
Until one day, I put that question to Naum Meiman, a Jewish mathematician who was part of
Andrei Sakharov's circle of dissidents. The answer was simple and humbling.
He didn't want "Russian," or any other so-called Soviet nationality, in his passport.
Russians didn't consider him Russian, officially or otherwise, and he didn't want the label.
"I'm a Jew who is forced to live in Russia, not a Russian," he said more than once.
I am certainly not speaking for Vindman, whom I do not know, but I have never met a Jew who
fled the Soviet Union and felt any kind of loyalty to the country -- one where Jews were
spurned from birth and then imprisoned within the state's borders until it decided to allow
them to leave. In those days, the Soviet Union revoked émigré's citizenships, in
what was supposed to be a final act of deep humiliation, but was invariably a badge of
pride.
"Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine while working inside
the White House, apparently against the president's interest," Fox News host Laura Ingraham
told viewers Monday.
The circumstances of Vindman's birth argue for a different interpretation. They show him to
be part of a tradition of 20th century Eastern European Jews who suffered under tyrannies of
the left and the right. These people fled the first chance they had to a country that would
accept them as fellow citizens, one where they would not be constantly questioned about their
loyalties. For many decades, that country was the United States.
To contact the author of this story: Andrew Rosenthal at [email protected]
Retired Brigadier General Peter Zwack spoke to "Nightline" ahead of Vindman's testifying
before the House Intelligence Committee during a public impeachment hearing of President
Trump.
Former democrat
21 days ago Mr Vindman looks more like a doorman, than a Army Officer in that uniform !
Larry
21 days ago
What's that "thing" on his ring finger (appears wooden)? Is that from his partner "Husband"?
In my US Army years, soldiers were dishonorable discharged from this "Criminal Offense" !
A retired Army officer who worked with
Democrat "star witness" Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in Grafenwoher, Germany, claims
Vindman "really talked up" President Barack Obama and ridiculed America and Americans in
front of Russian military officers.
In an eye-opening thread on Twitter last week, retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Jim Hickman
said that he "verbally reprimanded" Vindman after he heard some of his derisive remarks for
himself. " Do not let the uniform fool you," Hickman wrote. "He is a political activist in
uniform."
Hickman's former boss at the Joint Multinational Simulation Center in Grafenwoehr has
since gone on the record to corroborate his story.
Hickman, 52, says he's a disabled wounded warrior who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and
who received numerous medals, including the Purple Heart.
The retired officer said that Vindman, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Ukraine, made
fun of the United States to the point that it made other soldiers "uncomfortable." For
example, Hickman told American Greatness that he heard Vindman call Americans
"rednecks" -- a word that needed to be translated for the Russians. He said they all had a
big laugh at America's expense.
Vindman, who serves on the National Security Council (NSC), appeared last week before the
House Intelligence Committee and testified
that he'd had "concerns" about the July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman's testimony rested on his negative opinions of the
call, rather than any new facts about the call.
Vindman's former boss, NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison, threw cold
water on Vindman's claims
in his own testimony later in the week, saying he didn't have concerns that "anything
illegal was discussed" in the phone call. Morrison also testified that Ukrainian officials
were not even aware that military funding had been delayed by the Trump Administration until
late August 2019, more than a month after the Trump-Zelensky call.
"Completely Beyond Reproach"
Hickman said he decided to come forward because Vindman "disobeyed a direct order from
the commander-in-chief, his boss," made his testimony "about his foreign policy opinions
versus facts," and "wore his Army service uniform to make a political statement" against the
president.
"Then right on cue, the mainstream media began calling him a war hero with a purple
heart, and completely beyond reproach," Hickman wrote in a statement to American Greatness
and another journalist. "Knowing his political bias, backed by his somewhat radical
left-leaning ideology, it was my obligation, indeed my duty, to come forward with this
information. I couldn't go to the same mainstream media to put it out, nor could I go to the
Army, as they're backing Vindman, so I took to Twitter, a source for getting the truth out,"
he added.
According to Hickman, Vindman was the Defense Department attaché at the Russian
embassy in Germany when he met him in 2013. He told American Greatness that he also met
Vindman's twin brother Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman while he was stationed in Germany.
"I know LTC Alex Vindman from a Combined US-Russian exercise called Atlas Vision [13] in
Grafenwoher," Hickman wrote on Twitter. "He worked with the Russian Embassy and I was
assigned to the JMTC (Joint Multinational Training Command), within USAREUR (US Army Europe).
He worked coordination w/the Russian 15th Peacekeeping Brigade, and I was in charge of all
Simulations planning, as well as assisting the USAREUR Lead Planner as the Senior Military
Planner."
Like his twin, Eugene Vindman has forged a career in White House civil service. In fact,
The Wall Street Journal reported
that it's possible Eugene Vindman might also be called to testify. Alexander Vindman
has stated that Eugene Vindman, also called Yevgeny Vindman, "witnessed (the) decision to move Trump-Zelensky call's
transcript to a top secret server," The Journal reported of the president's call to the president of Ukraine.
Vindman's twin brother lists his title as attorney at the White House on his Facebook page. Born Yevgeny Vindman, he
goes by Eugene Vindman on social media.
The twin's Facebook page explains that he is an attorney at The White House and a former Attorney at Judge Advocate
General's Corps, United States Army. He also says that he is a former Senior Trial Counsel at U.S. Army and former Major at
United States Army.
According to JTA
, Eugene Vindman is a lawyer on the national security council.
CNN called
Eugene Vindman "the chief ethics counsel at NSC."
His Facebook page also provides the following biographical details about Eugene:
Studied Law School at University of Georgia
Studied General Administration at Central Michigan University
Studied at UGA School of Law
Studied History at SUNY Binghamton
Went to Franklin D.Roosevelt High School
Lives in Washington, District of Columbia
From Brooklyn, New York
2. Eugene Vindman Was a Campaign Strategist for a Democratic Congressional Candidate
The Vindman brothers.
Eugene Vindman's Facebook page also describes him as a "former Campaign Strategist at Bobby Saxon for Congress (GA
District 10)."
Saxon ran as a Democrat. According to an article in
The Red & Black
, Saxon was running for public office for the first time and called himself a "regular guy."
The 2008 article describes him as saying, "I'm 46-years-old, and I've never run for an office. Most of all, I'm a
frustrated American who's mad that politicians have no clue what it's like to be one of us. We need regular people with
common sense in Washington D.C."
Like Eugene Vindman, Saxon had an Army background. "I'm a major in the Georgia Army National Guard," he explained.
3. Eugene Vindman Was Involved in Efforts to Find Roadside Bombers in Iraq
A 2010 NPR article
on the U.S. connecting dots to find roadside bombers quoted Eugene Vindman. "Maj. Eugene Vindman, a
JAG officer, or judge advocate general" said that a "network analysis course put him and other military lawyers in a better
position to carry out oversight responsibilities in Iraq," the article stated.
"[You could] maybe do a little bit of analysis on your own or ask some intelligent questions of the targeteers," Eugene
Vindman said to NPR, "to make sure that the target they've identified is not a guy that might have made a wrong phone call
to a bad guy but actually has enough links to that bad guy through other activities to actually be a bad guy and therefore
be a legal military target."
Alexander Vindman is also similarly invested in American government work. "Since 2008, I have been a Foreign Area
Officer specializing in Eurasia," he wrote. "In this role, I have served in the United States' embassies in Kiev, Ukraine
and Moscow, Russia. In Washington D.C., I was a politico-military affairs officer for Russia for the Chairman of Joint
Chiefs where I authored the principle strategy for managing competition with Russia. In July 2018, I was asked to serve at
the National Security Council."
... ... ...
There is another Vindman brother. He's older than the twins and his name is Leonid Simon Vindman.
Leonid Simon Vindman is the "Founder and Managing Partner, Tungsten Capital Advisors" and "has approximately thirty
years of experience in the financial markets,"
his company
website states.
"During the past twenty five years, he has been focusing predominantly on Central Eastern Europe, Russia and Central
Asia where he completed some of the biggest investment and advisory transactions in the region," according to the website.
"He also completed transactions in the Middle East, and traveled extensively in Asia and Africa."
The page continues: "Prior to founding Tungsten he was a Managing Director responsible for investment banking
origination and client coverage activities for Russia and CIS region at UniCredit Group – the largest international bank in
Central and Eastern Europe at that time. Previously he worked as a Vice President Investment Banking at JPMorgan Chase,
Principal Banker at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the EBRD), Senior Associate at Bankers Trust and
Manager at Central Europe Trust."
Leonid Vindman "received his Bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College and an MBA from the University of Chicago Booth
Graduate School of Business," his company website says.
The company's founding and managing partner Maria Starkova-Vindman is described as "an art historian and art advisor"
who previously "worked at the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow as an assistant keeper and curator, and taught on the
Courtauld MA course on global contemporary art."
Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman admitted that he had been offered to serve as minister of defense for
Ukraine.
Vindman, 44, explained
during his impeachment testimony that he had been offered the position three times but
declined the position because of his loyalty to the United States. The lieutenant colonel was
born in Ukraine, but his family immigrated to the U.S. when he was a toddler.
Vindman claimed he did not know why he was offered the high ranking position of defense
minister.
"Every single time, I dismissed it. Upon returning, I notified my chain of command and the
appropriate counterintelligence folks about the offer," said Vindman, later adding, "I think it
would be a great honor, and frankly, I'm aware of service members that have left service to
help nurture the developing democracies in that part of the world."
He declined the offer and told Congress, "I'm an American. I came here when I was a toddler,
and I immediately dismissed these offers. I did not entertain them."
Vindman added that he found the offer "rather comical," saying, "I was being asked to
consider whether I would want to be the minister of defense, I did not leave the door open at
all. But it is pretty funny for a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army, which really is
not that senior, to be offered that illustrious of a position."
He explained that he had no follow-up questions about the position with his chain of
command. Vindman said he was not concerned about a "perception of a conflict of interest"
following his offer because he only valued the opinion of his American colleagues.
"Frankly, if they were concerned with me being able to continue my duties, they would have
brought that to my attention," said Vindman.
Vindman is the top Ukraine specialist on the National Security Council. He testified that he
raised concerns about President Trump's phone call with President Zelensky,
calling it "improper."
'Pushing a coup': Fellow soldiers slam Vindman for
testifying in uniform by Russ Read | November 08, 2019 03:49
PM
Print
this article S ome of
Alexander Vindman's fellow soldiers have blasted him for testifying in uniform during the
House impeachment hearings, accusing him of politicizing the military by stating personal
opinions that were highly critical of President Trump.
Vindman, 44, the National Security Council's
Ukraine director , was thrust into the political spotlight when he testified before
Congress on Oct. 29 as one of the few people who listened in on a
July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
His
appearance in uniform has been a point of contention. Military members detailed to the NSC
typically wear suits but Vindman gave his testimony in uniform, and was lauded for having been
awarded a Purple Heart for being wounded in Iraq, and a Combat Infantryman's Badge.
"This is a bad look for him to be in uniform," an active duty military officer stationed at
the Pentagon told the Washington Examiner. "He makes it look like the Army is behind
this. Like the Army is pushing a coup."
Another officer was concerned that Vindman's testimony veered too much into personal
assessment. "I don't care what he thinks, he's entitled to his opinion," the officer said. "But
it's an opinion and he should give it without the uniform."
A third officer said that Vindman's weight indicated he would be unlikely to pass the Combat
Fitness Test even though he had achieved a Ranger tab earlier in his career.
Matt Zeller, an Afghanistan veteran and fellow at the American Security Project, defended
Vindman. "I think he's a patriot, and how he's been treated is an abomination," Zeller told the
Washington Examiner . "All he is is a public servant doing his duty."
Vindman might have been required to wear his uniform, Zeller said, although where Army
regulations come down on the issue is unclear. The Army's Training and Doctrine Command did not
respond to questions from the Washington Examiner .
H.R. McMaster, who was an active duty lieutenant general in the Army during his tenure as
national security adviser, did not normally wear his uniform at the White House.
Military personnel such as Vindman detailed to the NSC operate within a unique system.
Unlike other troops who report to military commanders, military NSC staffers fall under
directors within the NSC itself. As a Ukraine expert, Vindman reports to civilian Andrew Peek,
who replaced Tim Morrison as the NSC's senior director for European and Russian affairs after
Morrison announced his departure last Wednesday, one day before he testified before the House
impeachment proceeding.
Military detailees generally are assigned to a unit within the Department of Defense for
administrative issues such as leave and pay. Performance reports, however, are handled by the
individual's boss on the NSC.
Most NSC staffers are drawn from the military and various other government agencies. They
generally are recruited via word-of-mouth, another change from typical government agencies that
are notorious for their long application processes.
The Reagan administration's NSC included Lt. Gen. Colin Powell and Lt. Col. Oliver North, .
Powell was national security adviser from 1987 to 1989 and went on to become chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State . North was on the NSC from 1981 to 1986 and
testified in uniform during the Iran-Contra hearings.
Vindman returned to work after his testimony and is expected to stay on at the NSC until his appointment ends next summer.
Rudy Giuliani Can Barely Contain Himself Over His Ukraine Findings by Tyler Durden Fri, 12/13/2019 -
17:05 0 SHARES
Rudy Giuliani is grinning like the Cheshire cat. His standard smile.
For the past several weeks, the personal attorney to President Trump has been in Ukraine,
interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence to shed light on what the Bidens were up to
during the Obama years, and get to the bottom of claims that Kiev interfered in the 2016 US
election in favor of Hillary Clinton. He has enlisted the help of former Ukrainian diplomat,
Andriy Telizhenko, to gather information from politicians and ask them to participate in a
documentary series in partnership with One America News Network (OANN) - which will make the
case for investigating the Bidens as well as Burisma Holdings - the natural gas firm which
employed the son of a sitting US Vice President in a case which reeks of textbook
corruption.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/zi2UWTO2DyY
According to the
Journal , Giuliani will present findings from his self-described "secret assignment" in a
20-page report .
Trump and Giuliani say then-Vice President Biden engaged in corruption when he called for
the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor who had investigated a Ukrainian gas company where
Hunter Biden served on the board. The Bidens deny wrongdoing, and ousting the prosecutor was
a goal at the time of the U.S. and several European countries . -
Wall Street Journal
( Note the Wall Street Journal's use of a straw man when they write: "The allegations of
Ukrainian election interference are at odds with findings by the U.S. intelligence community
that Russia was behind the election interference ."
Apparently the three journalists who collaborated on the article didn't get the memo that
two countries can meddle at the same time, nor did any of them read the January, 2017 Politico
article: Ukrainian
efforts to sabotage Trump backfire - which outlines how Ukrainian government officials
conspired with a DNC operative to hurt the Trump campaign during the 2016 election - a move
which led to the disruptive ouster of campaign chairman Paul Manafort).
Telizhenko, the former diplomat, tells the Journal that the plan for the series was
conceived during the impeachment hearings as a way for Giuliani to tell his side of the story.
The former Ukrainian diplomat flew to Washington on November 20 to film with Giuliani, while in
early December he accompanied America's Mayor on the Kiev trip - stopping in Budapest, Vienna
and Rome.
Rudy comes home
Upon his return to New York on Saturday, Giuliani says he took a call from President Trump
while his plane was still taxiing down the runway, according to the
Wall Street Journal .
" What did you get? " Trump asked. " More than you can imagine ," answered the former New
York mayor who gained notoriety in the 1980s for taking down the mob as a
then-federal prosecutor.
According to the 77-year-old Giuliani, Trump instructed him to brief Attorney General
William Barr and GOP lawmakers on his findings. Soon after, the president then told reporters
at the White House, " I hear he has found plenty ."
Rudy has been working on this project for a while. In late January, he conducted phone
interviews with former Ukrainian prosecutors Viktor Shokin and Yiury Lutsenko. On the call
was George Boyle -
Giuliani's Chief Operating Officer and Director of Investigations. Boyle started as a NYPD beat
cop in 1987, and was promoted to detective - eventually joining the Special Victims Squad. In
short, the ever-grinning Giuliani has some serious professionals working on this.
" When he believes he's right, he loves taking on fights ," said longtime Giuliani friend,
Tony Carbonetti.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
That said, Giuliani's efforts have not gone off without a hitch. In October, two associates
- Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, both of whom assisted with his Ukraine investigation, were
related in October on campaign-finance charges. Both men have pleaded not guilty, while
Giuliani denies wrongdoing and says they did not lobby him. Parnas, notably, was also on the
January call with Shokin and Lutsenko as a translator.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/tc4nQD6eiW4
In pressing ahead on Ukraine, Mr. Giuliani has replaced the translation skills of Messrs.
Parnas and Fruman with an app he downloaded that allows him to read Russian documents by
holding his phone over them . But on his recent trip, he said, "despite whatever else you can
say, I missed them." -
Wall Street Journal
Trump opponents insist Giuliani is conducting shadow foreign policy and orchestrated the
ouster of former US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch - who Ukraine's new president
Volodomyr Zelensky complained on a now-famous July 25 phone call accused of not recognizing his
authority.
In the impeachment hearings, witnesses accused Mr. Giuliani of conducting a shadow foreign
policy and orchestrating the ouster of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. He was described as
"problematic" and "disruptive" and, in testimony that cited former national security adviser
John Bolton, likened to a "hand grenade that's going to blow everybody up." Mr. Giuliani has
said he kept the State Department apprised of his efforts and that he was working at the
president's behest. -
Wall Street Journal
" Just having fun while Dems and friends try to destroy my brilliant career ," Giuliani
wrote in a text message while conducting his investigation overseas.
Never forget... Giuliani was up to his neck in the treasonous happenings on 9/11. For
that, he can NEVER be forgiven... no matter how much dirt he digs up in this inane Ukranian
circus.
Three j ournalists also wrote a WSJ piece October 22, '19; one author same as
December 13 piece. ( Identify a narrative?)
Excerpts:
" Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani have repeatedly promoted an unsubstantiated theory that Ukraine
was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee before the 2016 election, and
that a related computer server is now located there. That theory is sharply at odds with the
findings of a special counsel investigation and a 2017 U.S. intelligence community report
that found Russia was responsible for the hack and leak of Democratic emails as part of a
broader operation intended to aid Mr. Trump."... ...
... ... " Mr. Giuliani, who didn't respond to a request for comment, had for months
pressed for Ukraine to investigate issues related to the 2016 election as well as Mr. Biden,
a potential 2020 rival of Mr. Trump. As vice president under President Obama, Mr. Biden led
an anti-corruption drive in Ukraine at the same time as his son received $50,000 a month for
sitting on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, an arrangement Mr. Trump has called corrupt.
Mr. Biden and his son have denied any wrongdoing, and no evidence of wrongdoing has been
presented. "
John Glaser and Christopher Preble have written a valuable
study of the history and causes of threat inflation. Here is their conclusion:
If war is the health of the state, so is its close cousin, fear. America's foreign policy
in the 21st century serves as compelling evidence of that. Arguably the most important task,
for those who oppose America's apparently constant state of war, is to correct the threat
inflation that pervades national security discourse. When Americans and their policymakers
understand that the United States is fundamentally secure, U.S. military activism can be
reined in, and U.S. foreign policy can be reset accordingly.
Threat inflation is how American politicians and policymakers manipulate public opinion and
stifle foreign policy dissent. When hawks engage in threat inflation, they never pay a
political price for sounding false alarms, no matter how ridiculous or over-the-top their
warnings may be. They have created their own ecosystem of think tanks and magazines over the
decades to ensure that there are ready-made platforms and audiences for promoting their
fictions. This necessarily warps every policy debate as one side is permitted to indulge in the
most baseless speculation and fear-mongering, and in order to be taken "seriously" the skeptics
often feel compelled to pay lip service to the "threat" that has been wildly blown out of
proportion. In many cases, the threat is not just inflated but invented out of nothing. For
example, Iran does not pose a threat to the United States, but it is routinely cited as one of
the most significant threats that the U.S. faces. That has nothing to do with an objective
assessment of Iranian capabilities or intentions, and it is driven pretty much entirely by a
propaganda script that most politicians and policymakers recite on a regular basis. Take Iran's
missile program, for example. As John Allen Gay explains in a recent
article , Iran's missile program is primarily defensive in nature:
The reality is they're not very useful for going on offense. Quite the opposite: they're a
primarily defensive tool -- and an important one that Iran fears giving up. As the new
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report entitled "Iran Military Power" points out, "Iran's
ballistic missiles constitute a primary component of its strategic deterrent. Lacking a
modern air force, Iran has embraced ballistic missiles as a long-range strike capability to
dissuade its adversaries in the region -- particularly the United States, Israel, and Saudi
Arabia -- from attacking Iran."
Iran's missile force is in fact a product of Iranian weakness, not Iranian strength.
Iran hawks need to portray Iran's missile program inaccurately as part of their larger
campaign to exaggerate Iranian power and justify their own aggressive policies. If Iran hawks
acknowledged that Iran's missiles are their deterrent against attacks from other states,
including our government, it would undercut the rest of their fear-mongering.
Glaser and Preble identify five main sources of threat inflation in the U.S.: 1) expansive
overseas U.S. commitments require an exaggerated justification to make those commitments seem
necessary for our security; 2) decades of pursuing expansive foreign policy goals have created
a class dedicated to providing those justifications and creating the myths that sustain support
for the current strategy; 3) there are vested interests that benefit from expansive foreign
policy and seek to perpetuate it; 4) a bias in our political system in favor of hawks gives
another advantage to fear-mongers; 5) media sensationalism exaggerates dangers from foreign
threats and stokes public fear. To those I would add at least one more: threat inflation
thrives on the public's ignorance of other countries. When Americans know little or nothing
about another country beyond what they hear from the fear-mongers, it is much easier to
convince them that a foreign government is irrational and undeterrable or that weak
authoritarian regimes on the far side of the world are an intolerable danger.
Threat inflation advances with the inflation of U.S. interests. The two feed off of each
other. When far-flung crises and conflicts are treated as if they are of vital importance to
U.S. security, every minor threat to some other country is transformed into an intolerable
menace to America. The U.S. is extremely secure from foreign threats, but we are told that the
U.S. faces myriad threats because our leaders try to make other countries' internal problems
seem essential to our national security. Ukraine is at most a peripheral interest of the U.S.,
but to justify the policy of arming Ukraine we are told by the more
unhinged supporters that this is necessary to make sure that we don't have to fight Russia
"over here." Because the U.S. has so few real interests in most of the world's conflicts,
interventionists have to exaggerate what the U.S. has at stake in order to sell otherwise very
questionable and reckless policies. That is usually when we get appeals to showing "leadership"
and preserving "credibility," because even the interventionists struggle to identify why the
U.S. needs to be involved in some of these conflicts. The continued pursuit of global
"leadership" is itself an invitation to endless threat inflation, because almost anything
anywhere in the world can be construed as a threat to that "leadership" if one is so inclined.
To understand just how secure the U.S. really is, we need to give up on the costly ambition of
"leading" the world.
Threat inflation is one of the biggest and most enduring threats to U.S. security, because
it repeatedly drives the U.S. to take costly and dangerous actions and to spend exorbitant
amounts on unnecessary wars and weapons. We imagine bogeymen that we need to fight, and we
waste decades and trillions of dollars in futile and avoidable conflicts, and in the end we are
left poorer, weaker, and less secure than we were before.
Daniel
Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New
York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review ,
Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and
Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the
University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
And behind Brennan we can can see the Nobel Peace Price winner.
Notable quotes:
"... A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the current director of the CIA. ..."
"... One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign. ..."
"... The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and on everyone they communicated with. ..."
"... The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later 'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were no more than unconfirmed rumors. ..."
"... That the dossier was mere dreck was quite obvious to any sober person who read it when it was first published ..."
"... That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level", face-to-face between the two agency chiefs. ..."
"... (This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our work .) ..."
"... Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan, Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new McCarthyism. ..."
"... "Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted." ..."
"... ... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate ... ..."
"... It's Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice (to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an inevitability as the US elite had assumed. ..."
"... Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone? Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public (meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story). ..."
"... Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier. Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others. ..."
"... physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the bogus charges. IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns. ..."
"... So Horowitz was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice. ..."
When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the relevant powers
launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump.
The ultimate aim of the cabal is to kick him out of office and have a reliable
replacement, like the Vice-President elect Pence, take over. Should that not be possible
it is hoped that the delegitimization will make it impossible for Trump to change major
policy trajectories especially in foreign policy. A main issue here is the reorientation of
the U.S. military complex and its NATO proxies from the war of terror towards a direct
confrontation with main powers like Russia and China.
...
A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the
current director of the CIA.
One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged
Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign.
Horowitz finds that the FBI was within the law when it opened the investigation but that the
FBI's applications to the FISA court, which decides if the FBI can spy on someone's
communications, were based on lies and utterly flawed.
Your host unfortunately lacked the time so far to read more than the executive summary. But
others have pointed out some essential findings.
If the report released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz
constitutes a "clearing" of the FBI, never clear me of anything. ...
Much of the press is concentrating on Horowitz's conclusion that there was no evidence of
"political bias or improper motivation" in the FBI's probe of Donald Trump's Russia contacts,
an investigation Horowitz says the bureau had "authorized purpose" to conduct.
...
However, Horowitz describes at great length an FBI whose "serious" procedural problems and
omissions of "significant information" in pursuit of surveillance authority all fell in the
direction of expanding the unprecedented investigation of a presidential candidate (later, a
president).
...
There are too many to list in one column, but the Horowitz report show years of breathless
headlines were wrong. Some key points:
The so-called "Steele dossier" was, actually, crucial to the FBI's decision to seek secret
surveillance of Page. ...
...
The "Steele dossier" was "Internet rumor," and corroboration for the pee tape story was
"zero." ...
Appendix 1 identifies the total violations by the FBI of the so-called Woods Procedures, the
process by which the bureau verifies information and assures the FISA court its evidence is
true.
The Appendix identifies a total of 51 Woods procedure violations from the FISA application
the FBI submitted to the court authorizing surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter
Page starting in October 2016.
A whopping nine of those violations fell into the category called: "Supporting document
shows that the factual assertion is inaccurate."
For those who don't speak IG parlance, it means the FBI made nine false assertions to the
FISA court. In short, what the bureau said was contradicted by the evidence in its official
file.
The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not
mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and
on everyone they communicated with.
The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had
talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later
'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were
no more than unconfirmed rumors.
The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous compatriot that two anonymous
sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claimed to have heard somewhere
that something happened in the Kremlin.
They assert that Trump was supported and directed by Putin himself five years ago while
even a year ago no one would have bet a penny on Trump gaining any political significant
position or even the presidency.
It is now claimed that the FBI is exculpated because the Horowitz report did not find
"political bias or improper motivation". But that omits the fact that at least four high
ranking people in the FBI and Justice Department who were involved in the case were found to be
politically
biased and were removed from their positions.
It also omits that the scope of Horowitz's investigation was limited to the Justice
Department. He was not able to investigate the CIA and its former director John Brennan who was
alleging Russia-Trump connections months before the FBI investigation started:
Contrary to a general impression that the FBI launched the Trump-Russia conspiracy probe,
Brennan pushed it to the bureau – breaking with CIA tradition by intruding into
domestic politics: the 2016 presidential election. He also supplied suggestive but ultimately
false information to counterintelligence investigators and other U.S. officials.
The current CIA director Gina Haspel was CIA station chief in London during that time and
while several of the entrapment attempts of Trump campaign staff by the FBI investigation
happened. Horowitz spoke with neither of them.
The current Horowitz Report, read alongside his previous report on how the FBI played inside
the 2016 election vis-a-vis Clinton, should leave no doubt that the Bureau tried to influence
the election of a president and then delegitimize him when he won. It wasn't the Russians; it
was us.
That is correct, but the whole conspiracy was even deeper. It was not the FBI which
initiated the case.
My hunch is still that the FBI investigation was a case of parallel construction which is often
used to build a legitimate case after a suspicion was found by illegitimate means. In this case
it was John Brennan who in early 2016 contacted the head of the British GCHQ electronic
interception service and asked him to spy on the Trump campaign. GHCQ then claimed that
something was found that was deemed
suspicious :
That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief
John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level",
face-to-face between the two agency chiefs.
The FBI was tipped off on the issue and on July 31 2016 started an investigation to
construct a parallel legal case. It send out British and U.S. agents to entrap Trump campaign
members. It used the obviously fake Steele dossier to gain FISA court judgments that allowed it
to spy on the campaign. Downing Street
was informed throughout the whole affair. A day after Trump's inauguration the UK's then
Prime Minister Theresa May
fired GHCQ chief Robert Hannigan.
One still open question is to what extend then President Barack Obama was involved in the
affair.
There is another ongoing investigation by U.S. Prosecutor John Durham. That investigation is
not limited to the Justice Department but will involve all agencies and domestic as well as
foreign sources. Durham has the legal rights to declassify whatever is needed and he can indict
persons should he find that they committed a crime. His report will hopefully go much deeper
than the already horrendous stuff Horowitz delivered.
(This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our
work .)
Posted by b on December 11, 2019 at 16:16 UTC |
Permalink
Anyone taking bets on Durham/Barr making indictments in this mess? My guess is a whole lot of
horse trading is going on behind the scenes now, as in, "I'll trade you a censure for all
potential indictments going down the memory hole."
Typical dog and pony show which will change nothing relating to interventionist foreign
policy and the new cold war with Russia. Too many saw benefits from the corruption in Ukraine
to dig deep there; the Bidens were just the most blatant, Lindsey Graham and others from both
parties were involved so don't expect much from the Senate hearings. The bipartisan major
goals are a fait accompli; universal acceptance that Russia worked to undermine our elections
(and to destroy our "Democracy") and are thus an enemy we must fight, and it's universally
accepted by all that we MUST provide Ukraine with Javelin missiles and other lethal aid to
fight "Russian Aggression" (with little mention that even Obama balked at that reckless
option). All of these proceedings are great distractions, but the weapons of war will not be
diminished.
Unfortuneately, few will question the findings of these investigations or consider the
possibility that the investigations themselves are misdirection/cover-up.
IMO the Lavrov-Pompeo
presser is notable mostly for Lavrov's discussion of Russiagate (about 6 minutes in).
Lavrov tells us that the Russian's repeatedly sought to clarify their noninterference by
publishing correspondence - which the Trump Administration didn't respond to. And he actual
mentions McCarthyism!
Wait, wot?
Yeah, during the worst of the Russiagate accusations, Trump wouldn't do things that
would've helped to prove that Russiagate was a farce!!
So, during the election, Trump called on Putin to publish Hillary's emails (the very act
of making such a request is likely illegal because at the time it was known that her emails
contained highly classified info) but he wouldn't accept Russia's publication of
exculpatory info about Russiagate?!?!
This would cause cognitive dissonance galore in an Americans that hear it - so one can
be sure that it will not be reported.
Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan,
Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new
McCarthyism.
Meanwhile in bizarroland (aka USA), Barr says Russiagate is a fantasy based on FBI "bad
faith" - yet Pompeo still presses on with the "Russia meddled" bullshit.
thanks b... i like your example in the comment - ''those who thought otherwise should
question their judgment''.. good example!
i am a bit concerned like @ 2 casey, that most of this is going to go down the memory hole
and there will be that made in america stamp on it - ''no accountability''... i wish i was
wrong, but getting worked up at the idea anyone is going to be held accountable for any
actions of the usa, or the insiders playing the usa, is clearly a fools game at this point..
all i mostly see is the needed collapse and waiting for that to happen..
Thanks for that, there are definitely cracks in the armor and we should promote that
narrative as you do in your link. Tulsi Gabbard has also expanded the awareness, hopefully
she will make the upcoming debates despite strong efforts to silence her. I'll try more to
focus on the positive!
@ 6 jr.. there is a press release on all what was said
here for anyone interested..
lavrov quote and etc. etc.. "We suggested to our colleagues that in order to dispel all
suspicions that are baseless, let us publish this closed-channel correspondence starting from
October 2016 till November 2017 so it would all become very clear to many people. However,
regrettably, this administration refused to do so. But I'd like to repeat once again we are
prepared to do that, and to publish the correspondence that took place through that channel
would clear many matters up, I believe. Nevertheless, we hope that the turbulence that
appeared out of thin air will die down, just like in 1950s McCarthyism came to naught, and
there'll be an opportunity to go back to a more constructive cooperation."
I continue to believe that the FBI and Horowitz perjured themselves
in the FISA report. To correct a mistake in a previous post I made, I
believe they lied when the claimed the Steele Dossier was not a
predicate for opening crossfire hurricane. How can the Steele dossier
not be instrumental in the opening of the investigation when bruce ohr's
wife nellie ohr was working at fusion gps when bruce ohr met with
steele
to discuss the dirty dossier.
In other words, the FBI
was concocting Operation Crossfire Hurricane prior to the time they had
any knowledge of the phony Papadopoulus predicate that the russians were proferring
the clinton emails to the trump campaign.
The FISA report claim that Operation Crossfire
Hurricane was predicated solely on the Papadopolous allegations is therefore a lie. There
was, in fact, no real predicate for Operation Crossfire Hurricane. The predications
cited were all fictions and inventions fabricated in a conspiracy between MI6(the FFC or
friendly foreign country cited in the Horowitz report), the
DOJ and the FBI. Operation Crossfire Hurricane was a massive Psyop from its inception.
What major publications have picked up this info from the State Dept PR? Which of them are
questioning why Trump didn't agree to let the Russians publish the exonerating information?
And how many of those are linking this strange fact to other strange facts and thus raising
troubling questions about the 2016 election?
<> <> <> <> <> <>
It's not just that Trump refused to publish exculpatory material. Anyone that's been
reading my comments (and/or my blog) knows that Trump also:
- hired Manafort - whose work for pro-Russian candidates in Ukraine had drawn the ire of
CIA - despite Manafort's having no recent experience with US elections;
- helped Pelosi to be elected Speaker of the House by inviting her to attend a White
House meeting about his border wall (along with Chuck Schumer) prior to the House vote to
elect a Speaker.
- initiated Ukrainegate by talking with Ukraine's President about investigating an
announced candidate - he didn't have to do this(!) he could've let subordinates work
behind the scenes .
And then there's a set of suspicious activity that is difficult to explain, such as: ...
- Kissinger's having called for MAGA in August 2014 (Trump announced his campaign 10
months later and he was the ONLY MAGA candidate and the ONLY populist in the Republican
primary) ;
- London as a nexus for the US 2016 campaign (Cambridge Analytica; GPS Fusion;
Halper, etc.) ;
- Hillary's making mistakes in the 2016 campaign that no seasoned politician would
make;
- the settling of scores via entrapments of Flynn, Manafort, and Wikileaks/Assange
(painted as a hostile intelligence agency and Russian agent).
All of these and more support the conclusion that CIA-MI6 elected MAGA Trump and initiated
Russiagate.
The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous asserted compatriot what two
anonymous sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claim to have heard
somewhere that something happened in the Kremlin. <-- Perhaps it is too much to add that
the entire conversation happen in a pub, like an eyewitness account of a trout caught by an
angler that was larger than a tiger shark [the trout was so large, not the angler].
I am a great fan of Dmitri Orlov and have just read a large portion of his linked
post.
What I do not see Orlov doing is taking into account--in his takedown of "scientific"
models---evidence of global warming/change such as *actual* observations of *actual, current*
phenomena that are being measured today, such as the condition of the world's coral reefs;
the rate of melting of permafrost and release of methane gas; the melting of Greenland (and
other) glaciers and release of fresh water into the oceans; acidification of oceans; and
quite a lot of evidence for sea level rise, such as saltwater intrusion into freshwater
swamps, aquifers, etc.
More can be gleaned by the manner in which BigLie Media spin the investigation's results. At
The Hill , Jonathon Turley makes that clear in the first paragraph:
"The analysis of the report by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz
greatly depends, as is often the case, on which cable news channel you watch. Indeed, many
people might be excused for concluding that Horowitz spent 476 pages to primarily conclude
one thing, which is that the Justice Department acted within its guidelines in starting its
investigation into the 2016 campaign of President Trump."
The further he goes the worse it gets for the Ds. And he's 100% correct about the biases
present in reporting about the Report.
Remarks made by Lavrov at the presser were likely done prior to anyone from Russia's
delegation having digested any of the Report. What I found important was the following
revelation by Lavrov:
"Let me remind you that at the time of the first statements on this topic, which was on
the eve of the 2016 US presidential election, we used the communications channel that linked
back then Moscow and the Obama administration in Washington to ask our US partners on
numerous occasions whether these allegations that emerged in October 2016 and persisted until
Donald Trump's inauguration could be addressed. The reply never came. There was no
response whatsoever to all our proposals when we said: look, if you suspect us, let's sit
down and talk, just put your facts on the table. All this continued after President Trump's
inauguration and the appointment of a new administration. We proposed releasing the
correspondence through this closed communications channel for the period from October 2016
until January 2017 in order to dispel all this groundless suspicion. This would have
clarified the situation for many. Unfortunately, this time it was the current administration
that refused to do so. Let me reiterate that we are ready to disclose to the public the
exchanges we had through this channel . I think that this would set many things straight.
Nevertheless we expect the turbulence that appeared out of thin air to calm down little by
little, just as McCarthyism waned in the 1950s, so that we can place our cooperation on a
more constructive footing." [My Emphasis]
Lavrov on Mueller Report: "It contains no confirmation of any collusion." End of story.
But we do have all this compiled evidence within our communications we're ready to publish is
the USA
agrees.
The Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) organization has yet to publish anything
about the report. However, Matt Taibbi often writes for that outlet, so his reporting at
Rolling Stone ought to be seen as a proxy FAIR report.
Now that we know Carter Page was working for the CIA as an informant in 2016, is it
reasonable to speculate that Page was planted in the Trump campaign by the CIA?
The Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Micheal Horowitz's report on the move to
delegitimize the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is clear proof of the massive rot
that lies at the heart of the US' political system. If this matter is whitewashed over by the
MSM, then one more step will have been taken to a violent and bloody revolution in the US of
A.
By now Steele's credibility is zero. Time to revisit Steele's involvement with the debunked
"Russia bought the soccer World Champion games", the Litvinenko polonium poisening and the
Skripal novichok poisening. The timing of the Skripal matter deserves some scrutiny in
relation to Skripal possibly being Steele's source for the infamous Trump dossier. There
might be a motive hidden there.
Thank you for posting Lavrov's words. Between those words and the IG report the kabuki
farce is revealed. Why was Trump ignoring the Russian offer you might ask. Because it suited
him to have this nonsense dominate the news cycle, you might conclude. Trump and Comey and
Brennan deserve each other.
just like 9-11... this is an inside job... does anyone really think the truth is going to
come to light in any of it?? i'm still with @ 2 caseys view...
Thanks for your reply! Yes, agreed, and I'd add Obama and Clinton.
Lavrov also held another presser at the conclusion of his visit that provides additional
info not covered in the first. The following is one I thought important:
"Question: The day before, US Congress agreed on a draft military budget, which includes
possible sanctions against Nord Stream-2 and Turkish Stream. Have you covered this topic? The
Congress sounds very determined. How seriously will the new restrictions affect the
completion of our projects?
"Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our
relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I
mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you
that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted."
I must emphatically agree with Lavrov's opinion and was very pleased he answered
forthrightly. What seems quite clear is the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by
Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate, with bipartisan Congressional backing.
That she lost didn't stop the anti-Russian wheel from being turned. So, logic tells us to
discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've written here why I think
that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance over the
planet and its people regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance made
reality by that policy goal. That a supermajority in Congress remain deluded is clearly a
huge problem, and those continuing to vote for the War Budget need to be removed.
b posted, in part;"When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the
relevant powers launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump."
It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry
life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO.
Are you aware of any means by which a member of congress or of a congressional committee can
be impeached or otherwise censured for the misconduct of official duties? That would at least
be Schiff...
Posted by: Paul Damascene | Dec 11 2019 21:24 utc |
32
@ 31 john.. i didn't know i had to read the orlov article to say what i did to you!! your
post @11 never make any internet link to orlov... what am i missing? does this mean i can
only speak with you after i have read another orlov article? lol...
"It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry
life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO."--ben @28
Ah, but that would be legitimate deligitimization, like attacking his actual policies.
Those are rocks that would break the Democrats' own windows as well as Trump's.
1. Senate Foreign Relations Comm passed Turkey sanctions bill
2. Pentagon Chief warned Turkey moving away NATO
3. U.S. lawmakers introduce legislation to curb Turkey's nuclear weapon obtainment"
Finally, the pretense of being nice to Turkey has come to an end. It will now intensify
its looking East, and pursue its national interests. IMO, the Eastern Med's energy issues
will now become a major headache.
karlof @ 29: The head Dems know their pushing the " Russia did it"meme is weak, but the
PTB
insist on it, to keep the MIC funds flowing.
The "no-brainer" charges should be; "Obstruction" and "Emoluments" violations. Charges the
public can grasp.
What happens if you, or any average person, ignores a summons to appear? They are
arrested.
Funneling govt. funds for personal gain is a violation of law, if you are POTUS.
These are violations average Americans can grasp, not the current circus of he said, she
said, going on in D.C. lately.
Guess my point is, this hearings are built to fail, because most of our so-called
leaders
like things the way they are. The rape of the workings classes will continue.
Yes. The impeachment process is the same as for Trump. Censuring is much easier but doubt
it will occur as too many are deserving. We're seeing the reason Congressional elections are
held every two years--vote 'em out if they're no good!
... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for
Clinton to escalate ...
I don't agree that the baton would be passed to Clinton. The Deep State uses the two-party
system as a device. It's not tied to partisan concerns. If the Deep State and the
establishment really wanted Clinton elected, they would've made that happen. Few expected
Trump to win and few would've been outraged if he had lost. Yet he won. Against all odds. Furthermore, Clinton wasn't the MAGA candidate as called for by Kissinger - Trump was. And
he was from the beginning of his candidacy.
Russiagate was based on suspicions of a populist that was compromised by Russia.
Hillary has too much baggage to play populist or nationalist - including Bill's involvement
with Epstein.
Also, you're forgetting the set ups of Manafort, Flynn, and Wikileaks/Assange - which were
important parts of Russiagate and also a convenient way of settling scores. These set-ups
required the Russiagate-tainted candidate (Trump) to win.
And Trump's beating Hillary makes him the classic come-from-behind hero - giving Trump a
certain legitimacy that an establishment candidate wouldn't have. That's important when
contemplating taking the country to war in the near future.
It's strange to me that people can think that Hillary was the 'chosen candidate', and be
OK with that but find a possible selection of a different candidate (Trump, as it turns out)
to be outrageous and inconceivable.
=
... with bipartisan Congressional backing . That she lost didn't stop the
anti-Russian wheel from being turned.
Since the Deep State and the Establishment desired an effort to restore the Empire, they
would turn to whomever could most effectively accomplish that task.
Once again: It didn't have to be Hillary that was selected. In fact, for many reasons
(that I've previously expressed) Hillary would have been a poor choice.
=
So, logic tells us to discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've
written here why I think that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full
Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people ...
FSD is US Mil policy, not a political goal. It states that US Mil will strive to have
superiority in weapons and capability in every sphere of combat.
Politically, FSD is just one of several means to an end. IMO that end is the maintenance
and expansion of the Anglo-Zionist Empire (aka New World Order).
Also, your dominance theory doesn't answer the question of WHY NOW? (more on that
below)
... regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance ...
Firstly, US Deep State believes that it is possible. And I personally don't buy the notion
that Russia and China are fated to prevail. If that were obvious, then the moa bar would have
no patrons.
Secondly (and again), WHY NOW? The Sino-Russo Alliance was long in the making. Why did USA
suddenly take note?
It's
Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger
calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing
immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice
(to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an
inevitability as the US elite had assumed.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
I've written many times of Kissinger's Op-Ed and of indications that the Deep State
selected MAGA Trump to be President while also initiating a new McCarthyism. Why is it STILL
so difficult to believe a theory that makes so much sense?
Yes, the status quo is very generous to the Current Oligarchy and its tools, but not so
for the vast public majority which is clamoring for change. IMO, much can be learned from the
UK election tomorrow, of which there's been very little discussion here despite its
importance. I suggest following the very important developments from the past few days at
Criag Murray's Twitter and
at
his website , the linked article being a scoop of sorts.
Also harder to follow but important as well are ballot initiatives within the states.
This site
has current listing . I just looked over those for California where there are a few good
ones, but the threshold for signatures is getting higher, close to one million are now needed
in CA.
Lavrov's comments about the offers to open up normally closed communications really only
highlight two obvious issues:
The previous US Administration had no interest in shutting off the oxygen to the "Trump =
Moscow's Man" campaign; and
The current US Administration cannot afford to be perceived as receiving help in this matter
from the country he is alleged to be beholden to for his election.
With only 9% approval, it ought to be easy to toss out most Congresscritters, excepting
that part of the Senate not up for reelection.
You'd think so, but somehow the numbers pretty much reverse when these same people
consider their own rep, and the incumbency reelection rate is shockingly high (haven't
looked recently but IIRC it has hovered around 90% for decades). Apparently it is amazingly
easy to convince the masses that their guy is the one good apple in the bunch.
Jon Schwartz
reminds me why I don't stop and peruse magazine stands anymore. Seeing the words and this
picture would've sparked lots of unpleasant language:
"The best part of Michelle Obama explaining she shares the same values as George W. Bush
is she was being interviewed on network TV by Bush's daughter. There's nothing more American
than our ruling class making us watch them discuss how great they all are."
And the escalation wasn't rigged for Clinton to initiate--yeah, sure, whatever the rabbit
says.
Until there is some comparison of how the FISA court usually works, none of this chatter
means a thing. Violations of Woods procedures and assertions not supported by documents are
SOP. The FISA court is always a joke.
Delgeitimizing Trump, reversing the election, all simple-minded drviel, as only nitwits
see Trump as anything but the loser.
Skripal knows something that US-UK either 1) don't want the Russians to know OR 2) don't
want ANYONE to know.
What could that be? 1) That Steele dossier is bullshit? We know that. 2) That Steele
dossier was meant to be bullshit ? Well, that raises a whole host of questions,
doesn't it?
Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone?
Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past
working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public
(meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story).
Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written
articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier.
Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others.
The Afghanistan report outlines a *massive fraud*. $14 billion/month, 90% of the world's
opium, no "progress", oh, and lying to Congress for two decades.
physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the
weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the
bogus charges. IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the
UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns.
Fox News, now: Biden blames staff, says nobody 'warned' him son's Ukraine job could raise
conflict. In a TV comedy Seinfeld, one of the main characters, George, is a compulsive liar with a
knack of getting in trouble. Sometimes he has a job. Final scene of one of those jobs:
Boss: "You have been seen after hours making sex with the cleaning lady on the top of your
desk."
George (after a measured look at his boss): "If I was only told that this kind of things
is being frown upon..." [and she had cleaned the desk both before AND after!]
I have theory about why Horowitz did not bias in the FBI. The
definition of bias is to harbor a deeply negative feeling that
clouds one's judgement about a person or subject. However, the
conspirators' judgement was not clouded in this case. Their
negative feelings focused their intent to destroy the object of
their feeling. The precise term for this is malice.
So Horowitz
was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might
have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice.
Re Really?? | Dec 11 2019 18:31 utc | 14 and AshenLight | Dec 11 2019 19:36 utc | 19
I agree with you. Orlov is a brilliant, insightful analyst, who is also very funny. But he
is off the mark with his dismissal of global warming and also with his endorsement of nuclear
power. The immense amounts of waste from uranium mining all the way to hundreds of thousands
of tons of high-level waste in spent fuel pools pose a huge threat to current and future
generations . . . like the next 3000 generations of humans (and all other forms of life) that
will have to deal with this. Mankind has never built anything that has lasted a fraction of
the 100,000 years required for the isolation of high-level wastes from the biosphere. Take a
look at Into
Eternity which is a great documentary on the disposal of nuclear waste in Finland.
Orlov's analysis is superficial, unfortunately, in these areas.
This deal confirms the hypothesis that the DNC is fighting a "war on two fronts":
one against Trump and another against the socialist faction of its own party.
Notable quotes:
"... Professor Turley correctly points out that there are several other serious issues over which Trump could (and should) probably be impeached. So why did House Speaker Pelosi allow only such a narrow and weak impeachment resolution? The text of the impeachment resolution is currently in the Judiciary Committee where it will be discussed today. The language may still get sharpened a bit but there will be no additions to its core. ..."
"... The Senate could interrupt the campaigning of several sitting Senators who run in the primaries to stand as the Democratic presidential candidate. It could call Joe and Hunter Biden and the 'whistleblower' as witnesses. It could dig deeper into Russia-gate. The risk for the Democrats during this process would be enormous. ..."
"... The piece goes on to say that the Republicans allegedly fear that they may not have the votes to call witnesses. That is of course nonsense. The Republicans have 53 Senate seats and the Democrats have 47. And digging into the sleaze of Joe Biden would surely bring additional voter support and not risk any Senate seats. ..."
"... The only reason why the Senate will go the soft way and just vote the impeachment down is because a deal was made between Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi. The deal prevented an extensive impeachment inquiry and trial that could have hurt both sides with uncertain outcome. ..."
"... That a deal was made explains why Pelosi has chosen impeachment and not censure even as polls were showing opposition to impeachment. It explains why she allowed only a narrow resolution based on weak evidence. It explains why the House agreed to Trump's ginormous defense budget in the same week that it produced an impeachment resolution against him. It also guarantees that there would be no deeper digging by Democrats against Trump. It guarantees the he will under no circumstances be found guilty and impeached. ..."
"... Both sides can live with the results of this narrow process. The Democrats demonstrate to their core constituency that they are willing to take on Trump. The Republicans show that they stand with their president and against the lame accusations. ..."
"... my hunch is that he is in on the deal. The narrowness of the impeachment resolution prevents that some other dirty deals by him might come to light. It makes another real impeachment process more unlikely. It guarantees his political survival. ..."
"... So, after indulging her caucus, Pelosi has thus cut a deal to make sure it ends quickly. I think the double-dealing is harming her health, both physical and mental. ..."
"... I don't think McConnell wants to help Trump win re-election and a drawn out impeachment trial will just be more free campaign time on the TV for Trump. Both parties need an establishment president in 2020, a short trial is the least shitty option for the establishment. ..."
"... The "political circus" is ongoing like some crazed Broadway production for 3+ years already and destined for more. That genuine articles of impeachment that ought to gain a conviction weren't employed is glaringly obvious to those few patriots that are watching. But the Congressional insanity continues as noted in my other comments made today. ..."
"... The average Republican in the Senate still does not like DJT. The average Republican in the Senate does not like where the DJT-phenomenon is leading the country (into the light) and therefore prefers a course of action to not only minimize the gain that POTUS could incur as a result of a full-blown impeachment, but also minimizes the damage to Democrats and their constituents that are still littered with true-believers suffering from massive TDS. ..."
"... he Repub decision for an expedited impeachment benefits everyone, including Biden, except Trump! ..."
"... Biden is still the front-runner (to my great surprise). A show in the senate could sink him, and then someone else would be nominated. Someone stronger, perhaps. Thus, tactically it might make sense to let Biden get the nomination, and then attack him with full force... ..."
"... If Biden was disposable, the impeachment would go on in its full or there would be simply a censure. The reason the DNC is going so far to save Joe Biden is because centrism is in survival mode. ..."
"... Yep, and not just centrism, but the whole neo-liberal philosophy. Not to worry though, big organised $ will win the day. ..."
"... ...another reason might be that a lot of politicians from both parties are so corrupt that going after Biden could open a flood of scandals. ..."
"... I'm sure when Biden said "Lindsey [Graham] is about to go down in a way that I think he's going to regret his whole life" he meant something. They're all in the same boat. ..."
The Impeachment Deal Between The House And The Senate
Two weeks ago we analyzed the consequences of an impeachment process of President Donal
Trump. We found that the Democrats would lose by impeaching him and would therefore
likely censure him instead . We were wrong. A week later Pelosi announced
to proceed with impeachment.
Only today did I understand where I was wrong and what had since happened. Let me walk you
through it.
The earlier conclusion was based on this table of possible outcomes of an impeachment
resolution:
If more Democratic swing-state representatives defect from the impeachment camp, which
seems likely, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have a big problem. How can she proceed?
If the House votes down impeachment Donald Trump wins.
If the House holds no vote on the issue Donald Trump wins.
If the House votes for censure, Donald Trump will have won on points and the issue will
be over.
If the House votes for impeachment the case goes to the Senate for trial.
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment.
Trump wins.
It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the
end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
Should the House vote for impeachment the Senate is likely to go the second path.
Looking at the choices it is quite curious why Pelosi took that decision and there has been
so far no in-depth explanation for it.
The rather short
House Resolution (also
here ) Pelosi let pass has only two articles of impeachment of Trump. The issues over which
he is supposed to be impeached for are
very limited :
Democratic leaders say Trump put his political interests above those of the nation when he
asked Ukraine to investigate his rivals, including Democrat Joe Biden, and then withheld $400
million in military aid as the U.S. ally faced an aggressive Russia.
They say he then obstructed Congress by stonewalling the House investigation.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky himself said that he did not know that Trump withheld
the $400 million for Ukraine when he had the phone call with the president in which Trump asked
him to dig into the Burisma/Biden affair. The request itself is legitimate as Biden has lots of
dirt in Ukraine. But there was no quid-quo-pro and no bribery, at least not in the phone call
the CIA 'whistleblower' and some of the witnesses complained about. Where then is the evidence
that Trump abused his power?
The obstruction of Congress accusation is equally weak. Trump had rejected the House
subpoenas to his staff because he wanted a judicial review of their legality. They might indeed
infringe on certain presidential privileges. The court process would take several months but
the Democrats simply do not want to wait that long. So who is really obstructing the legal
process in this?
Law professor Jonathan Turley, who is not a Trump fan and had testified in front of the
House Judiciary Committee, finds both points the Democrats make extremely week :
For three years, the same Democratic leadership told the public that a variety of criminal
and impeachable acts were proven in the Mueller investigation. None of those crimes are now
part of this impeachment.
Why? Because it would have been too easy an impeachment? Hardly.
Instead, the House will go forward on the only two plausible grounds that I outlined in my
testimony - abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Unlike the other claims, the problem
is not with the legal basis for such impeachable offences but the evidentiary record.
This record remains both incomplete and conflicted. The Democrats have insisted on
impeaching by Christmas rather than build a record to support such charges.
...
This is now the fastest investigation with the thinnest record supporting the narrowest
impeachment in modern history.
...
The Democrats just gave Trump the best Christmas gift he could hope for under these two
circumstances ...
Professor Turley correctly points out that there are several other serious issues over which
Trump could (and should) probably be impeached. So why did House Speaker Pelosi allow only such a narrow and weak impeachment
resolution? The text of the impeachment resolution is currently in the Judiciary Committee where it will
be discussed today. The language may still get sharpened a bit
but there will be no additions to its core.
The House will then vote on it within the next week. The Senate will launch the impeachment
trial in January.
Which brings me back to the possible outcomes table:
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment.
Trump wins.
It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the
end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
The Senate could interrupt the campaigning of several sitting Senators who run in the
primaries to stand as the Democratic presidential candidate. It could call Joe and Hunter Biden
and the 'whistleblower' as witnesses. It could dig deeper into Russia-gate. The risk for the
Democrats during this process would be enormous.
But Pelosi still took that way and allowed for only a very weak impeachment resolutions. That led me to assume that a deal was made that allowed Pelosi to go that way. But there was
no sign that such a deal was made. Only today do we get the confirmation, as open as we will ever get it, that a deal has
indeed been made.
Senate Republicans are coalescing around a strategy of holding a short impeachment trial
early next year that would include no witnesses , a plan that could clash with President
Trump's desire to stage a public defense of his actions toward Ukraine that would include
testimony the White House believes would damage its political rivals.
Several GOP senators on Wednesday said it would be better to limit the trial and quickly
vote to acquit Trump, rather than engage in what could become a political circus.
"I would say I don't think the appetite is real high for turning this into a prolonged
spectacle," Senate Majority Whip John Thune (S.D.), the chamber's second-ranking
Republican, told The Washington Post on Wednesday when asked whether Trump will get the
witnesses he wants in an impeachment trial.
...
Most notably, a quick, clean trial is broadly perceived to be the preference of Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) , who wants to minimize political distractions in an
election year during which Republicans will be working to protect their slim majority in the
chamber.
The piece goes on to say that the Republicans allegedly fear that they may not have the
votes to call witnesses. That is of course nonsense. The Republicans have 53 Senate seats and
the Democrats have 47. And digging into the sleaze of Joe Biden would surely bring additional
voter support and not risk any Senate seats.
The only reason why the Senate will go the soft way and just vote the impeachment down is
because a deal was made between Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi. The deal prevented an extensive impeachment inquiry and trial that could have hurt both
sides with uncertain outcome.
The narrowness and weakness of the impeachment resolution that can not hurt the president
was in exchange for a no-fuzz process in the Senate that will not dig into Biden and will not
hurt the Democrats during next year's election.
That a deal was made explains why Pelosi has chosen impeachment and not censure even as
polls were showing opposition to impeachment. It explains why she allowed only a narrow
resolution based on weak evidence. It explains why the House agreed to Trump's ginormous
defense budget in the same week that it produced an impeachment resolution against him. It also
guarantees that there would be no deeper digging by Democrats against Trump. It guarantees the
he will under no circumstances be found guilty and impeached.
Both sides can live with the results of this narrow process. The Democrats demonstrate to
their core constituency that they are willing to take on Trump. The Republicans show that they
stand with their president and against the lame accusations.
Trump will loudly claim that he does not like that the Senate will shut down the issue as
soon as possible. He will twitter that the Senate must tear into Biden and other Democrats. He
will play deeply disappointed when it does not do that.
But my hunch is that he is in on the deal. The narrowness of the impeachment resolution
prevents that some other dirty deals by him might come to light. It makes another real
impeachment process more unlikely. It guarantees his political survival.
The question left is if there were additional elements in this deal. What could those be
about?
(This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our
work .)
Posted by b on December 12, 2019 at 18:44 UTC |
Permalink
Don't forget Sanders.
Pelosi pulling back from any impeachment attempt would only serve to underscore the
pusillanimity of the Democratic leadership.
If the Democrats *must* do an impeachment but would be hurt by a Republican Senate hit back,
this deal makes perfect sense.
Clearly Trump doesn't care about doling out money to corrupt countries. If he did, he would
be stopping aid to Israel where Netanyahu has actually been indicted on multiple counts of
corruption.
So, after indulging her caucus, Pelosi has thus cut a deal to make sure it ends quickly. I
think the double-dealing is harming her health, both physical and mental.
Dems will be able to paint swing state republicans that have been trying to distance
themselves from Trump as Trump lackeys for their 2020 reelection bids. Saying these GOP
senators are perfectly fine with inviting foreign interference into elections.
To me this proves that there really is no difference between Ds and Rs, both side made (are
still making) money on the plundering of Ukraine after the coup.
I don't think McConnell wants to help Trump win re-election and a drawn out impeachment
trial will just be more free campaign time on the TV for Trump. Both parties need an establishment president in 2020, a short trial is the least shitty
option for the establishment.
Not sure. McConnell may actually prefer working against a Dem prez than working for a Pub.
Especially a Pub loose cannon like Trump. To date, McConnell has a better record in
obstructing Dem execut8ve plans than passing GOP proposals.
Bernard makes a lot of sense today. The swamp is on the verge of eating its own and
neither Pelosi or McConnell desire that.
Pelosi remains alive only through the deal she made with the Devil decades ago which she
continues to honor daily.
This quote from the cited WaPost article is too funny:
"Several GOP senators on Wednesday said it would be better to limit the trial and quickly
vote to acquit Trump, rather than engage in what could become a political circus ."
[my emphasis]
The "political circus" is ongoing like some crazed Broadway production for 3+ years
already and destined for more. That genuine articles of impeachment that ought to gain a
conviction weren't employed is glaringly obvious to those few patriots that are watching. But
the Congressional insanity continues as noted in my other comments made today.
Someone wrote that this is the season of pantomime, and to that I must agree. Fantasies
and falsehoods peddled as realities all for the purpose of further enriching the few while
the many rejoice in their collective gullibility. Please, add another shot of brandy to my
eggnog!
B, you are right that deals have been made, but you are wrong to think Trump is in on it.
He may go along with it, but that does not mean he is arguing from a point of
weakness.
Here is the fact:
The average Republican in the Senate still does not like DJT. The average Republican in
the Senate does not like where the DJT-phenomenon is leading the country (into the light) and
therefore prefers a course of action to not only minimize the gain that POTUS could incur as
a result of a full-blown impeachment, but also minimizes the damage to Democrats and their
constituents that are still littered with true-believers suffering from massive TDS.
If they look weak towards POTUS, the Dems will have signaled their acknowledgment that
this whole affair is in fact a distraction.
Therefore, you can see that the Repub decision for an expedited impeachment benefits
everyone, including Biden, except Trump!
It can be inferred that the Repubs are still dreaming of DJT's eventual dethronement and a
return to the standard operating procedure of the pre-DJT era.
Biden is still the front-runner (to my great surprise). A show in the senate could sink him,
and then someone else would be nominated. Someone stronger, perhaps. Thus, tactically it
might make sense to let Biden get the nomination, and then attack him with full force...
Who knows. They have consultants to tell them how to play the game.
This deal confirms my long-held hypothesis that the DNC is fighting a "war on two fronts":
one against Trump and another against the socialist faction of its own party.
If Biden was disposable, the impeachment would go on in its full or there would be simply
a censure. The reason the DNC is going so far to save Joe Biden is because centrism is in
survival mode.
...another reason might be that a lot of politicians from both parties are so corrupt that
going after Biden could open a flood of scandals.
I'm sure when Biden said "Lindsey [Graham] is about to go down in a way that I think he's
going to regret his whole life" he meant something. They're all in the same boat.
"... The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and on everyone they communicated with. ..."
"... The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later 'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were no more than unconfirmed rumors. ..."
The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not
mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and
on everyone they communicated with.
The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had
talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later
'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were
no more than unconfirmed rumors.
By now Steele's credibility is zero. Time to revisit Steele's involvement with the debunked
"Russia bought the soccer World Champion games", the Litvinenko polonium poisening and the
Skripal novichok poisening. The timing of the Skripal matter deserves some scrutiny in
relation to Skripal possibly being Steele's source for the infamous Trump dossier. There
might be a motive hidden there.
As early as
August 2018 , there had been speculation that the Skripals were being held at USAF
Fairford airbase, based on audiovisual evidence in the background garden scene where the
interview took place. Helmer's sources (they requested anonymity) spotted a chicken coop in
the background which they say is a crow ladder trap. This is one indication that the garden
scene was located near a runway. Background noises included the roar of jet engines.
If Helmer's information is correct, then we can now understand why the British government
never gave Russian embassy staff access to the Skripals: London was in no position to do so,
the Skripals were on US territory.
One implication of this new information is that the Skripals may no longer be in Britain
and may now be living in North America somewhere with new identities. Should something happen
to them (or have happened to them already), they will not be missed by their new neighbours.
The Skripals will never be allowed to return to Russia and Sergei Skripal will never see or
be allowed to communicate with his elderly mother again.
It really does look as if Sergei Skripal may have had something to do with that Orbis
dossier after all, even if as a minor source or as a reference rather than the primary source
of disinformation about Donald Trump's past activities in Moscow. What other work has Skripal
done for his American masters?
It looks as if Sergei Skripal may not be the primary source of the disinformation in
Christopher Steele's dossier. Perhaps the person who is the primary source
is not a Russian at all.
JR | Dec 11 2019 19:41 utc | 20 brings up a revisiting of the Litvinenko polonium poisoning.
It is worth mentioning that a tiny but crucial and virtually never mentioned detail of the
official inquiry (considered the last word on the matter) is that those conducting the
official inquiry were never allowed access to the autopsy report -- which should have been
(which would have been, in any honest effort at inquiry) the bedrock starting point. The
report has right along been sequestered by Scotland Yard in the interests of... you guessed
it: national security. Go figure...
It strikes me that the best explanation of the attack on the Skripals is not that he was
responsible for the Steele Dossier in any way, but that he could easily prove that it was a
fantasy. And was planning to do so.
He knew better, though, than to say so in the UK which suggests that he was on his way
home with his daughter when MI6 caught up with him and poisoned them both.
Steele, Pablo Miller and Skripal were old partners in crime.
I'm wondering whether the mistake Sergei made was not to leave the house -- probably worth
lotsa rubles -- behind and just go. On the other hand he was almost certainly under constant
surveillance.
@50 The Official Report to which you refer was also very careful to enter extensive
caveats regarding its conclusions for which there was almost no real evidence.
It seems important to note that Mr. Lavrov refers to administrations in his
comments, not presidents per se. As there are many staff in presidential
administrations, it seems entirely possible that 1) the requests from the Russians never
reached Obama or Trump personally, and 2) either or both presidents were therefore not even
aware of the requests. In the case of Trump, that would be consistent with the fact that many
members of his administration have been revealed to have operated contrary to his wishes.
@Jen #42
The Skripals residing on US territory would definitely indicate that the US has been the
senior partner in the "Skripal operation". This seems to be part of a general pattern.
@Jackrabbit #48
For the Steele dossier to be intentional bullshit (meaning its creator(s) knew it was
false when they created it) doesn't seem all that surprising. Intelligence agencies promote
disinformation all the time. That in no way means that Trump is in on the game.
Both Putin and Lavrov have stated that they talked directly with Obama and Trump about the
issues involved with their relations, so there's no excuses or obfuscation possible is this
case.
This is selective quotes from anti-Trump of neocon author. The general tone of the article is
completely different from presented quotes.
Notable quotes:
"... ..."This was an overthrow of government, this was an attempted overthrow -- and a lot of people were in on it," Trump declared , while Barr insisted , in a more lawyerly fashion, "The Inspector General's report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken." ..."
The report confirmed that the Russia investigation originated, as has been previously
reported, with the Trump campaign adviser
George Papadopoulos bragging to an Australian diplomat about Russia possessing "dirt" on
Hillary Clinton, which the IG determined "was sufficient to predicate the investigation." The
widespread conservative belief that the investigation began because of the dubious claims in
the Steele dossier was false. "Steele's reports played no role" in the opening of the Russia
investigation, the report found, because FBI officials were not "aware of Steele's election
reporting until weeks later."
...The IG also "did not find any records" that Joseph Mifsud, the professor who told
Papadopoulos the Russians had obtained "dirt" on Clinton, was an FBI informant sent to entrap
him.
...Page "did not play a role in the decision to open" the Russia investigation, and that
Strzok was "was not the sole, or even the highest-level, decision maker as to any of those
matters."
...the IG did determine that the Page FISA application was "inaccurate, incomplete, or
unsupported by appropriate documentation," which misled the court as to the credibility of the
FBI's evidence when seeking authority to surveil Page.
..."This was an overthrow of government, this was an attempted overthrow -- and a lot of
people were in on it,"
Trump declared , while Barr insisted , in a more lawyerly fashion, "The Inspector General's
report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential
campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps
taken."
Adam
Serwer is a staff writer atThe Atlantic, where he covers
politics.
If the allegations against the president are all completely false, then his supporters can
continue to back him with a clear conscience, because anything and everything negative they
hear about the president must be false. The consistency of that message is more important than
the actual details, which frequently end up contradicting complex explanations for the
president's innocence that are often incongruous with each other, such as the
insistence that Robert Mueller's investigation was a "total exoneration" of the president,
but also " total bullshit ."
"... Yes, something happened, but it was because Ukraine did it and not us ..."
"... David Hale, an undersecretary in Trump's own State Department, expressed that concern at a Senate hearing on Tuesday. When asked about the national-security ramifications of the rhetoric, Hale said pointedly, "It does not serve our interests." ..."
This new front opened
when Representative Devin Nunes of California, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, repeatedly
insisted during last month's impeachment hearings that Ukraine had meddled in the 2016 election against Trump. That drew
a stern rebuke from one witness asked to testify, the former Trump National Security Council adviser Fiona Hill, who
warned that congressional Republicans were spreading "a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by
the Russian security services themselves."
But Hill's words have not stopped Republicans from reprising those arguments. In late November, Senator John Kennedy
of Louisiana claimed during a television interview that Ukraine, not Russia, might have hacked the Democratic National
Committee's computers in 2016. After
retreating from that claim
, he went on
Meet the Press
on Sunday
and equated public criticism of Trump by some Ukrainian officials with
Russia's systematic interference campaign in 2016.
The Senate Intelligence
Committee, during its investigation of 2016 election meddling,
found no evidence of Ukrainian interference
. But when asked about Kennedy's comments this week, Senator Richard Burr
of North Carolina, the committee's chairman, came closer to endorsing rather than repudiating them.
"Every elected
official in the Ukraine was for Hillary Clinton,"
Burr told NBC
. "Is that very different than the Russians being for Donald Trump?" Burr went on to liken Russia's
massive intelligence and hacking campaign to occasional public comments by Ukrainian officials critical of Trump. "The
president can say that they meddled because they had a preference, the elected officials,"
Burr said
. Other Republican senators, including John Barrasso of Wyoming, offered similar arguments this week.
The report released on
Monday by House Republicans likewise blurred the difference. "Publicly available -- and irrefutable -- evidence shows how
senior Ukrainian government officials sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in opposition to President
Trump's candidacy," the report insisted.
Tucker Carlson took these arguments to new heights
on his show Monday night, not only minimizing Russian involvement
in 2016 but questioning why the U.S. was opposing its incursion into Ukraine at all. "I think we should probably take
the side of Russia if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine," Carlson insisted.
Republican
foreign-policy experts are still worried about the attempts by GOP leaders to defend Trump by disparaging Ukraine.
"For starters, you end up validating the Kremlin line which they have been peddling since 2016:
Yes, something
happened, but it was because Ukraine did it and not us
," says Richard Fontaine, who runs the nonpartisan Center for
a New American Security and was the top foreign-policy adviser to the late Senator John McCain of Arizona. "It's one
thing if Putin says these things, or if Kremlin spokespeople say these things; people, I hope, will take it with a
gigantic mountain of salt. But when you have U.S. elected leaders saying these things, it gives it a significant dose of
credibility, and that's not a good thing."
David Hale, an undersecretary in Trump's own State Department, expressed that concern at a Senate hearing on
Tuesday. When asked about the national-security ramifications of the rhetoric, Hale said pointedly, "It does not serve
our interests."
The accusations against Ukraine have drawn forceful pushback this week from Democrats, but only a few
Republicans -- most directly Senator Mitt Romney of Utah -- have openly condemned them. "What you are seeing unfortunately is
Republicans wanting to just adopt and parrot the Trump talking points, which also coincide with the Putin talking
points," Van Hollen said.
"... According to the Washington Examiner , the GOP-controlled Senate have no plans to call key witnesses to testify in an impeachment trial. This means Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, John Kerry's stepson, Alexandra Chalupa and Ukrainian prosecutors involved in the Burisma case won't set foot in the Senate. ..."
"... Washington Examiner ..."
"... Washington Examiner ..."
"... That may not play well with Trump's base, who was expecting to see a doddering Joe Biden and his cokehead son Hunter answer tough questions about Ukraine. ..."
"... Without witness testimony, the Senate proceedings would take roughly two weeks according to the report. ..."
"... On Tuesday, House Democrats introduced two articles of impeachment accusing President Trump of abusing his power and obstructing Congress. Notably, there is no mention "extortion" or "quid-pro-quo" - accusations Democrats have been pounding on throughout the process. ..."
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777 Senate Republicans To Let Bidens Off The
Hook? May Skip Witnesses In 'Expedited' Impeachment Trial by Tyler Durden Tue, 12/10/2019 - 19:45 0
SHARES
While House Democrats are about to impeach President Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate
the Bidens for what looks like obvious corruption - Senate Republicans have no interest in
calling witnesses to determine whether Trump's request was justified in the first place.
According to the
Washington Examiner , the GOP-controlled Senate have no plans to call key witnesses to
testify in an impeachment trial. This means Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, John Kerry's stepson,
Alexandra Chalupa and Ukrainian prosecutors involved in the Burisma case won't set foot in the
Senate.
Their reasoning? Senate Republicans have "no appetite" for it.
Senate impeachment rules require a majority vote to call witnesses, and with just two out
of 53 votes to spare, there is no "appetite" among Republicans to pursue testimony from
people that Democrats
blocked Republicans from subpoenaing during the House investigation . Indeed, Republicans
might forgo calling witnesses altogether, saying minds are made up on Trump's guilt or
innocence and that testimony at trial on the Senate floor would draw out the proceedings
unnecessarily. - Washington Examiner
Instead, top Senate Republicans are leaning towards calling a quick vote to acquit Trump
once House Democrats and the White House have delivered their arguments.
"At that point, I would expect that most members would be ready to vote and wouldn't need
more information," said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming - the #3 ranked Senate Republican. "Many
people have their minds pretty well made up."
"Here's what I want to avoid: this thing going on longer than it needs to," said Sen.
Lindsey Graham (R-SC). " I want to end this. "
The president is not in danger of being removed from office by the Senate, a move that
requires 67 votes.
But in a trial, he is seeking exoneration . Some Republicans question whether that's
possible without hearing from witnesses, whether it be these or other less politically
charged figures. " Not sure how you have a fair trial without calling witnesses ," said one
Trump ally in the House.
But with some Senate Republicans facing uncertain 2020 reelection contests and others
privately unhappy with Trump's behavior, mustering 51 GOP votes for Trump's dream witness
list appears impossible.
" How many senators would enjoy a Trump rally? That's probably your whip count for calling
Hunter, " a Republican senator said, requesting anonymity to speak candidly. Senate Democrats
are not expected to provide any votes to call Biden or the others. Or they might ask so high
a price, demanding that in exchange, they be allowed to call Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
and Vice President Mike Pence, that Republicans balk. - Washington Examiner
"It becomes endless motions to call people, and I'm not sure what anybody gains from all
that," said #2 Senate Republican, John Thune of South Dakota.
That may not play well with Trump's base, who was expecting to see a doddering Joe Biden
and his cokehead son Hunter answer tough questions about Ukraine.
"President Trump's allies will want to see witnesses called. How many, and which witnesses,
will quickly become a dividing line," said former Trump adviser Jason Miller, who co-hosts an
impeachment-centric podcast with Steve Bannon.
Without witness testimony, the Senate proceedings would take roughly two weeks according
to the report.
On Tuesday, House Democrats introduced two articles of impeachment accusing President
Trump of abusing his power and obstructing Congress. Notably, there is no mention "extortion"
or "quid-pro-quo" - accusations Democrats have been pounding on throughout the
process.
But with some Senate Republicans facing uncertain 2020 reelection contests and others
privately unhappy with Trump's behavior, mustering 51 GOP votes for Trump's dream witness
list appears impossible.
Oh, you mean their own corruption will be exposed.
Democrats will claim that it was a rush to 'Political Judgement' and that they did all the
investigating and the Senate did nothing ... which will be true.
We need a complete Senate trial to bring to light the truth ... the IG report did not do
it and the DOJ seem impossibly incapable ... only chance is complete witnessed Senate
trial
I,m just curious to see if anybody has the balls to publish the names of all the grifting
family members of Senators and Congressmen and the details of what they are skimming and
where.......
I Guess Peter Schweitzer is the closest we will get.....
Well, I just watched Nadler's Articles of Impeachment presser. Jeez, I never saw the dems
so scarred and glum. Nancy looked like a zombie, as did all the rest. Check out the fat, ugly
bitch in the red jacket near Adam Schiff. Tells you all you need to know about the dems.
The tread is reproduced as is. And out 100 posts available in NYT "all view mode 90% can be classified as plain vanilla Neo-McCarthyism
If they are representative sample of the country, the country is crazy.
This editorial can also be classified as lunatic. But in reality it is much worse: the paper became completely subservant
to intelligence agencies. Should probably be renamed the Voice of the CIA. .
Monday's congressional hearing and the inspector general's report tell a similar story.
By Jesse Wegman Mr. Wegman is a member of the editorial board.
When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected.
That's the most important lesson from the two big events that played out Monday on Capitol Hill -- the House Judiciary Committee's
hearings on President Trump's impeachment and the
release of the report on the origins of the F.B.I.'s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
One of these involved the 2016 election. The other involves the 2020 election. Both tell versions of the same story: Mr. Trump
depends on, and welcomes, Russian interference to help him win the presidency. That was bad enough when he did it in 2016, openly
calling for Russia to hack into his opponent's emails -- which
Russians tried to do that
same day . But he was only a candidate then. Now that Mr. Trump is president, he is wielding the immense powers of his office
to achieve the same end.
That is precisely the type of abuse of power that the founders
were most concerned about when they
created the impeachment power, and it's why Democratic leaders in the House are pressing ahead with such urgency on their inquiry.
They are trying to ensure that the 2020 election, now less than a year away, is not corrupted by the president of the United States,
acting in league with a foreign power. "The integrity of our next election is at stake," said Representative Jerry Nadler, the chairman
of the Judiciary Committee. "Nothing could be more urgent."
On Monday morning, lawyers for the Democrats on the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees presented
the clearest and most comprehensive narrative yet of President Trump's monthslong shakedown of the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr
Zelensky, for Mr. Trump's personal political benefit. They explained in methodical detail how the president withheld a White House
meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in crucial, congressionally authorized military aid to Ukraine, all in an effort to get
Mr. Zelensky to announce two investigations -- one into Mr. Trump's political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter, and another
into Ukraine's supposed interference in the 2016 election.
David Leonhardt helps you make sense of the news -- and offers reading suggestions from around the web -- with commentary every
weekday morning.
Who would benefit from these announcements? Mr. Trump, who believes his re-election prospects are threatened most by Mr. Biden,
and Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, who has been working for years to make Ukraine the fall guy for his own interference
in the 2016 election. Mr. Putin has not fooled serious people, like those in the American intelligence community who determined that
his government alone was responsible
for meddling on Mr. Trump's behalf . But he has fooled Republicans in Congress, who have degraded themselves and their offices
by faithfully parroting Mr. Putin's propaganda in the mainstream press.
Republicans are in lawyer mode, advocating for Trump as if he were their client. Lawyers make the best case they can for their
clients. It helps if they believe in the case, but it also helps to know the case's weaknesses so they can avoid them. The best
lawyers can do both at the same time. Republicans are called on by the Constitution to exit lawyer mode and enter juror mode (which
is, or should be, similar to why-did-this-aircraft-crash mode). So far, they are not heeding this call. From all appearances,
they are mouthing the words of the Constitution while avoiding or refusing to hear or understand them. They took an oath to support
the Constitution, but they are deaf to its call, or have moved to a place beyond understanding it.
The issue of whether to impeach was made by the President when he engaged in an abuse of his office for personal gain and then
obstructed Congress' oversight function. We all understand the political downside arising from an acquittal in the Senate but
that interest needs to be secondary to doing the right thing. On these facts, the decision representatives must make of whether
to impeach really is no decision at all. Just do the right thing.
When Senator John McCain died, he scripted his own funeral as a full bore defense against Trumpian Nationalism, and as an admonishment
against a GOP too willing to sell the soul of our nation out to a cultist repudiation of objective fact, truth, and Constitutional
order. McCain was a controversial maverick –a person I both admired and disliked in equal proportion. But there is one thing I
will always admire him for: his final letter to the nation. It was a warning! He blew a golden bugle to sound the alarm against
those entities both within and without our nation who wish to do our democratic republic harm. McCain, whether you agreed with
the premise of the Vietnam war or not, was an American hero who served his country and his fellow soldiers with incontrovertible
valor and love. President Donald Trump has no concept of what that dedication and sacrifice entails – and sadly, neither do many
of the GOP members who continue to lie and make excuses for a president who is clearly abusing his office for personal gain. McCain
characterized Trump's actions in Helsinki as an unfathomable 'abasement of the U.S. presidency.' All I can say is the GOP sure
ain't the party of my father who fought in WWII against fascism and autocracy. It aggrieves me to no end to witness what too many
members of Congress have become: tyrants toward the very meaning of American democracy. God save us from our own duplicity.
@Twg Well said, and though I sometimes did not agree with McCain on matters of policy, I wish he were still with us, hopefully
to show his fellow republicans what integrity looks like, and what America is supposed to be about. The Republican party I have
known and respected is alas, like Senator McCain, no longer with us.
Americans have to realize that the whole world is mocking us, and that doesn't necesarily inspire respect. That cold be dangerous.
Many medical professionals have noticed a decay in the mental abilities of the president, and certain abnormalities. It would
be wise to suggest to the family that maybe the best way forward, with minimal losses would be to motivate a retirement. That
would be face saving for them, and save the country from a bitter impeachment spectacle that would not be positive for the USA.
I'm waiting for Trump's financial info to be released. There's something in there he doesn't even want his base to know . I think
the logical conclusion is that whatever financials DJT has hidden do indeed lead to Moscow. Actually, all of this is very, very
alarming. Does Putin have a political asset planted here? Y or N I wish the answer was no and that we had a different President.
Can we as a nation hold things together when our leader wants to tear us apart?
All roads lead to the highest bidder(s). 21st century America in the era of Citizens United. Market pricing and the government
is open for transactional business domestic and international. Alternate realities per GRU/FOX/GOP misinformation. Combine foreign
money carefully grooming an in-need Trump, and a party worshipping money and you have a perfect storm removing any sense of civic
duty. Hundreds of years to build and unwound in a few decades, the breathtaking and tragic fall of greatness and hope in our lifetime.
It's not fiction, and every day I have to check if it's really happening, and shockingly it is.
There was no Russian meddling, only Ukraine who meddled in 2016 and they are still at it. Listening to the Judiciary Committee
hearings, it seems that the Russians have hacked into the Republican Party servers and are sending talking points to Republicans
who are defending the indefensible president.
At some point, Republicans have to ask themselves which is better for their party and the country. Slavish devotion to Trump,
or losing an election and leaving Democrats a mess to clean up, as in 1932 and 2008?
Block witnesses from testifying, then say that the hearing is incomplete. Romney told America at the Republican Convention in
2012 that Russia was our biggest enemy, DJT wanted them to help Republicans win in 2016, said he believed Putin in 2018, and wants
to convince us that it was really the Ukraine in 2019. The House has to impeach, even if politically it may be a bad move, because
it is the right thing to do; indeed, the very actions I've seen in the past several weeks has given me glimmers of hope for the
country.
Trump will be reelected for the reason that the Russian intelligence agencies are still able to hack our election results, because
Trump has blocked fixing the weaknesses. That is what happens when a Manchurian candidate is elected and then allowed to obstruct
justice. It is not clear the US will survive Trump. One key thing he did was arrange to have the teams at DHS that watch for smuggled
nuclear bombs were stood down and disbanded. See the report in the LA Times last July "Trump administration has gutted programs
aimed at detecting weapons of mass destruction".
I don't suppose a constructed transcript of Trump's meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov tomorrow will be offered up as
a token of our leader's transparency.
It's clear now that AG William Barr isn't interested in enforcing the rule of law with fellow republicans, and especially the
president. How can there be no recourse when an attorney general completely sells out to a criminal president? Can the employees
of the Justice Dept hold a vote of no confidence in the AG? Can 10,000 attorneys nationwide express the same? The prospect of
Trump and Barr running roughshod over the rule of law for another year is truly frightening.
65,845,063 voters knew clearly who this man was from the beginning and voted for what would have been a better now and future.
It was never any secret. 62,980,160 voters also knew clearly who this man was and voted for him anyway. If the Democrats can ensure
that we have a fair election in 2020. I'm confident they will win the majority in the house and senate and retake the White House
and the end game for Trump will be jail. The problem is, he might not be the only one who's crimes come to light and I suspect
a good lot of the GOP are threatening and blackmailing each other to hold the line. If there's any good men or women left in the
GOP, your country and history are calling you.
It has easy to predict Trump's next move for the last 3 years. Just ask, "What would both benefit Trump, and benefit Putin?" Trump
supporters = Putin supporters.
Do you know the American people are fed up with the discourse of all politicians. The republicans are fed up with any decency
for the republic. The democrats are fed up with the republicans not facing the common sense of a exec not capable of being the
President of the United states. I as a person am fed up with a political system that is not working for all people, just a select
few. It's time too have term limits for all positions in gov't. That means all people that serve the people whether it be judges,
senators or congressmen/women. It's time to find common sense again in our society as a whole society. We on this earth are all
HUMAN.
Unfortunately their are serious problems with term limits. Just consider yourself in the role of a Congressional Representative
limited to 4 terms. You know that in 8 years, you'll be be back on the job market. You can selflessly work for the public and
damage your ability to get a job or tend to people who can hire you after you leave office. You're rational. Which future would
you pick?
Trump needs to keep Putin happy lest he unleash with all the damaging info he has collected on Trump and his financial crooked
deals with Russians over decades. THe Russian mob reports to Putin as a former KGB agent he knows how to collect compromat on
a politician and how to use it to get Trump to break into a giddy smile when he sees Putin his master it's obvious to most keen
observers.
Folks it is simple. Can we hear what Trump and Putin said to each other a few months ago. It is recored and on a server it should
not be on. I am not sure why nobody is talking about these transcripts.
Finally! We get someone stating the obvious fact of Trump/Putin. Why are the Dems not talking about this all the time? Why are
Congressmen and women not asking the witnesses about this? This is the ONE thing the Republicans are afraid of, so it is the one
thing Democrats should do. I have been disappointed that the Russian asset thing hasn't been brought up....It's as if it is purposely
bold. Trump is a Russian asset, either witting or unwitting. I doubt if there is one upper Intelligence Official that wouldn't
say this. So find the right one and have them sit as a witness for this inquiry. And now the Russian big wig Diplomat and KGb
spy, Lavarov, is visiting tomorrow. Good grief! Everyone is thinking this, so get out and say it Dems! Dr. Fiona Hill tried to
lead into this direction but still the Dem Committee would take it up and aske her what she thought. Say it: All of Trump's Roads
Lead to Russia.
Any American adult who has made an effort to educate himself or herself about Mr. Mueller's investigation or these impeachment
proceedings understands that yes, with Trump all roads lead to Russia. Now if the poll numbers mean anything, Trump's crimes and
Russia's involvement only matter to about 60% of us. As Trump's poll numbers remain steady, some 40% of Americans don't care what
lawbreaking he is involved with or whether other nations now control our elections. Stop and think about this for a minute. Trump
supporters know but literally do not care that Russia is tampering with our elections (2016 and 2020). Their cult-like support
for Trump is why the Republican Senate will not remove him. There is no other reason Trump will remain in office. Trump has mesmerized
his supporters like a modern day Rasputin. They will do literally anything for him, and Senate Republicans know this. Trump voters
do not mind that Putin controls our nation at the highest levels of decision making. Again - think about this - they know he does,
and they do not care. So I ask the rest of us. Is this the America we want to live in? To raise our families in? Where a large,
rabid minority is in thrall to a lunatic puppet whose strings are firmly in Putin's hands? Because this is very much the America
we live in now. The time will come, though, when we, the majority, will no longer tolerate the Trump/Putin regime. But the longer
we wait, the harder it will be oust these tyrants.
In 2008, Donald Trump Jr. said Russia was an important source of funding for the Trump businesses. American banks wouldn't lend
him money. Saudi Arabia likely bailed out Jared's disastrous real estate investment in NYC. Follow. The. Money.
You say that Mr. Putin "has fooled Republicans in Congress, who have degraded themselves and their offices by faithfully parroting
Mr. Putin's propaganda in the mainstream press." You are correct on all counts, except that the Republicans have not been fooled
by Putin. They have gone along, headlong and absolutely willingly, in a complete sellout of personal and national principle and
integrity. They should not be forgiven for this conduct, any more than Mr. Trump should be forgiven for his sellout of America.
For Republicans who believe so fervently in their counterfactual narrative, there is an immediate remedy. Bring facts and evidence
to the Committees and testify under oath. Without witnesses and evidence presented under oath, all of the GOP antics simply look
foolish and very much like they are defending the guilty. It is unfortunate that there is no penalty for elected officials who
share unfounded conspiracy theories, engage in innuendo and obstruct process in official Committee hearings. It is also regretable
that this President is not held accountable for trying to intimidate witnesses in real time during testimony. And it is a sad
reality that one of the most corrupt rulers in the world, who rules a hostile power, has managed to entirely win over one of our
major parties.
The strangest defense advanced today was the idea that the alleged state of the economy was reason not to impeach the President:
the Republicans assert that America, the Constitution, the principle of our government are for sale to be bought by the rising
stock market and a plethora of low-wage jobs. We are Faust, and the smell of sulphur is nauseating.
If the IG's report on the 2016 Russia investigation had found the only problem was that two of the agents involved had horrible
hangnails, Barr and Trump would have condemned it.
Whatever Trump is doing, he always care about his main benefactors, Putin and MBS. This is the first time I have witnessed in
history that an American president became a Russian puppet with all his Republican followers at the Congress and Senate. American
constitutional crisis happening right in front of the world. I heard the cries of James Madison, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin
from their graves.
Sir, do you honestly think that House Republicans have been "fooled" by Mr. Putin? On the contrary, it's pretty obvious they understand
and believe the conclusions from our Intel community. These are instead willful lies for political gain. And while some Americans
may actually be misled by the theater presented as rebuttal to the impeachment, it's hard to imagine for most it's once again,
not conviction but convenience that places such "patriots" solidly in Russia's back pocket.
The pattern of behavior is clear and compelling: Trump is selling out this country, its national security, its integrity and sovereignty,
in order to keep power and avoid his own prosecution, and protect his financial interests. We must get the truth about his relationships
and indebtedness to Putin, the Saudis, and Erdogan. Our country has been hijacked and Trump will continue to corrupt the US and
turn it into an autocracy if he is not stopped and held accountable under the law.
The country voted for this President knowing he is a flawed man in many ways. I don't think anything changes here - the Senate
will speedily acquit him and the voters in the swing states will have to decide if they want to give Mr. Trump a second chance
while the rest of the country impotently watches.
If one looks at all of his actions as "How could this benefit Russia?" most of it makes sense. Why start a trade war with China
and Western allies? Why withdraw from Syria? Why try to polarize the American public? Effectively showing this to the public is
critical.
Excellent piece. We all know Trump, Inc. turned to Russian oligarchs after '08 for condo sales. It just so happened that those
same oligarchs (read as kleptocrats) were laundering money through Deutsche Bank, who was the only bank willing to lend to Trump.
Trump's loan officer amazingly was SC Justice Anthony Kennedy's son. Trump was and is a desperate man in need of cash/ Putin is
a desperate man who knows that the geyser of oil money that funds his national budget, and has done so since the 1920's, is coming
to an end. Russia has no large material economic exports other than oil and gas, but it does still have a large military, hence
the military incursions into Moldova, Ossetia, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. Desperate men do desperate things, and desperately
try to project power with weak hands.
The Republicans in Congress were not fooled by the Russians. They believe in Trump no matter what the Russians do. The bottom
line is - What does Putin have on Trump
I don't understand why there hasn't been more of a pushback by the military. They went heavily for Trump in 20116, with many bases
in the South and many recruits from economically devastated areas, but in the interim, they have seen his reckless, lurching foreign
policy, worship of Putin, and clear evidence that somehow everything he does benefits Russia. A commander's first obligation is
to their troops, so knowing the man in charge considers their lives subject to both Trump's whims, and Putin's whispers should
provoke some reaction. No?
Unfortunately - to put it mildly - impeachment will have no effect on the conduct of the 2020 election. The wheels are already
turning, everyone knows their part, and only a massive commitment by an honest intelligence apparatus (if there is one) can stop
it. One can only hope that, in 2020, the American people make a statement so overwhelming that there can be no doubt as to their
intent, despite whatever meddling there may have been. It is entirely possible that there will never be a truly credible election
again as long as there are bad actors who are power hungry or bent on destabilizing democratic governments. And make no mistake,
these threats are coming from right wing autocracies, and they are in the ascendancy all over the world. American centrists and
liberals are the only force that can change that. Are those stakes big enough for you?
We may finally have the answer as to why Trump is so accommodating to Putin. Trump has so many investments in Russia dependent
on Putin's support. Trump financial reports will reveal this collusion between Trump and Putin. This should not come as a surprise
to attentive Americans. Think of the worst an American president can do and that will bring you close to understanding Trump.
Nobody's saying how Trump withholding military aid to Ukraine would benefit Putin and Russia in their WAR against Ukraine. It
was, indeed, MILITARY aid he was withholding, was it not? I understand that this is not the impeachable offense of attempting
to enlist a foreign government to win an election, but I believe this aspect of the situation should be brought out.
The Republican Party has been officially reduced to a giant miasma of fraud, fiction, fantasy, conspiracy theory, deflection,
misdirection and prevarication. After tax cuts for rich people and rich corporations...the GOP has no other public policy ideas
(except for bankrupting the government). A civilized country needs little things like infrastructure, education, technology, voting
rights, law and order, regulations, fair taxation and facts to move forward. But none of those things are ever mentioned by the
Republican Party; conspiracy-mongering and tax cuts are now the official governing planks of the Grand Old Propaganda/Grand One
Percent party. This is no way to manage a nation anywhere except into the ground. Americans need to hit the Trump-GOP eject button
before these Lord of the Fly Republicans take us over a very steep right-wing cliff of insanity.
The Republican Party is now Trump's party and the Republicans know it and are acting accordingly. You could call them opportunists
following the way the political winds are blowing. The Constitution is based on members of Congress caring about the Constitution
and searching for the truth. Since this is now not the case when if comes to the Republicans the Constitution has no remedy for
this situation. The only remedy is an election and if Trump can manipulate elections to his advantage using foreign powers then
there is no remedy and the system of government set up by the founders will be no more. The new system replacing it will be controlled
by Trump. Putin figured out how to control Russian elections so he always wins and it is likely that Trump has a goal of imitating
Putin. Ultimately this would mean taking over the press as Putin did. Trump cannot declare total victory as long as the there
is a free press which he has labeled the enemy of the people.
From an acute perspective ..indeed shocking to say the least of the nature of this peculiar relationship. But looking at the big
picture as evidence by all that has occurred in his or during this eye opening period for all the world to see....not so much
so...For me, this dynamic is much expected.
"The witness has used language which impugns the motives of the president and suggests he's disloyal to his country, and those
words should be stricken from the record and taken down," Mr. Johnson said. The Johnson rule effectively reads the impeachment
power out of the constitution. How can you impeach a president if no one can say anything bad about him/her?
We have yet to plow the most fertile road yet. What does Trump care about over all else? Trump. How does Trump gauge his progress?
His money. Where does his money come from? Good question. We all know he has filed for bankruptcy 6 times. We all know that because
of those bankruptcies, American banks will not loan him any money. We all know he has significant financial dealings with Deutsche
Bank. Now, who put the money in Deutsche Bank that ended up financing Trump's business.? That is the two billion dollar question.
We also know that Russian oligarchs deal in billions of dollars. We also know that Trump has close relations with Russian business
interests. We also know that Trump kowtows to Putin like Pence kowtows to him. We also know that Trump is doing everything possible
to conceal his financial dealings from everyone and everything. So, we know that one billion plus one billion equals two billion.
But does it also equal Trump? This money road is one we should take a ride on. Will it also take us to Putin?
The first Democratic candidate who labels Trump a "Russian agent" will own the simplest and most effective tag line going into
the general election, provided of course that that candidate does his best to channel his inner Trump by never backing down but
instead doubling down every chance he or she gets. Is Trump a Russian agent, paid for and accounted for? Not easy to say without
some doubt, but that doesn't really matter because he sure as shoottin' acts like one. And when have the facts ever stopped Trump
from going on the attack? The more Trump denies the label, the more he'll be digging his own grave. The real crime here is not
so much the strong arming of Zelenskyy for a Biden investigation. That's small potatoes compared to Trump's withholding congressionally
designated US military aid from a country engaged in a hot war with Russia, the same cast of characters who starved anywhere from
one to eleven million Ukrainians during the 1930's. The Russian agent must go.
I would not say Trump's lying "is effective", I would say it "has been effective". At some point, the public and his party may
have had it with the thuggery and we do not know when that breaking point is.
For the sake of protecting our 2020 elections from Russian hackers and disinformation, the House is justified in moving forward
fast, over the process howls of Republicans, with the compelling evidence they have surrounding Ukraine. But they need to continue
investigating his business and financial ties to Russia and any other autocratic governments and their oligarchs, e.g. Turkey
and Saudi Arabia. Especially if he is not convicted and removed by the Senate and stands for re-election, Americans need to know
what conflicts of interest he has in making foreign policy and military decisions because American soldiers' lives are at stake.
The Mueller investigation did not go down that road. Any businessman with global interests is automatically compromised, even
more than a vice president whose son sits on a foreign corporation's board of director. Trump's own children continue to do business
in foreign countries and we have no idea what Ivanka and Jared, sitting in the White House with top security clearances, are doing.
In short, Ukraine should not be the only concern of congressional oversight committees. There's a lot more.
Trump must believe that Russian help in 2016 did help him to win. He must feel that fake evidence presented by an "independent"
investigator such as a foreign government appears to carry more weight that the same fake evidence from a partisan investigator.
Otherwise why would he be taking such chances to duplicate via Ukraine what he got from the Russians in 2016. But now that the
Russian connection is outed, he can't go back to that well.
I worry it's all for naught. Dems in the House vote to impeach, GOP in the Senate vote to acquit. Trump remains highly competitive
in 2020 election, Russia and other adversaries interfere, Trump stays put. Then what?
@NA Wilson Think of this situation differently. To have all possible scope to defeat him, we must support everything we can to
undermine him. Lack of impeachment would have been business as usual. At some point his finances will get out and then all bets
are off.
@NA Wilson: It's all Hands on deck to save the country. Don't just vote, donate what money you can, work for candidates, knock
doors, make calls. It's the only way out of this nightmare.
The Impeachment hearings weren't really necessary to prove what most everyone who's been paying attention knows. With Trump, all
roads lead to Moscow. In fact, he's already acting very Putin-esque in his own way by forbidding anyone in the White House to
respond to subpoena, by installing the fear of God in those who do, by punishing anyone who dares to think or act on their own,
and then there's the act of holding a foreign country ransom until they agree to do his bidding -- not to mention inviting outside
interference in our presidential elections. All the signs are not only there but they are ominous. By holding himself above the
U.S. Constitution, Trump has declared war on this country and all the laws that govern it. And while entertainment-starved Americans
laugh and cheer at his rallies, he and the Republicans drain our right to vote, and with it our Democracy. Today wasn't an epiphany.
It was a warning.
There seems to be no discussion of the financial backing trump received after '08-09 from sources inside Russia and how these
actors would have expressed their support (or conditions for their silence) to the trump campaign during '15-16. Did the FBI not
identify and investigate the funders behind trump and their interactions with the campaign during 2016? Would this not have been
reasonable for an investigation to look into when its entire raison d'etre was to detect sources of Russian influence?
I wonder if Mr. Wegman believes that this editorial will change anyone's mind or influence how anyone votes in the upcoming presidential
election. Basically, this is classic preaching to the choir and sadly mostly a wasted effort. I would like to read articles with
proven ideas that worked to change the minds of Republicans and other like them. Such articles might give me some better ideas
to convince my pro-Trump friends and neighbors to Vote for America next November.
"When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected." This! This is the central fact of all the things Trump has
done (so far), and yet, the Democrats have failed to make this the central focus of the case against him. Instead, they've focused
on one incident, and not even the most egregious one, to justify impeachment and removal from office. This was a terrible miscalculation.
No, there is no doubt that Trump attempted to coerce Ukraine into helping with his re-election by announcing a bogus investigation
of the Bidens. Nor any doubt that this constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors". But this was not the highest of crimes he's
committed, nor have the Dems been able to convince any Republicans, or many independents, that this deserves Trump's removal.
Moreover, they failed to produce the "smoking gun" of one witness or document in Trump's own words directing the quid pro quo.
They gave plenty of room for the Republican attack machine to cast enough doubt and confusion that all but ensures Trump's acquittal
in the Senate. Instead of focusing only on this one incident, the Democrats should have built their case around the theme that
"with Trump, all roads lead to Russia". That is a crime that even the most skeptical doubter can grasp, and when linked together,
all of his crimes can be shown to be of a pattern of serving Putin, and not the people of the United States. All roads lead to
Putin, but the Democrats chose to follow a dead end.
@Kingfish52 I completely agree with you and truly don't understand why the Democrats have not been shouting this from the rooftops.
For mercy's sake! The problem is not just that the president solicited help from a foreign power for his own personal gain! That's
bad enough, but isn't the point that he did this because he is beholden to Russia? Russia. is. not. our. friend. Why aren't the
Democrats explaining this clearly to the American people? Trump is Putin's puppet and it could not be more obvious! Don't people
understand that it doesn't just happen to be Ukraine that Trump took a notion to squeeze for his "personal gain"? He doesn't just
want to win because it is so nice to win elections. He has to do what Putin tells him. Obviously, every last Republican in Congress
understands this clearly. Why can't the Democrats explain it to the American people clearly?
Obama did not provide lethal aid to Ukraine, after the Russians invaded Crimea. Obama did not Russia prevent the Iranian nuclear
deal. Trump cancelled the Iranian nuclear deal, then provided lethal aid to Ukraine. Now I get it. Trump is working for Putin.
By March 2015, the US had committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine and had pledged an additional $75
million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the
Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency. That assistance also included some 230 armored Humvee vehicles. Trump appears
to be echoing a critique leveled at the Obama administration by the late Republican Sen. John McCain. "The Ukrainians are being
slaughtered and we're sending blankets and meals," McCain said in 2015. "Blankets don't do well against Russian tanks." While
it never provided lethal aid, many of the items that the Obama administration did provide were seen as critical to Ukraine's military.
Part of the $250 million assistance package that the Trump administration announced (then froze and later unfroze) included many
of the same items that were provided under Obama, including medical equipment, night vision gear and counter-artillery radar.
The Trump administration did approve the provision of arms to Ukraine, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and Javelin anti-tank
missiles, something long sought by Kiev.
@Mike Trump was not the one providing lethal aid to Ukraine. It was the house and senate that proposed and forced this aid into
an appropriation bill - against the wishes of the Trump administration. After Trump realized he could not block this funding he
did the second best thing - he used it to blackmail the Ukraine government to provide him with dirt on Biden and support for Putin's
favorite narrative (that it was Ukraine not Russia that interfered in the 2016 election).
@Mike It also took two acts of Congress to get the aid to Ukraine. Trump had nothing to do with it. Only the Impound Inclusion
Act for foreign aid allows the President to time the release of the funds, which Trump did not follow. The Act was created because
Nixon, like Trump, was playing fast and loose with our tax dollars. Who was the last President who asked for help from a foreign
intelligence agency? Which President favored foregn intelligence agencies over his own? Answer no one other than Trump. If that
doesn't show he's in someone's pocket, nothing does.
FBI Didn't Tell Surveillance Court That Carter Page Was "Operational Contact" For CIA
With "Positive Assessment" by Tyler Durden Tue, 12/10/2019 - 07:55 0
SHARES
The FBI failed to inform surveillance court judges that Carter Page was an "operational
contact" for the CIA for years , and that an employee at the spy agency gave the former Trump
aide a "positive assessment," according to a Justice Department report released Monday.
The finding is included in a list of seven of the FBI's "significant inaccuracies and
omissions" in applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against
Page, a longtime energy consultant who joined the Trump campaign in March 2016.
(emphasis ours)
The report said the FBI "omitted" information it obtained from another U.S. government
agency about its prior relationship with Page.
The agency approved Page as an "operational contact" from 2008 to 2013, according to the
report.
"Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with
certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA
application," the report stated.
Page told the Daily Caller News Foundation he believes the agency in question is the CIA.
Page has previously said he provided information to the CIA and FBI before becoming ensnared in
the bureau's investigation of the Trump campaign.
The report stated an employee with the CIA assessed Page "candidly" described contact he had
with a Russian intelligence officer in 2014. But the FBI cited Page's contact with the officer
to assert in its FISA applications that there was probable cause to believe that Page was
working as a Russian agent.
The IG faulted the FBI for failing to disclose to FISA judges that Page was an operational
contact for the CIA for five years, and that "Page had disclosed to the other agency contacts
that he had with Intelligence Officer 1 and certain other individuals."
The report also stated that the FBI omitted that "the other agency's employee had given a
positive assessment of Page's candor."
The IG said the FBI's failure to disclose Page's relationship with the CIA "was particularly
concerning" because an FBI attorney had specifically asked an FBI case agent whether Page had a
current or prior relationship with the other federal agency.
***
[editor's note: Not only that, an FBI employee - undoubtedly 'resistance' lawyer
Kevin Clinesmith , altered an email to specifically state that Page was "not a source" for
the CIA . ]
The FBI agent falsely asserted Page's relationship was "outside scope" of the investigation
because it dated back to when Page lived in Moscow from 2004 to 2007.
"This representation, however, was contrary to information that the other agency had
provided to the FBI in August 2016, which stated that Page was approved as an 'operational
contact' of the other agency from 2008 to 2013 (after Page had left Moscow)," the IG report
stated.
The report also said Page's CIA contacts considered him to have been candid about his
interactions with a suspected Russian intelligence officer who was later indicted for acting as
an unregistered agent of Russia.
Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 8 minutes ago
link
I sometimes think Page was a plant- he's vigorously defended Trump and slammed the CIA and
the hoax of the spying- but that could all be a ruse.
In my mind the jury is still out.
Papadopolous on the other hand- was clearly used, honey pot and all.
The entire "Russian collusion" investigation is another example of the Feds manufacturing
false evidence. Mitsud, supposedly a Russian agent, was actually an asset of US intelligence.
Ever since the foisting of the 17th Amendment, which destroyed the veto of the several states
of Washington excesses and corruptions, Washington D.C. has been the only REAL enemy that the
people have ever had.
Rudy is going to take a huge Trump Dump, right on the heads of the Libtards this
week....... Open wide Retards..........
=============
Breaking: Ukrainian Official Reveals Six Criminal Cases Opened in Ukraine Involving the
Bidens
Trump told the waiting reporters that his personal attorney former New York City Mayor
Rudy Giuliani "found plenty" of "good information" during his recent trip to Ukraine and
Europe.
Trump then added that he believes Giuliani wants to present a report to the Attorney
General William Barr and to Congress. Trump added Giuliani has not told him what he
found.
Giuliani reportedly traveled to Budapest and Ukraine this past week to meet with several
Ukrainian officials about corruption.
OAN reporter Chanel Rion has been traveling with Rudy Giuliani and reporting on his
investigations in Hungary and Kiev, Ukraine.
In her report released on Sunday night Chanel Rion mentioned that Ukrainian officials
showed her six criminal cases involving the Bidens, Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
A more powerful force is at work here, the agencies are their tools, operators. We need to
get our heads out of the weeds if we are to identify the source. Whatever it is, it is likely
internal, thought a higher cause and convincing as CIA, FBI have bought in?
I read the linked article. Quite fascinating that Hillary and her minions were treated
with kid gloves (and nothing at all about Obama, Lynch, Holder, Jarrett, et al) and extended
every courtesy and soft-pedal, yet Roger Stone and Paul Manafort were greeted with platoons
of FBI ninjas and armored vehicles in early morning raids akin to those in Stalinist
Russia.
The FBI didn't tell the FISA court a lot of things. The FBI failed to tell the FISA court
the interview with Papadopoulos revealed there to be absolutely NO Russian collusion. The FBI
deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence that would have freed General Flynn and ended the
investigations.
Instead, the FBI covered up the truth with omissions and lies. That what I call bias.
Call it willful blindness by omission, but I prefer to call it a criminal act and sedition
against a President.
This guy is an Annapolis grad and CIA contact and they destroyed him. Hes gonna get very
rich with lawsuits now. The thing that amazes me no one is talking about.........motivation.
All of these major and minor infractions add up to one thing.....an orchestrated attempt to
frame and over throw the President.\ of the United States
"... Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress . ..."
"... What is outlined in this interview is a problem for all DC politicians across both parties. The obviously corrupt influence efforts by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch as outlined by Lutsenko were not done independently. ..."
"... Senators from both parties participated in the influence process and part of those influence priorities was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously protecting Joe Biden and his family. This is where Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham were working with Marie Yovanovitch. ..."
In a fantastic display of true investigative journalism, One America News journalist Chanel
Rion tracked down Ukrainian witnesses as part of an exclusive OAN investigative series. The
evidence being discovered dismantles the baseless Adam Schiff impeachment hoax and highlights
many corrupt motives for U.S. politicians.
Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how
former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress .
What is outlined in this interview is a problem for all DC politicians across both parties.
The obviously corrupt influence efforts by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch as outlined by Lutsenko
were not done independently.
Senators from both parties participated in the influence process and part of those influence
priorities was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously
protecting Joe Biden and his family. This is where Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey
Graham were working with Marie Yovanovitch.
Imagine what would happen if all of the background information was to reach the general
public? Thus the motive for Lindsey Graham currently working to bury it.
You might remember George Kent and Bill Taylor testified together.
It was evident months ago that U.S. chargé d'affaires to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, was
one of the current participants in the coup effort against President Trump. It was Taylor who
engaged in carefully planned
text messages with EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland to set-up a narrative helpful to Adam
Schiff's political coup effort.
Bill Taylor was formerly U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine ('06-'09) and later helped the Obama
administration to design the laundry operation providing taxpayer financing to Ukraine in
exchange for back-channel payments to U.S. politicians and their families.
In November Rudy Giuliani released a letter he sent to Senator
Lindsey Graham outlining how Bill Taylor blocked VISA's for Ukrainian 'whistle-blowers' who are
willing to testify to the corrupt financial scheme.
Unfortunately, as we are now witnessing, Senator Lindsey Graham, along with dozens of U.S.
Senators currently serving, may very well have been recipients for money through the
aforementioned laundry process. The VISA's are unlikely to get approval for congressional
testimony, or Senate impeachment trial witness testimony.
U.S. senators write foreign aid policy, rules and regulations thereby creating the financing
mechanisms to transmit U.S. funds. Those same senators then received a portion of the laundered
funds back through their various "institutes" and business connections to the foreign
government offices; in this example Ukraine. [ex. Burisma to Biden]
The U.S. State Dept. serves as a distribution network for the authorization of the money
laundering by granting conflict waivers , approvals for financing (think Clinton Global
Initiative), and permission slips for the payment of foreign money. The officials within the
State Dept. take a cut of the overall payments through a system of "indulgence fees", junkets,
gifts and expense payments to those with political oversight.
If anyone gets too close to revealing the process, writ large, they become a target of the
entire apparatus. President Trump was considered an existential threat to this entire process.
Hence our current political status with the ongoing coup.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out , because, well, in reality all of the U.S.
Senators (both parties) are participating in the process for receiving taxpayer money and
contributions from foreign governments.
A "Codel" is a congressional delegation that takes trips to work out the payments
terms/conditions of any changes in graft financing. This is why Senators spend $20 million on a
campaign to earn a job paying $350k/year. The "institutes" is where the real foreign money
comes in; billions paid by governments like China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Ukraine, etc.
etc. There are trillions at stake.
[SIDEBAR: Majority Leader Mitch McConnell holds the power over these members (and the
members of the Senate Intel Committee), because McConnell decides who sits on what committee.
As soon as a Senator starts taking the bribes lobbying funds, McConnell then has
full control over that Senator. This is how the system works.]
The McCain Institute is one of the obvious examples of the financing network. And that is
the primary reason why Cindy McCain is such an outspoken critic of President Trump. In essence
President Trump is standing between her and her next diamond necklace; a dangerous place to
be.
So when we think about a Senate Impeachment Trial; and we consider which senators will vote
to impeach President Trump, it's not just a matter of Democrats -vs- Republican. We need to
look at the game of leverage, and the stand-off between those bribed Senators who would prefer
President Trump did not interfere in their process.
McConnell has been advising President Trump which Senators are most likely to need their
sensibilities eased. As an example President Trump met with Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski in
November. Senator Murkowski rakes in millions from the multinational Oil and Gas industry; and
she ain't about to allow horrible Trump to lessen her bank account any more than Cindy McCain
will give up her frequent shopper discounts at Tiffanys.
Senator Lindsey Graham
announcing today that he will not request or facilitate any impeachment testimony that
touches on the DC laundry system for personal financial benefit (ie. Ukraine example), is
specifically motivated by the need for all DC politicians to keep prying eyes away from the
swamps' financial endeavors. WATCH:
This open-secret system of "Affluence and Influence" is how the intelligence apparatus gains
such power. All of the DC participants are essentially beholden to the various U.S.
intelligence services who are well aware of their endeavors.
There's a ton of exposure here (blackmail/leverage) which allows the unelected officials
within the CIA, FBI and DOJ to hold power over the DC politicians. Hold this type of leverage
long enough and the Intelligence Community then absorbs that power to enhance their self-belief
of being more important than the system.
Perhaps this corrupt sense of grandiosity is what we are seeing play out in how the
intelligence apparatus views President Donald J Trump as a risk to their importance.
Everyone loves money. I like money. The only question is how to earn them. Neither I, nor
you, nor many of us will cross a certain moral and ethical line (border), but there are
people without morality, without ethical standards, without conscience. We all look the same
outwardly, but we are all completely different inside.
Ukraine is Obama's **** , this is not Trump's ****. Trump's stupidity was only one - he
got into this ****. I wrote, but I repeat - USA acted as the best friend in relation to
Russia, having taken off a leech from Russia and hanging it on itself. Do you know such an
estate of Rothschilds - called Israel and its role in the life of USA?
So, Ukraine was for the Russians the same Israel in terms of meaningless spending. Look at
Vlad, in 2014 he looked like a fox who was eating a chicken, and on January 1, 2020 he will
look like a fox who eating a whole brood of chickens. I think he has portraits of Obama and
Trump in his bedroom.
Yes, indeed. Lindsey will bury the story, he is on the take. Your tax dollars at work. By
the way, the Fed picked up all of the Ukies gold for safekeeping at 33 Liberty St. NY, with
Yats permission, of course.... https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-18/ukraine-admits-its-gold-gone
A glimpse into how elected officials accumulate millions, retire wealthy, pampered and
privileged....and I'm not talking pensions I'm talking corruption. Obama, Biden, Hillary,
Kerry, Holder, Rice and ALL the senior Obama Administration officials knew of each other's
corrupt sinecures.
Well, it is based on a OAN story. Believe it or not, they actually sent a reporter to
Ukraine to talk to people with knowledge of the matter and look what they came up with. Kind
of makes you wonder why other well funded news organizations never thought to do something
like that.
I don't know that we deserve this. We are all working people, with families to raise,
taxes to pay and the Dems and Commies have been working against us 24/7. And most of them get
paid to do so from government jobs that pay them 8 hours a day when many work 1 hour a day,
all the while scheming against us.
If Trump wins a second term, he is gonna **** these people up good.
Now that I've read the article, I'm both shocked and appalled at learning that Ukraine is
a money laundering operation for the politically connected. (They provide many other 'perks'
as well.)
I've warned about light in the loafers Lindsey as well as McConnell before and more than
once. Sessions should also be denied a re-admission into the swamp. There are others.
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat
to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a
manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus
warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy
any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
I agree with everything you say in the article, Mr. Larison. And yet, I have serious qualms
about whether Congress should impeach and remove Trump.
From a purely legal perspective, they should. But impeachment is a blend of legalism and
politics. And the politics here are murky at best. The problem is that Congress does not
come to these issues with clean hands. It is common knowledge that Congress, too, is
corrupt and sells out the national interest in favor of their own political and personal
interests on a daily basis. They have no moral credibility here; who are they to judge the
President? Neither the impeachment itself, nor the subsequent, apparently inevitable,
acquittal by the Senate will be seen as legitimate, except by partisans of the respective
acts. It is all the more problematic because an election is less than a year away.
Yes, I want Trump out of office, too. But unfortunately our Congress lacks the moral
legitimacy to do this; the impeachment and trial will serve only to reinforce each party's
views of the other as treasonous. The impeachment will be seen as an attempted coup, and
the acquittal will be seen as a whitewash and cover-up. (If by some odd circumstance he is
removed rather than acquitted, it will be seen as a successful coup, an undoing of the 2016
election.)
There are no really good outcomes from this scenario. It would, I think, be better for
the the country were the Democrats to reverse course and leave the removal of Trump to the
people next November. We have survived nearly three years of him, we can survive one more.
I fear the fallout from impeachment and trial will create more problems than are
solved.
I agree. I also respectfully disagree with Larrison's judgment and consider this
development as very dangerous for the Republic. We need to weight our personal animosity
toward Trump with the risks of his forceful removal on dubious charges.
Please remember that nobody was impeached for the Iraq war. That creates a really high
plank for the impeachment. And makes any Dems arguments for Trump impeachment not only moot
but a joke.
The fundamental question is: How is lying the country into the Iraq war not impeachable,
and this entrapment impeachable?
The furor over Russian interference in the election, which was extremely minor, if
existed at all, compared to what Churchill did in 1940, was primarily about excusing the
corrupt and incompetent Clinton wing of Democratic Party leadership (Neoliberal Democrats.)
Political "shelf life" for whom is over in any case as neoliberalism is dead as an ideology
and entered zombie ( bloodthirsty ) stage. Hillary political fiasco taught them nothing.
Russiagate was and still is a modern witch hunt, the attempt to patch with Russophobia the
cracks in the neoliberal facade. Neo-McCarthyism, if you wish.
In view of the Iraq war, the impeachment of Trump means the absolute contempt for the
plebs. Again, Trump's election happened because neoliberalism as ideology died in 2008, and
plebs in 2016 refused to follow corrupt neoliberal democrats and decided to show them the
middle finger. They will not follow the neoliberal elite in 2020, impeachment, or no
impeachment. So the whole "Pelosi gambit" (and from the point of view of Nuremberg
principles she is a war criminal like Bush II and Co ) will fail.
The House Democrats did not act as ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the
evidentiary record, and provide the equality of procecutor and the defense in the process
which is the fundamental part of the Due Process prior to filing charges. A large part of
their witnesses (Karlan, Hill, Vindman) were just "true believers" (Karlan) or corrupt Deep
Staters (Hill, Vindman) taking a stand to defend their personal well-being, which is based on warmongering. And protect
their illegal role in formulating the USA foreign policy (actually based on the quality of Fiona Hill book alone, she should
be kept at mile length
from this area; she is a propagandist not a researcher/analyst)
Among State Department witnesses there could well be those who were probably explicitly
or implicitly involved in the money laundering of the US aid money via Ukraine
(Biden-lights so to speak)
The article of impeachment saying:
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat
to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in
a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump
thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold
and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
opens a huge can of worms (this is essentially the Moscow show trials method of removing
politicians.) This is equivalent to a change in the Constitution, introducing the vote of
no confidence as the method removal of the top members of the executive branch.
Impeachment is always a political decision. And here I am not sure the "Pelosi gambit"
will work. I think many independents, who would stay home or would vote for Dems in 2020
now will vote for Trump as a protest against the abuse of impeachment by the
Neoliberal/Corporate Dems.
That people are still dredging up the ludicrous Russiagate
conspiracy theory is beyond pathetic. If that were not enough, there is no
evidence that "Russian hackers" or anyone "screw[ed] with swing states'
election databases".
Full disclosure: were I allowed to decide Trump's
fate, impeachment would be the least of his fears. I would
subject him to the fate of the defendants at Nuremberg.
"... This is merely political theater and a way to stiffen their spines of jello for their coup. Heaven forfend that President Evo Morales Donald Trump be ousted in a coup by the American Deep State. Our ruling class and their servants really are stupid enough to believe that destroying the norms, both written and unwritten, that our society is actually governed by is a good thing. ..."
"... For the powers that be war crimes are not impeachable offenses. ..."
"... The MSM is reporting the "impeachment" as if it was a serious (approved by expert academics) endeavor. However, the veil is lifting. The revealed face of the ruling class is Neo-Orwellian. ..."
"... Turley says he is now getting threatening phone calls as well people trying to get him fired as professor because he dared to pooh pooh the case for impeachment. ..."
"... The insanity of [neo]liberals strikes me as the actions of the philosophically bankrupt, the hysterical demonizing of Trump being their desperate way to avoid recognizing that fact. ..."
"... Nadler, like Schiff before him, is putting on a diversionary show. The big rush in both shows has been to construct narratives to sow doubt in the minds of viewers and voters, on a tight schedule. That schedule has been known for some time, with a big component dropping today in the IG report. ..."
"... Whether it's Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and any others I've missed, I want to know how many of these rats had / have financial interests in these wars ..."
"... The verdict is prepared before the charges! ..."
"... The House Dems started to boil when Trump suggested the Magnitsky Act was not impartial and Browder might be a crook, heaven forbid. But when Trump really started to focus on the Ukraingate stuff the House shifted into high gear. ..."
"... Schiff started to look like a cornered animal, the expression on his face went from moral superiority to downright angst. His eyes started to bug out. Nancy went from no impeachment to, almost overnight, yes impeachment. And Rudy Giuliani was accused of Treason for questioning their favorite operative, Joe Bagman. ..."
"... Let the last stage of the Great Looting of the Planet begin. ..."
"... I think there are too many moving parts to allow any meaningful analysis of such a soon-to-be-fait accompli. Justice, fairness, Constitution, "rule of law" are the shibboleths of the weak. None of those are anything but fig leafs over tumescent power, mentioned occasionally and clearly without adherence or conviction by that tiny set of front people and spokespersons for the even smaller set that actually move the levers of power. In the end, of course, as with all the climax events of the last few generations, we mopes will never get more than a modified limited hangout of an inkling to what actually happened, and not even that while the play's afoot. ..."
"... "However hurried a court may be in its efforts to reach the merits of a controversy, the integrity of procedural rules is dependent upon consistent enforcement because the only fair and reasonable alternative thereto is complete abandonment." Miller v. Lint, 62 Ohio St. 2d 209 (1980). ..."
"... Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be thorough and complete. This is neither. ..."
"... A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate (or to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with the Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of Executive Privilege. ..."
"... JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the Venn circles of "leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being exerted on behalf of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however misguided that policy may be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or financial benefit of an official. These are "gray areas" in which understanding the subjective intent of the actor is crucial. ..."
"... As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it " isn't evidence. ..."
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. –Matt 23:24
Patient readers, I had originally intended to compare and contrast the statements of the
four lawyers (Feldman, Karlan, Gerhardt, and Turley)
appearing before the House Judiciary Committee . But I changed course, for a few reasons:
First, Feldman, Karlan, and Gerhardt simply didn't produce serious documents; all were short,
and Karlan's wasn't even footnoted, whether to facts, or to law.
Turley's statement at least showed signs of legal reasoning, as opposed to preaching to the
choir, but there's no point my summarizing it;
you can just read it .[1]
Second, since the House Judiciary's report on the " Constitutional
Grounds for Impeachment " followed so soon after the lawyers' testimony that it could
hardly have been influenced by it, their testimony was evidently for show. Finally, this
abbreviated Season 2 of Impeachment! , "UkraineGate," reminds me of nothing so much as
Gish Gallop : There's
too much to track in the time frame available, the few trustworthy interpreters are
overwhelmed, and that's by intent. (Season 1, "RussiaGate," was more of a Gish stroll by
comparison.)
So I'm going to do something completely different. Conventional wisdom agrees that when
impeaching a President, the House plays the role of the prosecutor, and brings and prosecutes
the indictment; and the Senate then tries the case. From Senate.gov
, just as a change from citing the Federalist Papers, which I too shall get to:
In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the
federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of
representatives, called "managers," acts as prosecutors before the Senate.
The question nobody seems to be asking is whether the House, in this impeachment
inquiry, is acting as a prosecutor should act[2]. That is the question I will ask in this post.
(I'm sensible that we have actual prosecutors in the readership, and so I'm going out on a limb
here; the fact that nobody I can find has gone out on this particular limb doesn't mean that it
is, or is not, a good limb to go out on. We'll see!)
The primary duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice within the bounds of the law,
not merely to convict . The prosecutor serves the public interest and should act with
integrity and balanced judgment to increase public safety both by pursuing appropriate
criminal charges of appropriate severity, and by exercising discretion to not pursue criminal
charges in appropriate circumstances. The prosecutor should seek to protect the innocent and
convict the guilty, consider the interests of victims and witnesses, and respect the
constitutional and legal rights of all persons, including suspects and defendants.
What then is justice? Philosophers differ, but here is a defintion from which "the rule of
law" (of which we hear so much) can be derived. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy :
The third aspect of justice to which Justinian's definition draws our attention is the
connection between justice and the impartial and consistent application of rules
– that is what the 'constant and perpetual will' part of the definition conveys.
Justice is the opposite of arbitrariness. It requires that where two cases are
relevantly alike, they should be treated in the same way . Following a rule that
specifies what is due to a person who has features X, Y, Z whenever such a person is
encountered ensures this. And although the rule need not be unchangeable – perpetual in
the literal sense – it must be relatively stable. This explains why justice is
exemplified in the rule of law, where laws are understood as general rules impartially
applied over time. Outside of the law itself, individuals and institutions that want to
behave justly must mimic the law in certain ways (for instance, gathering reliable
information about individual claimants, allowing for appeals against decisions).
The Law Dictionary conceptualizes the requirement for "impartial and consistent application
of rules" as fairness. From " The Four Pillars of the Rule
of Law ":
It's one thing for the laws to be written fairly, but if they are enforced in such a way
that is either arbitrary or unfair then the rule of law begins to break down. For example, if
a jurisdiction passes laws against drug use, but then only enforces those laws against a
particular ethnic minority or social group, then the laws are not being enforced fairly.
Citizens living under a rule of law system have a right to know that the laws are being
administered and enforced in a way that is fair and accessible.
There are many theories of justice, but surely the "impartial and consistent application of
rules" is understood by lay readers as fundamental. From the Washington Post, "
The U.S. court system is criminally unjust ":
We like to believe that decisions made in U.S. courts are determined by the wisdom of the
Constitution, and guided by fair-minded judges and juries of our peers.
Unfortunately, this is often wishful thinking. Unsettling research into the psychology of
courtroom decisions has shown that our personal backgrounds, unconscious biases about race,
gender and appearance, and even the time of day play a more important role in outcomes than
the actual law.
Having established that the House, when impeaching a President, acts as a Prosector, that
the duty of a prosecutor is not merely to seek conviction, but justice, let's now ask ourselves
whether the House, assuming it to have impeached Trump, will have acted in accordance with its
duties, or not.
As a sidebar, it may be urged that unlike a prosecutor's office, the House has no permanent
prosecutorial function. Indeed, House.gov seems, unlike the Senate, to have no page on
impeachment at all; and the House is structured
very differently :
The House is the only branch of government that has been directly elected by American
voters since its formation in 1789. Unlike the Senate, the House is not a continuing body.
Its Members must stand for election every two years, after which it convenes for a new
session and essentially reconstitutes itself -- electing a Speaker, swearing-in the
Members-elect, and approving a slate of officers to administer the institution. Direct,
biennial elections and the size of the membership (currently 435 voting Representatives) have
made the House receptive to a continual influx of new ideas and priorities that contribute to
its longstanding reputation as the "People's House."
It could be argued, then, that the "rules" for impeachment need only to be consistent during
the two years of a House session, and could then be changed at the next session, an evident
absurdity since the President serves for four years, and could presume himself acting
unimpeachably for two years, and then be impeached, for the same acts , in the third.
Clearly, some sort of institutional memory of what is impeachable and what is not, even if
tacit, must be shared among the three branches of government and the public -- even if not
adhered to by all. Fortunately, for Trump's impeachment, we have such repository in the person
of the Leader of the House -- one might call them the Chief Prosecturor -- Nancy Pelosi, to
whose remarkable statement I now turn. End sidebar.
Here is how Nancy Pelosi describes her past exercise of her prosecutorial function (in this
case, declining to prosecute:
DEAN CHIEN, STUDENT, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: So, Speaker Pelosi, you resisted calls for
the impeachment of President Bush in 2006, and President Trump, following the Mueller report
earlier this year.
This time it's different. Why did you impose – why did you oppose impeachment in the
past? And what is your obligation to protect our democracy from the actions of our President
now?
PELOSI: Thank you. Thank you for bringing up the question about – because when I
became Speaker the first time, there was overwhelming call for me to impeach President Bush,
on the strength of the war in Iraq[3], which I vehemently opposed, and again not –
again, I – I say "Again," I said – said at other places that I – that was
my we – all has always (ph) Intelligence.
I was Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee even before I became part of the
leadership of Gang of Four. So, I knew there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq . It
just wasn't there.
They had to show us now – to show the Gang of Four all the Intelligence they
had. The Intelligence did not show that that – that was the case. So, I knew it was a
– a misrepresentation to the public. But having said that, it was a, in my view, not a
ground for impeachment. That was – they won the election. They made a
representation . And to this day, people think – people think that that it was
the right thing to do.
If people think that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11, I mean it's as appalling what
they did. But I did – and I've said, if somebody wants to make a case, you bring it
forward.
(Remarkably, or not, Pelosi kept her knowledge that the Iraq War was built on lies secret
from the public. This doesn't strike me as the right approach to " a Republic, if you can keep it .") First,
apparently a President's "misrepresentation to the public" that led to war -- a war that
resulted, even in the early years of the war, in tens of thousands of civilian deaths,
thousands of American deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the Abu Ghraib torture
scandal -- is not a "high crime or misdemeanor." Pelosi would have us believe that Bush's
disinformation campaign was not, as Madison writes in Federalist 65 , a
case of "misconduct of public men, or, in other words the abuse or violation of some public
trust." And why? Because "[Bush] won the election." Except Pelosi gets the timeline wrong. Bush
won his election in 2004. The Democrats took back the House in 2006 -- how we cheered, then; it
was almost as satisfying as Obama's inaugural -- based in large part on Bush's botched handling
of Iraq. Pelosi "won the election." And then didn't do anything with her power.
Let's ask a little consistency from our Chief Prosecutor, shall we? Because that's what
justice demands? If "misrepresentation to the public the public" in service of taking the
country into war -- the aluminum tubes, the yellowcake, all the whackamole lies that Bush put
forth -- is not impeachable, then how on earth is what Trump did, even under the very worst
intepretation, impeachable? Are we really going to convict Trump because he -- Bud
from Legal insists I insert the word "allegedly" -- tried to muscle Zelensky? Here is
what Turley, who approached his statement as a lawyer would, did with that accusation . I'm
going to quote a great slab of this, because the whole thing ticks me off so much:
Presidents often put pressure on other countries which many of us view as inimical to our
values or national security. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama reportedly put
pressure on other countries not to investigate the U.S. torture program or seek the arrest of
those responsible.103 President Obama and his staff also reportedly pressured the Justice
Department not to initiate criminal prosecution stemming from the torture program.104
Moreover, presidents often discuss political issues with their counterparts and make comments
that are troubling or inappropriate. However, contemptible is not synonymous with
impeachable. Impeachment is not a vehicle to monitor presidential communications for such
transgressions. That is why making the case of a quid pro quo is so important – a case
made on proof, not presumptions. While critics have insisted that there is no alternative
explanation, it is willful blindness to ignore the obvious defense. Trump can argue that he
believed the Obama Administration failed to investigate a corrupt contract between Burisma
and Hunter Biden. He publicly called for the investigation into the Ukraine matters.
Requesting an investigation is not illegal any more than a leader asking for actions from
their counterparts during election years.
Trump will also be able to point to three direct conversations on the record. His call
with President Zelensky does not state a quid pro quo. In his August conversation with Sen.
Ron Johnson (R., WI.), President Trump reportedly denied any quid pro quo. In his September
conversation with Ambassador Sondland, he also denied any quid pro quo. The House
Intelligence Committee did an excellent job in undermining the strength of the final two
calls by showing that President Trump was already aware of the whistleblower controversy
emerging on Capitol Hill. However, that does not alter the fact that those direct accounts
stand uncontradicted by countervailing statements from the President. In addition, President
Zelensky himself has said that he did not discuss any quid pro quo with President Trump.
Indeed, Ambassador Taylor testified that it was not until the publication of the Politico
article on September 31st that the Ukrainians voiced concerns over possible preconditions.
That was just ten days before the release of the aid. That means that the record lacks not
only direct conversations with President Trump (other than the three previously mentioned)
but even direct communications with the Ukrainians on a possible quid pro quo did not occur
until shortly before the aid release. Yet, just yesterday, new reports filtered out on
possible knowledge before that date -- highlighting the premature move to drafting articles
of impeachment without a full and complete record.105
Voters should not be asked to assume that President Trump would have violated federal law
and denied the aid without a guarantee on the investigations. The current narrative is that
President Trump only did the right thing when "he was caught." It is possible that he never
intended to withhold the aid past the September 30th deadline while also continuing to push
the Ukrainians on the corruption investigation. It is possible that Trump believed that the
White House meeting was leverage, not the military aid, to push for investigations. It is
certainly true that both criminal and impeachment cases can be based on circumstantial
evidence, but that is less common when direct evidence is available but unsecured in the
investigation. Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set
for this country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is
meant to be thorough and complete. This is neither.
Put Turley's justifiable polemic against a childish West Wing view of international
relations aside. Just look at the triviality of the subject matter, whether you think Trump
is guilty or not . White House appearances. Military aid. Corruption investigations. How is
lying the country into the Iraq war not impeachable, and this mass of anodyne
trivialities im peachable? When it's the same prosecutor declining to indict for Iraq,
and deciding to indict for Ukraine? Whatever this is, it's not "the impartial and consistent
application of rules", and that means the House is failing in its prosecutorial duty to seek
justice, and not merely conviction.
NOTE Yes, I'm leaving the national security aspects of Ukraine aside. We can take up the
question of whether the interagency process should run foreign policy, or the President, and
the Blob's peculiar view of the national interest another time.
I agree with this analysis, but Madam Speaker Pelosi and her fellow players are not doing
what they are doing for the Republic's, the law, ethics, morality, and certainly not for
justice's sake. If they were, Pelosi would not have mentioned her prewar knowledge of
President Bush's and his Administration's lies on the reasons given for going to war.
This is merely political theater and a way to stiffen their spines of jello for their
coup. Heaven forfend that President Evo Morales Donald Trump be ousted in a coup by
the American Deep State. Our ruling class and their servants really are stupid enough to
believe that destroying the norms, both written and unwritten, that our society is actually
governed by is a good thing.
Maybe TPTB truly believe that an increasingly ungovernable, immiserated, and desperate
society in an increasingly unpredictable climate is just another chance to consume the poor
instead of the poor consuming them.
The democrats couldn't go after the bush administration for falsely leading this country to
invade iraq, for one big reason . they were JUST as guilty . They, including clinton; voted,
and went on all the air waves, did op eds; all justifying the charade, that was the run up to
the iraq invasion.
People ought not forget,
EVERY bit of information proving the iraq war was a lie . was in plenty of places BEFORE the
invasion. And every establishment shill did their level best to not only ignore the truth,
but to discredit it with pathetic lies and rhetoric.
The democrats were just as guilty for iraq as the republicans.
And when the terrorists who were used as a ploy to blow up the twin towers, were being
protected by the fbi between 1998 and 2000.(look at Robert Wright and John Vincent fbi agents
from chicago office, who were told by superiors to "let sleeping dogs lie".. after a two year
investigation of two of the "were to become terrorists"and yasin al-qadi. their money man who
was a co owner of P-TECH(above top secret clearances at :cia,fbi,nsa,faa,secret
service,norad,nro,etc.) and later a donor to the MITT Romney campaign) The clintons and the
democratic elite were right there pretending nothing was happening. And have since pretended
that "the war on freedom",,,,or as they call it "the war on terror" is justified.
whether it was the democratic party or the new york times or la times or washington post of
the weekly standard or fox news or PBS EVERY media powerhouse was on the side of "the big
lie"..
Pathetic logic fails were fed to the american population 24/7/365
The truth be damned and still is
When you have a Democrat do away with Glass-Steagall, who needs Republican villains. Both
totally corrupt parties are beholden to the banks and corporations, and need to be voted out
of office.
Question, is there a statute of limitations for impeachable offenses? Because the Speaker of the House admitted on the public record of implicitly participating
(by her silence) in an orchestrated lie that led to the deaths and maiming of thousands of
American soldiers. Should we be taking that public statement and calling for her impeachment? Can you impeach
the Speaker of the House?
Maybe the Democrats are hoping that once it reaches the Senate, that one of their number
will step up, make a stirring West-Wing style speech which will cause all those present
– Republicans included – to rise to their feet and clap and cheer as they vote
for Trump to be finally kicked out of the White House. Then in their newfound maturity, they
will make Mike Pence the new President of the United States as they work together for a
better country with new respect for each other.
The MSM is reporting the "impeachment" as if it was a serious (approved by expert
academics) endeavor. However, the veil is lifting. The revealed face of the ruling class is
Neo-Orwellian.
"Nadler's committee will likely vote to impeach Trump. In a report defining what it
considers impeachable offenses, the committee states that even if Trump did not actually
break any laws in his supposed "quid pro quo" dealings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky, he can still be impeached for his unstated motives.
"The question is not whether the president's conduct could have resulted from
permissible motives. It is whether the president's real reasons, the ones in his mind at the
time, were legitimate, " it stated."
Turley says he is now getting threatening phone calls as well people trying to get him
fired as professor because he dared to pooh pooh the case for impeachment.
There has been a
vast and irrational response to Trump from day one–perhaps based on the fantasy that
the presidency really is like The West Wing whereas the reality is likely closer to the HBO
comedy Veep. From "now watch this drive" Dubya to Obama and his "propeller heads" our
presidents are a series of vain peacocks with Trump merely the extreme case. Impeach them
all–or none.
This observation by Lambert Strether sums it up: "Karlan's wasn't even footnoted, whether
to facts, or to law." She is supposedly a professor of law, supposedly advising the Congress
about the process of impeachment. She didn't even try to do her job. One may not agree with
Turley, although the long excerpt brings a broad perspective to what is criminality and to
how much criminality we now consider normal in the U.S. government. To his credit, Turley
marshals facts into a synthesis.
What the Republicans don't seem to get is that will to power isn't all that matters and
that their commitment to economic degradation and looting the citizenry have thrown them into
a crisis (as the paleo-conservatives keep pointing out). Among liberals like Pelosi (and
Karlan), the cluelessness is breathtaking. American liberalism is in a profound crisis, with
Karlan's disquisition being particulary breathtaking for clichés-a-minute, sheer
vulgar thinking, and kitsch.
This is the end. For those of us on the left, and I hesitate to advise non-action, it may
be time simply to let these two rotten structures and ways of thinking collapse. It is like
watching two ghost ships engaged battle, desparately trying to sink one another into a putrid
ocean.
On a lighter (!) note, I will quote Gramsci:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying away and the new cannot
yet be born; during this break in continuity, unhealthy events of every kind are
happening.
La crisi consiste appunto nel fatto che il vecchio muore e il nuovo non può
nascere: in questo interregno si verificano i fenomeni morbosi piú svariati.
I think your last quote hits the nail on the head. It should be painted on every highway
overpass. The insanity of [neo]liberals strikes me as the actions of the philosophically bankrupt,
the hysterical demonizing of Trump being their desperate way to avoid recognizing that fact.
I can understand that almost all people crave certainty, but Jesus its time to let it go and
strike out to elsewhere.
An old lawyer adage: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the
law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law , pound the
table.
Nadler, like Schiff before him, is putting on a diversionary show. The big rush in both
shows has been to construct narratives to sow doubt in the minds of viewers and voters, on a
tight schedule. That schedule has been known for some time, with a big component dropping
today in the IG report.
They had seen enough in SCIFs and elsewhere to know that Team Dem was going to get slammed
due to its supporters in the FBI and DOJ. That much is evident in reviewing the report and
scores of other documents available to the public. What hasn't been made available, like the
Atkinson piece, also provide further support to the Schiff and Nadler accelerants.*
In a way, I almost feel sorry for Rep. Schiff as he was sent on a fool's errand. History
will be unkind to him, among others.
Of greater concern during their proceedings is the absolute lack of regard for the
principles like Due Process established in our US Constitution, and the rule of law.
Then she's a war criminal too! I also remember her saying, "well, we didn't want to ruin
our chances" (in the next election). My fondest wish is that GW Bush, Jr. and the gang who
lied us into the war in Iraq be prosecuted and convicted for war crimes. A somewhat hopeless
wish – that.
She can be surprisingly frank about these things sometimes. She is saying the same thing
in this quote ("people think that that it was the right thing to do" = opposing this would
have cost us votes). I can't understand why anybody would ever trust her again after a
revelation like that.
Whether it's Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and any others I've missed, I want
to know how many of these rats had / have financial interests in these wars including daily
drone-fests a few years ago.
The war drums have been beating on the Ukraine vs Russian for a
few years now. Pelosi is worth over $100,000,000 on mere $200,000 humble public servant
salary, many others on both Team Blue and Team Red similar.
If Team Red Senate votes to
summarily dismiss impeachment it is the tell that there were / are many more cockroaches they
do not want to expose, such as Lindsey Graham, Mitt, McCain, Kerry, not to forget Rummy,
Wolfe, Condi, Cheney, W, O, Hillary, Poppy and so on.
Any 20 somethings in those households
die or maimed "over there"? Let them all hang, dig their corpses up if you have to. Trump
should double-dog dare them all to do it.
I voted for Trump solely as a bull in the china shop, with everything preceding him the
past ~ 40 years as the china shop. Andy Jackson was not on the ballot 3 years ago, so I had
to settle.
I agree that DJT's misdeeds (at least the ones we know about) do not approach those of the
Bush/Cheney presidency (the ones we know about). I wonder what lies beneath the D
determination to impeach. I have been getting emails from various D-oriented organizations asserting that control of
the Senate is within reach for the Ds in 2020, and asking for funds.
Given the near certainty that the Senate will not vote to convict (either through ~20Rs
voting with Ds or ~30Rs simply not voting), perhaps it is hoped that a failure to convict in
the Senate would help Ds make the case for an extra heavy base turnout in 2020 to deliver the
Senate to the Ds.
They can't, or won't, govern. But with control of both houses, they might be able to
impeach and convict.
If the Democratic Party refuses to govern, just why should they be in office? Unless it is
Goldman Sach, Jeff Bezos, and their fellow oligarchs, it is just mendacity masquerading as
seriousness. The Republicans also do not govern, but loot the lower 80% of the population
while dismantling the government.
Just before the Civil War, Republican Party replaced the American Whigs and the Democratic
Party split in two and looked like it too was going away as well. Let's have a clean sweep
this time and maybe prevent another war.
It seemed that the Democrats started out focused on a Trump connection to laundered
Russian money. They didn't like his friendliness toward Putin. The FBI and Mueller went
straight for Manafort and got him cold. It's possible they can't get Trump because he dealt
through DeutscheBank and DB has been protected so far from prosecution.
Every bank in the EU
seems to have laundered Russian money. So to start prosecuting would/will be a total circus.
The House Dems started to boil when Trump suggested the Magnitsky Act was not impartial and
Browder might be a crook, heaven forbid. But when Trump really started to focus on the Ukraingate stuff the House shifted into high gear.
Schiff started to look like a cornered
animal, the expression on his face went from moral superiority to downright angst. His eyes
started to bug out. Nancy went from no impeachment to, almost overnight, yes impeachment. And
Rudy Giuliani was accused of Treason for questioning their favorite operative, Joe Bagman.
And how impolite of Trump and Rudy to suggest that Joe's doofus son could be up to the same
corruption as daddy. So the fear in the House is visible. I'm thinking there are lotsa
members who might be not just complicit in the coup but complicit having received money for
favors. Or in the case of Browder, helping an international thief and conman with high
connections here and in the UK. High connections usually means political bribes. So Trump
knows where the skeletons are buried imo and it freaks them out beyond any possible just
proceeding. And Nancy's an idiot with a gavel.
Prosecutors seeking justice? On what alien planet do you suppose that might be happening?
Prosecutorial misconduct, caprice, and inconsistency is a hallmark of the US criminal
carcerial system. Our Gulag doesn't just fill itself it needs prosecutors to keep the ball
rolling. Sorta like insurance delivering healthcare.
How is lying the country into the Iraq war not impeachable, and this mass of anodyne
trivialities impeachable?
It's not. The system has broken completely down, although many americans don't know it
yet. The democrats need to back off, although I wouldn't put money on it.
Good to remember the ultimate frame that bounds this Gong Show Trial: "In the long run we
are all dead."
What's going on here seems to me to have the same overall flavor of what's happening in
Britain. Let the last stage of the Great Looting of the Planet begin.
I think there are too many moving parts to allow any meaningful analysis of such a
soon-to-be-fait accompli. Justice, fairness, Constitution, "rule of law" are the shibboleths
of the weak. None of those are anything but fig leafs over tumescent power, mentioned
occasionally and clearly without adherence or conviction by that tiny set of front people and
spokespersons for the even smaller set that actually move the levers of power. In the end, of
course, as with all the climax events of the last few generations, we mopes will never get
more than a modified limited hangout of an inkling to what actually happened, and not even
that while the play's afoot.
And what good would it doe us to know all the details? What power do American mopes, for
sure, atomized and fearful and befuddled, have to "bend the arc of history toward
justice"?
Well, I think we made a credible effort to bend the arc of history in 1776, and again in
1865. I have little doubt that history will eventually repeat itself, or at least rhyme quite
nicely.
Pence represents a large cohort of Evangelicals who are not averse to using 'direct
action' to advance their causes. Think of the abortion doctors who were shot by 'right wing
nutters,' and the horrific tactics used against women trying to enter and leave abortion
clinics.
One of Pence's strengths is his unswerving adherence to a particular ideology. He has focus,
and that aspect of his character gives him strength and purpose.
Even Napoleon realized the value of the Moral in human affairs.
Also consider groups within the Government and Military aligned with the Evangelical mind
set. Pence has ample resources to manage the job of President.
History shows that relatively small groups of committed and coordinated True Believers can
take over and run governments. Pence is the figurehead for such a group. Beware.
Biden was asked if he would comply if subpoenaed for the Senate trial and he said no. So
Trump is to be impeached for his "crimes" while his potential opponent defies the law and
that's ok because .why was that ok again?.
"However hurried a court may be in its efforts to reach the merits of a controversy, the
integrity of procedural rules is dependent upon consistent enforcement because the only fair
and reasonable alternative thereto is complete abandonment." Miller v. Lint, 62 Ohio St. 2d
209 (1980).
"We have granted discretionary review because a majority of a Court of Appeals panel has
refused to follow a long line of decisions of the highest court of this state in violation of
S.C.R. 1.030(8)(a) which provides:
'The Court of Appeals is bound by and shall follow applicable precedents established in
the opinions of the Supreme Court and its predecessor court.'
The rule is fundamental and is absolutely necessary in a hierarchical judicial system. If
every tier of courts in the judicial hierarchy were free to disregard the decisions of a
higher court, the Court of Appeals could freely disregard the decisions of the Supreme Court,
the circuit courts could freely ignore the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court and our District Courts would be bound by no law at all, free to ignore the decisions
of all higher courts. The result of that course is anarchy." Special Fund v. Francis, 708
S.W.2d 641 (Ky. 1986).
The above favorable articulations notwithstanding what I've been seeing the past decade,
or so, is something much more akin to "The Rule of Whimsy," with said rule of whimsy having
replaced "The Rule of Law."
I don't think the comparative impeachable offenses argument adds any clarification. The
distinction is that the current proceedings are about potential extortion that impacts the
next election; the impeachable lies and corruption that led to the Iraq war took two years
for the public to perceive. Future versus past. Even if Kerry won in 2004, there would not
have been convictions because the conflict was still in progress. Besides, those that carry
out orders are the ones that get convictions, not the commanders. Oh, and let's not forget
"the fog of war" – a very useful alibi for top military advisers and political
leaders.
I think the problem with the current impeachment mess can be Venn diagrammed. Imagine two
circles. Once circle titled political leverage, the other circle titled extortion. Move the
circles together to partially overlap. Where they overlap is titled Joe Biden. A distinction
can usually be made between political leverage and extortion by asking who the stakeholders
are. Leverage (with military aid) is always going on, and it benefits "regional stability"
and "national security". Extortion benefits the requester, weakens his rivals, creates a
compromising dependency the supplicant. In the overlap area the extorted political smear gets
executed and the goods get delivered. I think the GOP's argument is that as long as the goods
get delivered it is acceptable political leverage. They want to minimize the effect of
smearing Joe Biden on the election. They want to blur the distinction between extortion and
leverage.
Back to future versus past: The current mess may originate with an lack of conflict of
interest oversight during/by the Obama administration by sending Joe Biden and John Kerry to
Ukraine to negotiate anti-corruption deals favorable to the US, knowing that their family
members were involved with Burisma. Surely there were others in the state Department that
could have been direct envoys of the administration. If Burisma wants to stack their board
with influential people and pay them a ridiculous sum for doing nothing – just to
attract investors – well you can chalk that up to corporate stupidity. It's not
necessarily corruption, especially if it works. How many US private equity firms have
high-visibility dead weight board members?
It took me all of one week to connect corruption with the Iraq war, back when it was
beginning. The comparison of past with present is quite useful because it highlights the
injustice that is going on right now. Even if Trump committed impeachable offenses, does not
give the House any moral authority to engage in selective prosecution for the exact same type
of behavior that they themselves, and past presidents have engaged in. This whole circus is
nothing but politics, it certainly isn't about justice, nor doing what is actually good for
the country. Disclaimer: I voted for Jill Stein. Deal with it.
I can only watch small snippets of the "impeachment hearings" before screaming at the TV
like an insane man. Even if one accepts the argument that Trump was using leverage to influence US
election: BIDEN WAS NOT THE NOMINEE !!!!!!!!!!! there were many others vying for the position. How
can you use leverage for personal gain on an event which hasn't and may not occur ?
It only works if he becomes the nominee. Trump was very effective at portraying his
opponents as he wanted during the 2016 campaign ("Crooked Hillary" ) with all the self
inflicted gaffs "Uncle Joe" makes it would seem to be shooting fish in a barrel for Trump in
2020 Why work through Ukraine, when he'd have it so easy destroying him on national TV while
stroking his own ego at the same time
So, in Myanmar, should the Hague not act because it's hands aren't clean? It hasn't acted
against the US, for example, which was a much more dangerous agressor in the ME recently (not
to speak of other cases), and so clearly, the investigation into Myanmar is "merely"
political. Even if investigating the US is impractical, it could investigate smaller
countries that have been involved in that case -- but they haven't, since this is merely
"political".
In fact, following this to the reduction to absurdity, no court ever has clean hands --
everything is corrupt to some extent, self-interested and hypocritical. Do we abandon all
pretense at systems of justice? Or is the case presented here "special" in some sense,
whereby we should look at the goals of the accusers beyond and above the acts and goals of
the accused?
Thank you, Lambert this is a great piece. I haven't been able to follow this impeachment
thing at all. But your final question and answer pulls it together for me.
It doesn't make sense because it really doesn't make sense. Also why now, when we are about to have an election?
I just wish I had the nerve and moral strength to share your post.
The are two answers to the question, "How is lying the country into the Iraq war not
impeachable, and this mass of anodyne trivialities impeachable?"
The optimistic answer is, "Because the former is a matter of statecraft, and the latter is
using official power to derive a direct personal benefit, and the standards for impeachment
based statecraft are much higher." (Congress in rejected Cambodia based articles of
impeachment in 1974)
The cynical answer is, "Because everyone in Washington, DC has sad-sack children who get
jobs because of their political power, and Trump must not be allowed to infringe on our
privilege."
The thing is, BOTH answers are true for different people.
For folks like Pramila Jayapal or AOC, I think that they see this as bribery and an abuse
of office for personal gain. (This group has been calling for impeachment for a while)
For someone like Nancy Pelosi, whose kids have clearly had opportunities as a result of
her position, I think that it is the latter.
How these two categories are split in the Democratic caucus, and there are probably some
in the, "Both," camp, is beyond me.
However, even by a relatively strict interpretation if impeachable offense, we have
obstruction of justice in the Mueller report, obstruction of Congress right now, tax and bank
fraud (though those were done when he was a private citizen), connections to the mob, both
domestic and Russian, witness intimidation, and bribery off the top of my head. (Ignoring
campaign finance violations, because seriously, who cares)
I have always felt the the furor over Russian interference in the election, which was
minor compared to what Churchill did in 1940, was primarily about excusing the corrupt and
incompetent Democratic Party (mis)leadership, and you will notice that I have not included
any of that, though obviously the cover-up flowed from that in some cases.
As Lambert knows, I'm retired after working as a prosecutor in Silicon Valley for 32
years. I think that Lambert is "on to something" here, but doesn't quite hit the mark.
Selective Prosecution is a huge issue in this country, but it isn't the issue
here.
I agree that for years , Presidents have been committing "impeachable offenses"
without being impeached. Unlike the decision to prosecute an ordinary citizen, impeachment
is a political decision . However, the question being asked by the House Judiciary
Committee, whether attempting to extort the investigation of a political rival through the
withholding of foreign aid or favors to a foreign head of state is only one small
facet of the impeachment inquiry. If Trump were to have engaged in such conduct, I
believe that it would certainly constitute an impeachable offense . Whether to proceed with
an investigation into such an offense is a political decision. I happen to agree that Trump
is a turd and that he should be investigated.
Once this political decision has been made, the potentially impeachable offense must be
investigated and prosecuted . The House leadership are engaging in the typical mistake of the
rookie prosecutor: saying to him/herself " I know he's good for it " and filing
charges without conducting a complete and thorough investigation . This is where
Professor Turley is correct:
Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this
country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be
thorough and complete. This is neither.
A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate (or
to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with the
Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of
Executive Privilege. JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the
Venn circles of "leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being
exerted on behalf of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however
misguided that policy may be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or
financial benefit of an official. These are "gray areas" in which understanding the
subjective intent of the actor is crucial.
This is where hard evidence such as tapes and transcripts of the actual words used become
critical. This evidence apparently exists, but House Democrats have failed to file suit to
obtain them. Only when we know the words used and the surrounding circumstances can we draw
inferences about the subjective intent of the actors. In the criminal law we draw such
inferences about an actor's subjective intent all the time . However, we apply special
rules when drawing inferences about a person's intent. Those inferences must not only be
reasonable , they must be the only reasonable inferences that can be drawn from
the facts and circumstances presented.
As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as
ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their
fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it "
isn't evidence.
As Lambert knows, I'm retired after working as a prosecutor in Silicon Valley for 32
years. I think that Lambert is "on to something" here, but doesn't quite hit the mark.
Selective Prosecution is a huge issue in this country, but it isn't the issue
here.
I agree that for years , Presidents have been committing "impeachable offenses"
without being impeached. Unlike the decision to prosecute an ordinary citizen, impeachment
is a political decision . However, the question being asked by the House Judiciary
Committee, whether attempting to extort the investigation of a political rival through the
withholding of foreign aid or favors to a foreign head of state is only one small
facet of the impeachment inquiry. If Trump were to have engaged in such conduct, I
believe that it would certainly constitute an impeachable offense . Whether to proceed with
an investigation into such an offense is a political decision. I happen to agree that Trump
is a turd and that he should be investigated.
Once this political decision has been made, the potentially impeachable offense must be
investigated and prosecuted . The House leadership are engaging in the typical mistake of the
rookie prosecutor: saying to him/herself " I know he's good for it " and filing
charges without conducting a complete and thorough investigation . This is where
Professor Turley is correct:
Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this
country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be
thorough and complete. This is neither.
A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate (or
to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with the
Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of
Executive Privilege.
JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the
Venn circles of "leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being
exerted on behalf of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however
misguided that policy may be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or
financial benefit of an official. These are "gray areas" in which understanding the
subjective intent of the actor is crucial.
This is where hard evidence such as tapes and transcripts of the actual words used become
critical. This evidence apparently exists, but House Democrats have failed to file suit to
obtain them. Only when we know the words used and the surrounding circumstances can we draw
inferences about the subjective intent of the actors. In the criminal law we draw such
inferences about an actor's subjective intent all the time . However, we apply special
rules when drawing inferences about a person's intent. Those inferences must not only be
reasonable , they must be the only reasonable inferences that can be drawn from
the facts and circumstances presented.
As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as
ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their
fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it "
isn't evidence.
"... If Russia spending $100,000 on Facebook ads constitutes election interference, and Donald Trump asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is too - then Hillary Clinton takes the cake when it comes to influence campaigns designed to harm a political opponent. ..."
"... The article suggests that former Trump campaign aide Carter Page "has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials - including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president." ..."
"... Steele told us that in September [of 2016] her and Simpson gave an "off-the-record" briefing to a small number of journalists about his reporting, " reads page 165 of the FISA report, which says that Steele "acknowledged that Yahoo News was identified in one of the court filings in the foreign litigation as being present. " ..."
"... Put another way, Hillary Clinton paid Christopher Steele to feed information to the MSM in order to harm Donald Trump right before the 2016 election . Granted, there were intermediaries; the Clinton campaign paid law firm Perkins Coie, which paid Fusion GPS, which paid Steele. And if asked, we're guessing Clinton would claim she had no idea this happened - which simply isn't plausible given the stakes. Whatever the case - the act of Simpson paying Steele to peddle fiction to the media for the purpose of harming Trump, by itself , constitutes blatant election meddling by every standard set by the left over the past three years. ..."
If Russia spending $100,000 on Facebook ads constitutes election interference, and Donald
Trump asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is too - then Hillary Clinton takes the cake
when it comes to influence campaigns designed to harm a political opponent.
Contained within Monday's FISA report by the DOJ
Inspector General is the revelation that Fusion GPS, the firm paid by the Clinton campaign to
produce the Steele dossier, " was paying Steele to discuss his reporting with the media. " (
P.
369 and elsewhere)
And when did Steele talk with the media - which got him
fired as an FBI source ? Perhaps most notably was Yahoo News journalist Michael Isikoff ,
who says he was invited by Fusion GPS to meet a
"secret source" at a Washington restaurant . That secret source was none other than
Christopher Steele , who fed Isikoff information from his now-discredited dossier - and which
appeared in a
September 23, 2016 article roughly six weeks before the election - which likely had orders
of magnitude greater visibility and impact coming from a widely-read, MSM source vs. $100,000
in Russian Facebook ads.
The article suggests that former Trump campaign aide Carter Page "has opened up private
communications with senior Russian officials - including talks about the possible lifting of
economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president."
Steele told us that in September [of 2016] her and Simpson gave an "off-the-record" briefing
to a small number of journalists about his reporting, " reads page
165 of the FISA report, which says that Steele "acknowledged that Yahoo News was identified
in one of the court filings in the foreign litigation as being present. "
Put another way, Hillary Clinton paid Christopher Steele to feed information to the MSM in
order to harm Donald Trump right before the 2016 election . Granted, there were intermediaries;
the Clinton campaign paid law firm Perkins Coie, which paid Fusion GPS, which paid Steele. And
if asked, we're guessing Clinton would claim she had no idea this happened - which simply isn't
plausible given the stakes. Whatever the case - the act of Simpson paying Steele to peddle
fiction to the media for the purpose of harming Trump, by itself , constitutes blatant election
meddling by every standard set by the left over the past three years.
We're sure Hillary can explain that if and when she jumps into the 2020 race.
Schiff behaviour was egregious and as such it is now DemoRats liability...
Goldman finding are all bogus as they can't be compared with crimes on Obama and Clinton family.
Notable quotes:
"... Castor accused Democrats of sustaining a months-long quest to find an issue on which to impeach Trump. After Mueller's investigation didn't deliver the results they wanted, he said Democrats now are focusing on Trump's interactions with Ukraine, particularly his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. ..."
"... "The record in the Democrats' impeachment inquiry does not show that President Trump abused the power of Congress or obstructed Congress," Castor said. "To impeach a president who 63 million people voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is baloney." ..."
Here's the Democratic position, according to their lawyers...
"The evidence is overwhelming that the president abused his power" by trying to get
Ukraine to help his prospects for re-election by announcing an investigation into a political
rival, former Vice President Joe Biden," said Barry Berke, counsel to House Judiciary
Democrats.
He and Daniel Goldman, counsel for Democrats on the Intelligence Committee, also cited
numerous instances of the Trump administration withholding documents and other evidence
sought by Congress in connection with the Ukraine probe.
...and the Republican position.
The panel's Republican counsel, Steve Castor, reiterated one of the chief defenses of the
president that's been put forward by Trump allies: "The impeachment inquiry's record is
riddled with hearsay, presumptions and speculation."
He accused Democrats of pursuing an "artificial and arbitrary political deadline" to
overturn the 2016 election and impeach Trump's before the Christmas holiday.
Goldman detailed what he called four "critical" findings from the investigation, according
to Dems. All of these points will likely feature prominently in the articles.
Trump used the power of his office to pressure and induce the newly-elected president of
Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 presidential election for Trump's personal and political
benefit.
In order to increase the pressure on Ukraine to announce the politically-motivated
investigations that the president wanted, he withheld a coveted Oval Office meeting and $391
million of essential military assistance from Ukraine.
Trump's conduct undermined the U.S. election process and poses an imminent threat to our
national security.
Faced with the revelation of his pressure campaign against Ukraine, Trump directed an
unprecedented effort to obstruct Congress' impeachment inquiry into his conduct.
Meanwhile, Republicans insist that the Dems' impeachment drive was a waste of time because
it doesn't show abuse of power.
Castor accused Democrats of sustaining a months-long quest to find an issue on which to
impeach Trump. After Mueller's investigation didn't deliver the results they wanted, he said
Democrats now are focusing on Trump's interactions with Ukraine, particularly his July 25
phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
"The record in the Democrats' impeachment inquiry does not show that President Trump
abused the power of Congress or obstructed Congress," Castor said. "To impeach a president
who 63 million people voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is baloney."
Unfortunately, the impeachment hearing blitz has done little to shift public opinion. Poll
averages compiled by FiveThirtyEight and RealClear Politics show that Americans are evenly
divided with roughly 47% to 48% supporting impeachment and 44% to 45% opposing. Some individual
polls have found that more than eight in ten people say their minds are made up.
Though Nadler says he hasn't yet made a final decision, it looks like evidence from the
Mueller probe will be left out of the articles of impeachment by Democrats (probably not a bad
idea).
They poisoned with the USA with Russophobia for decades to come, and that really increases
the risk of nuclear confrontation, which would wipe out all this jerks, but also mass of innocent
people.
Notable quotes:
"... The only way to prevent it, IMHO, is having a Western public shifting just 5 % of their "breads and circuses" paradigm to that issue. Just 5. Not holding my breath I am afraid. ..."
"... Which proves the main point of mine: access to information means shit in the real world of power play. Sheeple didn't care then; they care even less now (better distractions). ..."
Sooner or later you'll have this, IMHO: Reaction time 7 minutes . You know,
decision-making time to say "launch" or not. The decision-maker in the White House, Downing
Street and Elysees Palace either a geriatric or one of this new multiracial breed. Just think
about those people
Add to that the level of overall expertise by the crews manning those systems, its
maintenance etc. Add increased automation of some parts of the launch process with
hardware/software as it's produced now (you know, quality control etc.).
It will take a miracle not to have that launch sooner or later. Not big, say .80 KT. What
happens after that is anybody's guess. Mine, taking the second point from the fourth
paragraph .a big bang.
The only way to prevent it, IMHO, is having a Western public shifting just 5 % of
their "breads and circuses" paradigm to that issue. Just 5.
Not holding my breath I am afraid.
@peterAUS The rational actor false supposition has it that the biologics can't be used
because they don't recognize friend from foe.
Rational actors? Where? Anthrax via the US mail.
One rational actor point of view is that you have to be able to respond to anything.
Anything. In a measured or escalating response. Of course biologics are being actively
pursued to the hilt. Just like you point out about Marburg.
But, the view from above is that general panic in the population cannot be allowed, and so
all biologics have to be down played. "of course we would never do anything like that, it
would be insane to endanger all of humanity". Just like nukes. So professors pontificate
misdirection, and pundits punt.
So don't expect real disclosure, or honest analysis. "We only want the fear that results
in more appropriations. Not the fear that sinks programs." Don't generate new Church
commissions. Hence the fine line. some fear yes, other fears, no.
Well Washington D.C.
Hahahahaha sorry, couldn't resist.
So don't expect real disclosure, or honest analysis.
I don't.
But I also probably forgot more about nuclear war than most of readers here will ever
know. And chemical, when you think about it; had a kit with atropine on me all the time in
all exercises. We didn't practice much that "biologics" stuff, though. We knew why, then.
Same reason for today. Call it a "stoic option" to own inevitable demise.
Now, there is a big difference between the age of those protests I mentioned and today.
The Internet. The access to information people, then, simply didn't have.
Which proves the main point of mine: access to information means shit in the real
world of power play. Sheeple didn't care then; they care even less now (better
distractions).
Well, they will care, I am sure. For about ..say in the USA ..several hours, on
average.
We here where I am typing from will care for "how to survive the aftermath" .. for two
months.Tops.
Appearing on "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Maté
said Ukraine's efforts to tamper in the election are "no secret."
"Ukrainian officials -- they leaked information that exposed some apparent corruption by Paul Manafort and it was consequential.
It led to Paul Manafort's resignation
from the Trump campaign," he said. "And, the stated intent of Ukrainian officials was to weaken the Trump campaign because they
wanted to help elect Hillary Clinton ."
Yet, when Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told "Meet The Press" host
Chuck Todd Sunday that reports from various
media outlets indicated that former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko favored Clinton over now-President Trump, Todd accused him
of parroting Russian President
Vladimir Putin's talking points.
"Are you at all concerned that you've been duped?" Todd asked.
On the same network, anchor
Nicolle Wallace and her guest The Bulwark Editor-at-Large Charlie Sykes echoed Todd, agreeing that Kennedy "comes off as an addled
Russian asset on television" after "peddling Vladimir Putin's talking points."
"I don't understand the proactive work on behalf of Putin's Kremlin," said Wallace.
Maté told Carlson that what these pundits are trying to do is "conflate that with a different theory by Ukrainian meddling. Which
is not proven -- it's true."
"And, that is the one that Trump tried to put forward in this
phone call with Zelenksy where he appears to be saying that it wasn't Russia that was behind the
hacking of the DNC and that it might have been Ukraine," he continued.
"It's true there's no evidence for that theory, and it's fair enough to point out that. But. what's also ironic here is that the
people who are indignant about that claim by Trump are accepting the claim that Russia hacked the DNC," Maté stated, adding that
journalists should be demanding to see the underlying evidence used by U.S. intelligence to draw that conclusion.
Carlson said the mainstream media now accuses anyone who questions their narrative of being a "traitor to the country" and supporting
Russia. Julia Musto is a reporter for Foxnews.com
So CIA agent Carter Page joins Trump campaign and then do several "improper" moves like
travel to Moscow and contracts with Russian officials things in order to create a pretext for FBI
investigation. Which of course was promptly started. This is called false flag operation.
From comments: "He wasn’t a victim, he was an asset. When actors portray a victim, they
are ACTING!!!"
Notable quotes:
"... "The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses". - the esteemed Malcolm X. ..."
"... Seth Rich downloaded the emails on a potable drive. Was he Russian? ..."
"... DNC/ FBI/ CIA/ CNN/ NBC have merged into the 5 headed serpent. ..."
"... Roger Stone got some minor facts wrong and is facing jail time, Brennan and Comey outright lied to Congress, when are they going to jail? ..."
"... "June 2017, CIA told FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith that Carter Page was working for them (the CIA)." Clinesmith then changed that notification so he could submit the last (FISA) renewal. ..."
"... "Lets hope Carter Page spends the rest of his life sueing everyone..." lol Thats the meanest thing ive ever heard you say! O:) ..."
There are so many crooked actors and actresses hired by the MSM it is just pathetic. They
are not reporters, they are there only to put on a show for the masses.
"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the
innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the
minds of the masses". - the esteemed Malcolm X.
"June 2017, CIA told FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith that Carter Page was working for them
(the CIA)." Clinesmith then changed that notification so he could submit the last (FISA)
renewal.
1:52
- This is what a paid shill looks like. If the money is good, they'll read whatever is on the
prompter. Years from now when they're demonized by the corrupt media they'll scratch their
head and ask... What happened to integrity in our country???
If you asked me 20 years ago wether I would be watching Fox News to get the most rational
point of view in politics, I would have said you were crazy. Another great job Tucker! In my
opinion, you’re one of the best news men of our current time; questioning needless
wars, and calling out politicians, gvmnt officials and your counterparts at other news desks
with rational arguments. Well done sir!
Personally seen these types of things/cases in lower levels, police chiefs and officials,
judges, prosecutors, mayor, FBI, and so on. Not surprisingly it happens elsewhere. ...But
very disappointed of it all.
If I were an American citizen, I'd be very concerned about the utter incompetence of the
FBI that the IG report exposed. The dems don't seem to be bothered by this at all. Go
figure.
The Establishment has played this game many times before .. remember PM Harold Wilson was
put up as a Russian Agent .. sure they won that game but NOT this time .. they fear President
Trump because the have nothing over him .
The Democ-rats and the media (I repeat myself) are shamelessly LYING through their teeth
to the American People. There was NO Russian collision—it's a HOAX made by LOSERS who
can't accept their loss in 2016 so they were up to smear the winner, President Trump, by all
means, possible including Illegal surveillance, fraud and manipulation—ABUSE of
government power for political prosecution.
Steele dossier......fake evidence bought and payed for by the democrats and presented to
the FISA court by James Comey...........FELONY FELONY FELONY!......this one can’t be
talked away!
Tucker, thank you for being a constant drumbeat for the criminal activity undertaken by
the FBI and CIA to ultimately unseat a duly elected President. No rest until they are held
accountable.
How could the FBI be innocent? We saw the emails. We saw them cover up for Bill Gates,
Clinton, Epstein, Brunel, and all the others. We saw how they protected these abusers of
children. We saw how they worked to overthrow a sitting president. We saw how they protected
the Awan’s and Huma.
THE FIX WAS IN - People are saying that Nellie Orr the Russian Expert is best friends with
the IG's Horowitz wife - So nice - Bruce your husband is a lap dog and works for the FBI .
People should be outraged as the cover up continues . Just like OJ - they have 10 times the
evidence that would convict anyone else - have them charged , arrested , tried and jailed .
Different rules for corrupt politicians and their friends in law enforcement .
Michael Cohen In prison, Papadopulos went to prison, Flynn is going to prison, Roger Stone
is going to prison, Manafort is in prison and Devin Nunes and Rudy Giuliani are under
investigation.....Lock them up, lock them up!!!!
CIA tells FBI who in turn uses their corrupt media to spread the lies as truth. The less
intelligent among us believe them as gospel and thus we get "Russian Collusion, or Quid Pro
Quo, or Iraq has weapons of mass destruction " and on and on.....
Ukraine and Barisma may be corrupt, but after reading the summary of this report, this
country better not be calling any country corrupt. The USA is following Rome. Soon it will
die.
FBI is totally corrupted by it's unchecked power, these deep states have the guts to
repeatedly use FALSE Information again & again to spy on the opposition political party
presidential candidate campaign. The Fake News medias continue to cover for them, it is
sickening!
The FBI based on the IG report are either criminally liable for deceiving FISA courts, or
the most inept, bumbling criminal investigation agency ever. Looks like both to me. Any FBI
agent or employee who knew the FBI was breaking the law, and remained silent needs to be
fired immediately and prosecuted along with the principals, for aiding and abetting criminal
activity. This sounds like RICO violations.
if Carter Page didn't run the 2016 "Trump Election Campaign Committee of Moscow" from the
ROSNEFT bureau offices inside the Kremlin, where did Carter Page run the "Trump Election
Campaign Committee of Moscow" ?
Horowitz needs to stop being a wuss and tell the whole truth. His report is a big lie. The
whole thing was a political attack. It started with John McCain and he handed it off to Obama
and Crooked Hillary. There was no reason at all to investigate Trump. Is the IG part of the
deep state? Democrats are acting like this report is good news for them.
Steele was not the author of the fake dossier, DNC FusionGPS Glen Simpson was, and Steele
used as cover. Coming in the Durham findings. 17 FBI "mistakes" in a row all against Trump?
No bias? B S.
How Trump has "conned" the American tax payer: This is just a few of his fraud actions!He
set up a foundation to benefit the military, then him and his family pocketed our money.He
started a Fake University, then stole the money from the American people.He cheated on his
wives, then paid them to keep quiet so it wouldn't damage his chances in the election.He
stiffed 100's of worker's he hired and then made up an excuse y they didn't get paid
If Donald Trump was a Russian spy it would’ve been the deepest cover of any secret
agent ever....he came here after his lgb training as a young man and became a celebrity for
30 years before finally putting his dastardly plan to go from pageant owner to president into
action! If that were anywhere close to true the Russians did so much work I think they earned
the 4-8 years in the White House! I know that at this point I’d rather have Vladimir
Putin as President than any of the top democrats!
Folks..All this soap opera is just a smoke screen to hide what is really important and is
happening right now at this very minute. The Federal Reserve Banking cartel is pumping 100s
of billions of dollars into insolvent banks again like they did in 2008. This time it is more
and we taxpayers will again foot the bill. The banks are getting this money called REPO
loans. Watch your cash everyone as the Federal Reserve has only 1 product and that is
printing money( debt) that they will use to steal your assets and future.
There are many opinions about the Horowitz report. As with a prior report Horowitz lays
out damning evidence and then draws exactly the wrong conclusion. Why does he have to draw
ANY CONCLUSIONS? His job is to present the facts and the evidence and to let "We the People'
draw conclusions. Reminds me of Comey declaring that Hillary's actions were irresponsible but
not criminal. Why? She didn't act with intent. She was just incompetent! Tucker is absolutely
right! What does it matter what their motive was? Like Clinton, they behaved in a criminal
fashion.
The idea that Trump wanted to derail Biden is very weak. Biden is optimal opponent for Trump.
He can just wipe floor with him because of his long recoprd in Congress and dirty deals he was
involved, including Burisma.
Notable quotes:
"... It's funny because 3 out of 4 of those people screaming "Framers" had frames on.. so is it the framed trying to frame the framers or is it the presidents framers framing the framed..wait a minute!.. uhhmm ..."
"... Professor Karlan I believe has tanked her career ..."
It's funny because 3 out of 4 of those people screaming "Framers" had frames on.. so is it
the framed trying to frame the framers or is it the presidents framers framing the
framed..wait a minute!.. uhhmm
What I see is copious amounts of wailing from the usual sources about the demise of what
was supposed to be an era of Unipolar dominance by the Evil Outlaw US Empire and blame being
thrown in all directions hoping some sticks instead of directing it at themselves for they
are he true authors of the Empire's decline--they being the Current Oligarchy and their
Congressional, Administrative, and BigLie Media accomplices. The Empire's current "defense"
doctrine calls for war to be waged against the nation(s) impeding the Empire's unilateralism.
The brats are spoilt beyond belief and 100% believe they're entitled to having Full
Spectrum Dominance because of their exceptionalist ideology--they've destroyed their own
basic law to attain that goal; the impeachment derangement is just the most overt symptom
being shown at the moment. Just look at the unanimity on the two recent anti-China
votes--Congress is in almost 100% lockstep with Marco Rubio's insanity.
IMO, there were saner heads in 1962 than now, particularly in Congress. What's worse than
an Evil Outlaw US Empire is it's becoming deranged.
"... Lavrov told reporters Thursday: "I think that it is difficult to unbalance us and China. We are well aware of what is happening. We have an answer to all the threats that the Alliance is multiplying in this world." He also said the West is seeking to dominate the Middle East under the guise of NATO as well. ..."
"... "Naturally, we cannot but feel worried over what has been happening within NATO," Lavrov stated. "The problem is NATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only NATO is in the position to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West dislikes for some reason ." ..."
"... NATO still exists, according to Lavrov, in order to "eliminate competitors" and ensure a West-dominated global system in search of new official enemies. ..."
"... I'm wondering how many NATO states don't have US Military Bases positioned in them. It's a small distance between a forward operating base and an occupying forces. ..."
"... What NATO is doing is called racketeering. Only the problem of Europe is not Russia, but the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same Americans and NATO. ..."
"... Children sometimes need a made-up friend, and these bastards need a made-up enemy. Russia is perfect for this. ..."
"... LOL. The NATO ONLY serves US interests. It has the same function as always. Keep the US in, Russia out and Germany down. ..."
"... The collapse of the US empire has been underway for years. Nobody is excited about it because, instead of gracefully adapting to change with the dignity of a great nation, the US will continue to cling to denial, lashing out at all and sundry as reality intrudes upon the myth of American exceptionalism. ..."
"... US geopolitics has created a foe it cannot defeat without itself being destroyed. ..."
"... Technocratic sociopaths, doing a CYA for their incompetence. ..."
"... ZATO cries out in pain as it strikes you. ..."
NATO Seeking To "Dominate The World" & Eliminate Competitors: Russia's Lavrov by
Tyler Durden Mon,
12/09/2019 - 02:45 0 SHARES
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has charged NATO with wanting to "dominate the world"
a day after 70th anniversary events of the alliance concluded in London.
"We absolutely understand that NATO wants to dominate the world and wants to eliminate any
competitors, including resorting to an information war, trying to unbalance us and China,"
Lavrov said from Bratislava,
the capital of Slovakia, while attending the 26th Ministerial Council of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
He seized upon NATO leaders' comments this week, specifically Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg, naming China as a new enemy alongside Russia . Stoltenberg declared
at the summit that NATO has to "tackle the issue" of China's growing
capabilities.
Lavrov told reporters Thursday: "I think that it is difficult to unbalance us and China. We
are well aware of what is happening. We have an answer to all the threats that the Alliance is
multiplying in this world." He also said the West is seeking to dominate the Middle East under
the guise of NATO as well.
The new accusation of 'world domination'
comes at a crisis moment of growing and deep divisions over the future of the Cold War era
military alliance, including back-and-forth comments on Macron's "brain death" remarks, and
looming questions over Turkey's fitness to remain in NATO, and the ongoing debate over cost
sharing burdens and the scope of the mission.
"Naturally, we cannot but feel worried over what has been happening within NATO," Lavrov
stated. "The problem is NATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to
persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only NATO is in the position
to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West dislikes for
some reason ."
A consistent theme of Lavrov's has been
to call for a "post-West world order" but that NATO has "remained a Cold War institution"
hindering balance in global relations where countries can pursue their own national
interests.
NATO still exists, according to Lavrov, in order to "eliminate competitors" and ensure a West-dominated global system in
search of new official enemies.
Remember the last Bilderberg meeting. Russia and China were not invited. The globalists
have planned this, and apparently, Russia has better intelligence to know what's going on,
and they will take the necessary precautions, along with China. Let's just hope it's not
going to lead us to WW3.
I'm wondering how many NATO states don't have US Military Bases positioned in them. It's a small distance between a forward operating base and an occupying forces.
NATO is not trying to dominate, NATO is trying to extend its profit from frightened
European donkeys who still believe that the USSR exists, and Uncle Joe sits in the Kremlin
and eats a Christian baby in garlic sauce for lunch.
What NATO is doing is called racketeering. Only the problem of Europe is not Russia, but
the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same Americans and NATO.
So there will
be a big "raspathosovka" with shooting and explosions, do not even doubt it.. Only the problem of
Europe is not Russia, but the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same
Americans and NATO. So there will be a big **** with shooting and explosions, do not even
doubt it.
I'll just repeat the erased: NATO - lovers of freebies and they don't refuse this
freebie voluntarily. Children sometimes need a made-up friend, and these bastards need a
made-up enemy. Russia is perfect for this.
NATO is obsolete. The organization no longer serves US interests, and quite frankly,
hasn't for some time. I respectfully suggest the USA move all forces out of Germany on day 1, and station them
at Fort Trump in Poland.
Day 2, the US forms a new "mutual defense pact" with Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.
(Former Eastern Bloc nations)
Russia and Germany can duke it out, just not where our guys are hanging out. Hades,
Germany and France can limp wrist at each other as they have done in the past so many
times. But insofar as US troops leaving continental Europe forever? Sorry Sergei, that ain't happening, no matter how much
propaganda you shove up western
europe's (willing) ***.
Meanwhile Vlad makes new friends around the world... Last year Putin signed accords with President Macri of Argentina which included Russia
recognizing Argentina's Falklands claim. (La Voz, 23 Jan 2018).
An Argentinian claim based upon 'usurpation' – meaningless in the 18th century and
inheritance from Spain just like Mexico inherited California and Texas.
The NATO advantage right now is of the least dirty shirt variety. As it stands, I am not
excited about the thought of the US empire collapsing. People have been predicting that for
a while and for the moment, I don't see a legit replacement stepping up to the plate. The
US is a crooked gangster, but the other countries are not exactly ready for the big
league.
The NATO advantage right now is of the least dirty shirt variety.
The NATO disadvantage right now is of the "sitting with pants full of **** and asking
others who farted" variety.
As it stands, I am not excited about the thought of the US empire collapsing.
The collapse of the US empire has been underway for years. Nobody is excited about it
because, instead of gracefully adapting to change with the dignity of a great nation, the
US will continue to cling to denial, lashing out at all and sundry as reality intrudes upon
the myth of American exceptionalism.
I don't see a legit replacement stepping up to the plate.
US imperial decline is reminiscent of Casey at the Bat.
but the other countries are not exactly ready for the big league.
Or they've decided the US game is not worth playing.
Since 2013 I have followed Russian foreign policy and actions in the middle east and
elsewhere,thanks to statesmen like Lavrov they have crossed every t and dotted every i
following international law and convention, true history will be a lot kinder to Russia than
N ot A nother T errorist O rganisation
What is happening to Europe is the same as what's happening to Russia, only Russia
didn't ask for it. Nevertheless, Azeris and Tatars are on the rise demographically, and
Russians are on the decline.
I don't think Russia ... or China for that matter ... need to worry much. The West is imploding and NATO will implode along with it. The West can't even depend on its technical superiority anymore ( see Boeing 737MAX
); it sure can't depend on (most of) its people to do any real fighting.
NATO is fading and becoming a contradictory mess. China and Russia will be the foe, with possibly India, and far more effective,
economically and militarily. Europe doesn't stand a chance against these no matter how they posture, their slope is
downward.
US geopolitics has created a foe it cannot defeat without itself being destroyed.
"The problem is ZATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to
persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only ZATO is in the
position to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West
dislikes for some reason ."
A long time ago I watched "Manufacturing Consent" and have since assumed that what passes
for mainstream "news" is nothing more than propaganda, and that Mark Twain was entirely
correct in his observation that if you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do
read the newspaper you are misinformed. Though it is sad when I see the likes of the once
great Nature engage in such, all things must pass and I am sure they will too, most of what I
read these days comes straight off arxiv.org so they have already been disintermediated in my
life.
@32 c1ue
That will be £1,000,000 for linking to my post, please pay within 24 hours or legal
action will be taken!
"... Hillary Clinton, Her husband Bill and Barak Obama are all deep cover CIA agents in addition to their other positions, as documented in the book "CIA: Crime Incorporated of America". ..."
"... The arms came from more places than simply Libya, although Libya was the central shipping and gathering point to go to Turkey and then on to Syria. Turkey was part of the Obama enablers of ISIS and ISIL big time ! Obama made sure ISIS got all the weapons and munitions and equipment we left behind and did literally nothing to stop them at all. He, Brennan, Hillary as well as Kerry all have massive blood on their hands via the atrocities of ISIS ! ..."
"... Not forgetting William Browder, part of the same gang, whose grandfather was the Leader of the US Communist Party. No doubt with close ties to Allen Dulles and ''peration Paperclip'. ..."
"... Will never forget Brennan, going to Ukraine, with instructions, just prior to 2 May 2014 and the Odessa Trade Union Massacre. Coincidence or what? ..."
"... Brennan may well have already been CIA when he joined the CPUSA. In any case, he's scum. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson and the author of this article asks, How can someone like Brennan be provided security clearance for top secrets in the CIA. A very easy answer: the entire American financial/judicial/military/spy organizations have become highly corrupt. Meanwhile, millions of adult Americans could care less. ..."
"... "When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America...America will triumph over you". https://t.co/uKppoDbduj -- John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) March 17, 2018 ..."
Let's get something clear from the start. In 1976, in his 20s, John Brennan was a card carrying communist who supported the then
Soviet Union, at the height some might say of the Cold War, so much so he voted and assisted Gus Hall, the communist candidate for
President against a devout Christian, Jimmy Carter who ultimately won the Presidency.
Yet under four years later, just after the then Soviet Union invaded, just weeks before, Afghanistan and months after the tumultuous
Iranian revolution of 1979, which at the time many thought the Soviet Union had a hand in, Brennan was accepted into the CIA as a
junior analyst.
At that time, John Brennan should have never got into the CIA, or any Western Intelligence agency given his communist background.
Think on that carefully as you continue to read this.
Also reflect on the fact that Brennan, later in his CIA career, was surprisingly elevated from junior analyst to the prestigious
position of Station Chief in Saudi Arabia where he spent a few years.
Its said he was appointed purely for 'political' reasons, alleged to have been at the direct request of Bill Clinton and other
Democrats not because of a recommendation or merit from within the Agency.
Its further said that the Saudis liked Brennan because he became very quickly 'their man' so to speak. Some reports, unsubstantiated,
even allege Brennan became a Muslim while there to ingratiate himself with the Saudis.
Important to read is an NBC news article entitled 'Former Spooks Criticize CIA Director John Brennan for Spying Comments' by Ken
Dilanian dated March 2nd, 2016.
The article contains many revealing facts and evidence, while giving a flavour, of the feelings of many in the CIA who felt that
Brennan was totally unsuitable and unqualified to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
A final controversy is the little known fact of Brennan's near four year departure from the CIA into the commercial world, having
been 'left out in the cold' from the CIA, from November 2005 to January 2009 when he was CEO of a private company called 'The Analysis
Corporation'.
So why was he then reinstated into the CIA, to the surprise of CIA's senior management, by newly elected President Obama, to head
the CIA? No answer is available as to why he left the CIA in 2005.
Lastly let's not forget Brennan's many failures as CIA head in recent years, one most notable is the Benghazi debacle and the
death of a US Ambassador and others there. Something else to ponder.
Back to the present an the issue of security clearances.
In early August, on the well known American TV Rachel Maddow Show, Brennan back tracked on his Trump traitor claim by saying "I
didn't mean he (Trump) committed treason. I meant what he has done is nothing short of treasonous." Rachel Maddow responded correctly
"If we diagram the sentence, 'nothing short of treason' means it's treasonous?"
A simple question follows. Since he is no longer in the CIA, why does he need a security clearance other than to commercially
exploit it?
Tucker Carlson explains succinctly here:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Kzxf9TcJ_3k
Last month what can be described as 200+ 'friends of Brennan', former CIA officials of varying rank, responded against the removal
of former CIA Director Brennan's security clearances, in support of him.
These men and women too most likely will have their clearances revoked.
And why not?
Since the only purpose they retain it is to make money as civilians?
A potentially more serious issue than 'the Brennan controversies' is that the US intelligence community has around 5 million people
with security clearances as a whole includes approximately 1.4m people holding top secret clearances. It is patently a ridiculously
high number and makes a mockery of the word secret.
Former CIA veteran Sam Faddis is one of the few people brave enough and with the integrity required, that has stood up
and told some of the real truths about Brennan in an 'Open Letter', yet this letter's contents have hardly at all been reported in
the media.
Generally by nature, CIA Officers sense of service and honour to their Country, their professionalism and humility, and disdain
for publicity has dissuaded most of them to enter the current very public Brennan controversy; but for how much longer?
I implore you to cease and desist from continuing to attempt to portray yourself in the public media as some sort of impartial
critic concerned only with the fate of the republic. I beg you to stop attempting to portray yourself as some sort of wise, all-knowing
intelligence professional with deep knowledge of national security issues and no political inclinations whatsoever.
None of this is true.
You were never a spy. You were never a case officer. You never ran operations or recruited sources or worked the streets abroad.
You have no idea whatsoever of the true nature of the business of human intelligence. You have never been in harm's way. You have
never heard a shot fired in anger.
You were for a short while an intelligence analyst. In that capacity, it was your job to produce finished intelligence based
on information provided to you by others. The work of intelligence analysts is important, however in truth you never truly mastered
this trade either.
In your capacity as an analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency, while still a junior officer, you were designated to brief
the President of the United States who was at that time Bill Clinton. As the presidential briefer, it was your job to read to
the president each morning finished intelligence written by others based on intelligence collected by yet other individuals. Period.
While serving as presidential briefer you established a personal relationship with then President Bill Clinton. End of story.
Everything that has transpired in your professional career since has been based on your personal relationship with the former
president, his wife Hillary and their key associates. Your connection to President Obama was, in fact, based on you having established
yourself by the time he came to office as a reliable, highly political Democratic Party functionary.
All of your commentary in the public sphere is on behalf of your political patrons. It is no more impartial analysis then would
be the comments of a paid press spokesman or attorney. You are speaking each and every time directly on behalf of political forces
hostile to this president. You are, in fact, currently on the payroll of both NBC and MSNBC, two of the networks most vocally
opposed to President Trump and his agenda.
There is no impartiality in your comments. Your assessments are not based on some sober judgment of what is best for this nation.
They are based exclusively on what you believe to be in the best interests of the politicians with whom you long since allied
yourself.
It should be noted that not only are you most decidedly not apolitical but that you have been associated during your career
with some of the greatest foreign policy disasters in recent American history.
Ever since this President was elected, there has been a concerted effort to delegitimize him and destabilize him led by you.
This has been an unprecedented; to undermine the stability of the republic and the office of the Presidency, for solely partisan
political reasons. You and your patrons have been complicit in this effort and at its very heart.
You abandoned any hope of being a true intelligence professional decades ago and became a political hack. Say so.
Sam Faddis
EPILOGUE:
I decided to update this article with this epilogue that summarises events since its first publication, but by not writing more.
By simply adding links showing Brennan speaking in March just before Meuller's Report was released, and excerpts of other interviews
and commentaries.
In this way, reader's can judge for themselves Brennan's essentially undoubtable despicable character which shines through by
watching and reading the below 8 links up to 1st April 2019. There are many more, but in consideration of space, I've selected these
links.
These are not in chronological order, date/time wise.
I would add that, for his own 'survival', and that of his co-conspirators, there will, I predict, over the coming days and weeks,
be an attempt by Brennan to STILL try and fabricate 'dirt' on President Trump to justify his treacherous behaviour against importantly
more than just Trump, but 'the Office of the President', something for which, in my opinion, he and those involved should be prosecuted
for, even some jailed for.
Most particularly in addition to Brennan is clearly Obama himself, Clinton, Clapper and Comey et al.
The CIA operation in Benghazi was smuggling weapons captured from the Libyan army to Syria via Jordan and Turkey to arm the
anti Assad forces. This operation was directed by Brennan, Clinton, Obama and General Petraeus and was in total violation of national
and international law.
Ambassador Stevens was aware of this operation and allowed to die by delaying a military rescue operation, as part of a cover
up of this illegal operation. Dead men tell no tales.
Hillary Clinton, Her husband Bill and Barak Obama are all deep cover CIA agents in addition to their other positions, as documented
in the book "CIA: Crime Incorporated of America".
They don't like Trump because he is the first non CIA President in a long while
(George W. Bush was not CIA but under his father's influence) and not part of the secret team. Hopefully, they eventually will
be punished for their crimes. Qanon gives hope!
The arms came from more places than simply Libya, although Libya was the central shipping and gathering point to go to Turkey
and then on to Syria. Turkey was part of the Obama enablers of ISIS and ISIL big time ! Obama made sure ISIS got all the weapons
and munitions and equipment we left behind and did literally nothing to stop them at all. He, Brennan, Hillary as well as Kerry
all have massive blood on their hands via the atrocities of ISIS !
Not forgetting William Browder, part of the same gang, whose grandfather was the Leader of the US Communist Party. No doubt
with close ties to Allen Dulles and ''peration Paperclip'.
Which provided safe passage and new identities for the Nazi and Bolshevik
Elite. Funny how the stench behind the overthrow of he Russian Empire, can still be found, firmly embedded in the swamps of the
21st century.
Will never forget Brennan, going to Ukraine, with instructions, just prior to 2 May 2014 and the Odessa Trade Union
Massacre. Coincidence or what?
Wasn't McCain's father also good friends with Allen Dulles? Wonder where Clinton fitted into the work of Dulles?
One of the more murky issues is the murder of Michael Hastings. A lot of information died with his murder but some info indicates
that he was working on a major report on Brennan. He reportedly advised his friends that the fbi was working on an investigation
on him and he was fearful for his survival
As many will recall, Hastings died in June 2013 in fiery crash of his Mercedes which
was speeding at up to 100 mph in a calif neighborhood.
Also, many will recall, the leaking of "Vault 7" by wikileaks indicated that one of the tools revealed was the ability to remotely
control a vehicle without any input from the driver, positive or negative. This ability is described in detail in the following:
How do you think the Royal Family killed princess Diana? If they can control a drone on the other side of the globe, they can
certainly control the accelerator, brakes and steering of a motor vehicle.
Only the most creepy evil people are allowed to be in our government. They have done a terrible job. Our country is like a
plane in a death spiral, and the same list of creeps keeps getting into the White House. The same people no matter who we elect.
Trump has the same people, or worse than Obama or Hillary or Bush had. It's past time to try and salvage whatever is left of this
country.
100 Stinger shoulder launch ground-to-air missiles. Stevens tried to block the shipment, the embassy was attacked by a highly
skilled, armed, assault team - the story told by "Tonto", one of the military contractors involved in the attempted rescue. All
those Americans in Benghazi were sacrificed in the same way the USS Liberty crew was sacrifice.
Greater Israel is the base of all this violence. Incidentally, "Tonto" and his mates had to commandeer a private jet, after
the fire-fight, that got them to Germany - the US/CIA/State Dept., etc. left them to their own methods and they got out, to the
consternation of the Obama/Clinton Administration.
Tucker Carlson and the author of this article asks, How can someone like Brennan be provided security clearance for top secrets
in the CIA. A very easy answer: the entire American financial/judicial/military/spy organizations have become highly corrupt. Meanwhile,
millions of adult Americans could care less.
Well............Those two contrasts will be intriguing to watch how the grandchildren and great-grandchilren will fare when
the US Empire becomes so degraded, that the young will have to forage on their own for housing, water, and food.
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful
place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy
America...America will triumph over you".
https://t.co/uKppoDbduj -- John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) March 17, 2018
He has to be part of a CIA "cleansing" operation.
Better put him in jail with no rights whatsoever . Let that turd rot in some humid dungeon . That's for the rats like this one
.
"... there is something to the idea that American political culture is becoming increasingly Sovietized ..."
"... This article below inadvertently illustrates the obsession with malign foreign influences, like that which pervaded Soviet discourse and remains a bad smell in Russia to this day. ..."
"... Another rapidly creeping Soviet trait is the weaponization of politics, turning any disagreement into an existential struggle, opponents into enemies, the way words like "treason" or "Russian asset" have become common coin ..."
"... increasingly they have that "enemy of the people" ring to them. The growing prominence of the intelligence services in political life, and their alumni on cable TV news shows, is another worrisome trend to watch. ..."
There is something to the idea that American political culture is becoming increasingly
Sovietized, writes Weir .
This is becoming quite the meme. Upon reflection, I do think there is something in it. Not
this idiotic suggestion that Repubicans have somehow morphed into borscht-swilling,
shapka-wearing, Putin-loving Russkies. Indeed, there are hardly any actual Russians like that.
But there is something to the idea that American political culture is becoming increasingly Sovietized. Of course it's two separate camps, not a monolith, and the Democrats are at least
as guilty as Republicans.
This article below inadvertently illustrates the obsession with malign foreign influences,
like that which pervaded Soviet discourse and remains a bad smell in Russia to this day.
Russians scoff at the idea that Putin is able to get his own man elected president of the US
when he can't even fix the governor in Irkutsk. But the author of this piece implies that Putin
is somehow pulling the strings, not only of Trump but all Republicans?
Another rapidly creeping
Soviet trait is the weaponization of politics, turning any disagreement into an existential
struggle, opponents into enemies, the way words like "treason" or "Russian asset" have become
common coin. And they are not just deployed as simple insults: increasingly they have that
"enemy of the people" ring to them. The growing prominence of the intelligence services in
political life, and their alumni on cable TV news shows, is another worrisome trend to watch.
Also, it looks like big part of the media have become almost Pravda-like, making ideological
mission their main priority. I spend some of my down-time perusing shows from Fox News and
MSNBC, which an alien from outer space would think were the propaganda organs of two different,
mutually-hostile states -- but both very Soviet-like.
... ... ...
THEATLANTIC.COM
The Russification of the Republican Party
GOP lawmakers used to oppose the president's embrace of Putin and the Kremlin. Not anymore.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/12/impeachment-republican-party-russia/603088/?fbclid=IwAR1EC0-CDBEx-3SMS1lJTMT2m0xVjfaguZehK4BIeZ5Bov41Ds1XFi_Cbkg
"... I first heard of the interagency in Baghdad in 2009. I was there as part of a Council on Foreign Relations delegation to Iraq. As a U.S. Army general briefed us on how the war was being fought, he spoke of the interagency as the source of the strategy he was executing. Naively, I asked why he wasn't operating according to orders from his military superiors or the secretary of defense. ..."
"... He explained that American war-fighting was being guided by a "whole of government" philosophy. Incredibly, he explained that the war couldn't be won without, among other agencies, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice and Labor. Iraq needed economic expansion, modern farming, business statistics, new hospitals, a working court system and workplace regulations. The strategy framed by the interagency was nothing less than a yearslong engagement in nation building -- precisely what President George W. Bush had rejected in his 2000 campaign. ..."
"... When the war on terror opened, with all the secret activity it required, professional cadres in the diplomatic corps, the military and the nation's many intelligence agencies were able to transform interagency cooperative agreements that had existed since the Cold War into a de facto agency -- a largely informal and virtual bureaucracy -- with the assumed power, if need be, to determine and execute a foreign policy at odds with the intent of the president and Congress. ..."
"... Last month's testimony before the Intelligence Committee shed light on this club whose members are a permanent shadow government credentialed by family histories, elite schools and unique career experiences. This common pedigree informs their perspective of how America should relate to the world. The dogmatists of the interagency seem to share a common discomfort with a president who probably couldn't describe the doctrine of soft power, doesn't desire to be the center of attention at Davos, and wouldn't know that Francis Fukuyama once decided that history was over. ..."
Enthusiasm over entrepreneurship is now found in every corner of society -- even, apparently, within the federal bureaucracy.
Witness after witness in last month's House impeachment inquiry hearings referred to "the interagency," an off-the-books informal
government organization that we now know has enormous power to set and execute American foreign policy.
The first to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, State Department official George Kent, seemed to conceive of the
interagency as the definitive source of foreign-policy consensus. That Mr. Trump's alleged decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine
deviated from that consensus was, for Mr. Kent, prima facie evidence that it was misguided.
Next up, Ambassador William Taylor told the committee that it was the "unanimous opinion of every level of interagency discussion"
that the aid should be resumed without delay. Fiona Hill, a former National Security Council official, gave the game away by admitting
how upset she was that Gordon Sondland, President Trump's ambassador to the European Union, had established an "alternative" approach
to helping Kyiv. "We have a robust interagency process that deals with Ukraine," she said.
What is the interagency, and why should its views guide the conduct of American diplomatic and national-security professionals?
The Constitution grants the president the power to set defense and diplomatic policy. Where did this interagency come from?
I first heard of the interagency in Baghdad in 2009. I was there as part of a Council on Foreign Relations delegation to Iraq.
As a U.S. Army general briefed us on how the war was being fought, he spoke of the interagency as the source of the strategy he was
executing. Naively, I asked why he wasn't operating according to orders from his military superiors or the secretary of defense.
He explained that American war-fighting was being guided by a "whole of government" philosophy. Incredibly, he explained that
the war couldn't be won without, among other agencies, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice and Labor. Iraq needed economic expansion, modern farming, business statistics, new
hospitals, a working court system and workplace regulations. The strategy framed by the interagency was nothing less than a yearslong
engagement in nation building -- precisely what President George W. Bush had rejected in his 2000 campaign.
Interagency cooperative agreements have been around for decades. The Justice Department, for example, has opioid-interdiction
programs that require it to work with the Department of Homeland Security. Today a dictionary of more than 12,500 official terms
exists to guide bureaucrats in writing interagency contracts that repurpose federal funds appropriated to various executive departments.
Often these interdepartmental initiatives devised by bureaucrats are unknown to Congress. It's hard to imagine that the legislative
branch wouldn't object to these arrangements, if only it were aware of them.
When the war on terror opened, with all the secret activity it required, professional cadres in the diplomatic corps, the military
and the nation's many intelligence agencies were able to transform interagency cooperative agreements that had existed since the
Cold War into a de facto agency -- a largely informal and virtual bureaucracy -- with the assumed power, if need be, to determine
and execute a foreign policy at odds with the intent of the president and Congress.
Last month's testimony before the Intelligence Committee shed light on this club whose members are a permanent shadow government
credentialed by family histories, elite schools and unique career experiences. This common pedigree informs their perspective of
how America should relate to the world. The dogmatists of the interagency seem to share a common discomfort with a president who
probably couldn't describe the doctrine of soft power, doesn't desire to be the center of attention at Davos, and wouldn't know that
Francis Fukuyama once decided that history was over.
The impeachment hearings will have served a useful purpose if all they do is demonstrate that a cabal of unelected officials are
fashioning profound aspects of U.S. foreign policy on their own motion. No statutes anticipate that the president or Congress will
delegate such authority to a secret working group formed largely at the initiation of entrepreneurial bureaucrats, notwithstanding
that they may be area experts, experienced in diplomatic and military affairs, and motivated by what they see as the best interests
of the country.
However the impeachment drama plays out, Congress has cause to enact comprehensive legislation akin to the Goldwater-Nichols Act
of 1986, which created more-efficient structures and transparent processes in the Defense Department. Americans deserve to know who
really is responsible for making the nation's foreign policy. The interagency, if it is to exist, should have a chairman appointed
by the president, and its decisions, much like the once-secret minutes of the Federal Reserve, should be published, with limited
and necessary exceptions, for all to see.
Mr. Schramm is a university professor at Syracuse. His most recent book is "Burn the Business Plan."
"A botched assassination attempt against Ukrainian politician and businessman Vyacheslav
Sobolev has resulted in the death of his three-year-old son, Alexander.
"While Sobolev and his wife were leaving his high-end restaurant "Mario" in Kiev this past
Sunday, right-wing thugs opened fire on Sobolev's Range Rover, missing him but hitting his
son who was seated in the back of the vehicle. The three-year-old died on the way to the
hospital.
"Police later apprehended two men who had fled the scene in a black Lexus sedan, Oleksiy
Semenov, 19, and Andrei Lavrega, 20. Both are veterans of the war in Donbass in eastern
Ukraine where they served as members of the fascist Right Sector's paramilitary formation
until June of this year.
"The Right Sector was instrumental in the US- and EU-backed, fascist-led coup in February
2014 that toppled the Yanukovitch government and replaced it with a pro-Western and
anti-Russian regime. Since then, the Right Sector has been among the far-right forces that
have been heavily involved in the war against Russian-backed separatists in East Ukraine.
"As is usual when members of neo-Nazi groups carry out political attacks, the Right Sector
and their former battalion commander fraudulently attempted to distance themselves from
Lavrega and Semenov, claiming they had lost contact with them since they left Ukraine's armed
forces in June. These claims are not credible.
"Lavrega, who has been identified as the principal shooter in the killing, has been a
member of the Right Sector for at least half a decade. He had participated in the Maidan
movement of 2014 as a member of the Right Sector and perfected his shooting skills as a
sniper killing separatist soldiers in eastern Ukraine. According to his Right Sector
battalion commander, Andrei Herhert, Lavrega -- also known as "Quiet" -- was "one of the best
snipers in the war" and "very ideological."
"As a thanks for his service to the right-wing Kiev government, Lavrega received a
military decoration from former President Petro Poroshenko for "courage" just last year, in
October of 2018." ..........
"Whoever is ultimately responsible for ordering this political assassination and the
murder of the three-year-old boy, it is clear that the same far-right forces that were
instrumental in the coup in February 2014 and the civil war are now being employed to carry
out political assassinations by the Ukrainian oligarchy.
"Since the 2014 coup, the number of targeted political assassinations by right-wing
neo-Nazi groups like C14 and the Right Sector has skyrocketed. At least 15 people have been
murdered in such hit jobs by the far right since 2014. Among them was the well-known
Belarusian journalist Pavel Sheremet and the politician Kateryna Handziuk, who was killed in
a horrific acid attack by right-wing thugs last year.
"In virtually all these cases, the perpetrators have been protected from serious legal
prosecution. One of the murderers of Handziuk received a barely three-year prison sentence. A
critical role in shielding the neo-Nazis is played by Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs'
Arsen Avakov, who controls the country's police force and possesses well-known ties to
Ukraine's most notorious fascist militia, the Azov Battalion.
"Avakov is one of the few members of the previous Poroshenko government that have remained
in the current Cabinet of Ministers under President Volodmyr Zelensky. He was recently
praised by former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch while testifying before the
House of Representatives regarding the Trump impeachment investigation (see also: "The
impeachment crisis and American imperialism").
"President Zelensky, who was elected in April this year on the basis of promises that he
would bring an end to the widely despised civil war in eastern Ukraine that has claimed the
lives of over 13,000 people, has maintained a conspicuous silence on this latest political
assassination attempt by the far right. Instead, the day after the murder, he posted a
message on Facebook to honor two Ukrainian soldiers who were killed while fighting in eastern
Ukraine this past weekend."
The rest of the story can be found at the WSWS https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/07/ukra-d06.html
The Right Sector links with the former US Ambassador-Democratic heroine- are topical.
Thank you for that insight. I cannot see how Zelensky will manage the Nazi Ukrainians
short of a virtual civil war against one western district. The USA will foment a major
insurrection to destroy him if he does a deal with Gazprom. Your suggestion as to where those
issues are discussed would be welcome.
A User #72
Thank you and well said. The eurocentric kabuki does mesmerise the information providers.
I too seek escape from that dominance and spent a good time today researching the Power of
Siberia implications and issues of South America. The global assault on all things African is
a matter of deep despair for me and I feel totally powerless to reverse the relentless
assault on their world.
"... The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating a disinformation" campaign today against Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders and Russiagate. ..."
"... Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States. It is now so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured. ..."
"... It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first. Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then, it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of nuclear deterrence doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation is. ..."
"... Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov (Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the neo-Nazis of western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the Donbass). The Donbass fighters are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile the support for the neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the Ukrainian military, thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency). ..."
"... Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they agreed they were defeated. The US merely assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said any such thing. ..."
"... I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!) ..."
"... "From 1922 onwards the strategic purpose of the Soviet Union was to defend the Soviet Union not global domination, whereas the purpose of the "West" has always been global domination. " ..."
"... "At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause." ..."
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin, in conversation with former Australian Foreign
Minister Bob Carr, says the West is unnecessarily determined to undermine Russia. A t an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United
States, has been on an aggressive campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause.
When Kevin said he returned to Russia after more than 40 years in 2016 he realized he "had
to take sides" in the U.S.-Russia standoff when all Nato countries boycotted the Moscow
celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
"I had to take a moral position that it is not right for the West to be ganging up on
Russia," Kevin says in his conversation with the former Australian foreign minister.
The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion
eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating a disinformation" campaign today against
Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders
and Russiagate.
Watch the hour-long in depth discussion which was filmed and produced by Consortium
News' CN Live! Executive Producer Cathy Vogan.
Tony's (especially!) and Bob's sane and sensible view of this dangerous and destructive
state of affairs deserve the widest possible distribution and attention.
George McGlynn , December 9, 2019 at 13:27
A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and little has changed.
Cold War patterns of thinking about Russia show no sign of weakening in America. The further
we distance ourselves from the end of the Cold War, the closer we come to its revival.
Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States.
It is now so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured.
It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first.
Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then, it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world
war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of nuclear deterrence
doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation
is.
AnneR , December 9, 2019 at 07:48
The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been,
are via that US supported supposed oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK
wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events including the
upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans).
Then there were allegations – of those "highly likely" (therefore one knows to be
untrue and unadulterated propaganda to increase Russophobia) sort – about Russian
hackers (always giving the impression that the "Kremlin" is behind itl) being the Labour
Party's source of the Tory party's US-UK trade deal which would/will deliberately and finally
destroy the NHS and replace it with (of course) US "health" insurance company
profiteering.
(Always the Tory intention from the NHS's initiation in May of 1948; only its popularity
among many Tory party supporters among the working and lower middle classes prevented them
from a full-frontal killing off the NHS; the Snatcher's government began the undermining, via
installing a top-heavy bureaucratization, siphoning off a sizable proportion of the funds
that would otherwise have gone to medical care, demanding that hospitals not "lose" money
– a concept completely beyond the remit of the NHS as originally conceived and
constructed and like exactions.)
Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov
(Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in
France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the neo-Nazis of
western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the
Donbass). The Donbass fighters are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny
them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile the support for the
neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the
Ukrainian military, thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency).
Someone even suggested that President Putin needed to be diplomatic. Really? From what
I've read the man is the most diplomatic and intelligent politician (not just political
leader) along with Xi Jinping and the Iranian government that exist on the world stage. None
of them are hubristic, solipsistic, eager beaver killers of peoples in other countries.
Unlike their western "world" political counterparts.
Jeff Harrison , December 8, 2019 at 18:30
Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they
agreed they were defeated. The US merely assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated
and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said any such thing.
St. Ronnie's whole thing back in the 80's was to outspend Russia militarily and it worked
well. We're trying to do it again but Russia isn't playing the same game this time and now it
is the US that has a mountain of debt and Russia that doesn't. SIPIRI tags US military
spending at $650B and Russian military spending at $62B. But we know that the $650B number is
bogus because it doesn't include our in-violation-of-the-NNPT nuclear program which is in the
energy department or our veteran's expenses which are in HHS. I don't know what's missing
from Russia's $62B but I'll bet they can sustain that a whole lot better than we can sustain
our $650B and rising bill.
Antonio Costa , December 9, 2019 at 13:17
Good point regarding Russia's downsizing the Soviet Union. From Gorbachev to Putin there
was NEVER a surrender, intended in any way. The intent has been multilateral partnerships.
For Russia the US/West won nothing at all except the opportunity to live and work in peace.
(By the way this policy has a long Russian history.)
They gave up the Warsaw Pact and America with our worthless "word" expanded NATO.
The US foreign policy has lost even the semblance of sanity. Our naked aggression is clear
as never before, a mad man throwing a global fit armed with megaton nuclear projectiles on
trigger first strike alert. What could go wrong?
nondimenticare , December 8, 2019 at 15:56
If, magically, Consortium News/CN Live! were a mass-distribution network/magazine (hence
universally consulted), allowing the light in for the mass of the viewing and listening
public, it could change the world – both an exalting and despairing thought.
Lily , December 8, 2019 at 09:52
It is a great joy to listen to this conversation!
I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as
the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK
obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who
is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian
citizen!)
I wish people would have the courage to break away from the group pressure originated by a
nation which has been started by killing more than 90% of the indigenous people in their
country and since then has turned the worl into a very insecure place.
Chapeau, Tony Kevin! Thanks to Bob Carr and Consortiums News.
Lily , December 9, 2019 at 01:18
It seems that some facts are beginning to be realized in the military department.
Words are catalysts of connotations and connotations are functions of
expectations/framing..
Some conflate cause with purpose thereby limiting perception of cause and purpose.
Some understand that causation is interactive and in any lateral system the genesis of
causation is difficult to determine.
Some understand that evaluation is a function of purpose and that purpose can be evaluated
through such portals into wonderlands such as "What is the "United States of America" and how
is it facilitated?"
As thumb-nailed in the comments section of the article Capitalism's suicidal trajectory
– OlyaPola
December 6, 2019 at 07:46
"From 1922 onwards the strategic purpose of the Soviet Union was to defend the Soviet
Union not global domination, whereas the purpose of the "West" has always been global
domination. "
From 1922 onwards various tactics have been attempted by the "West" to facilitate their
purpose, including attempts at "Orange revolution" in many areas which catalysed many lateral
trajectories including the process of transcendence of the "Soviet Union" by the Russian
Federation in the period from 1991 to 2005.
Consequently Mr. Suslov's observation re war of "The United States of America" can be
extended into present times and hence no "New cold war" exists.
""What is the "United States of America"
An initial step through the portal is that "The United States of America" is – a
regime of social relations to facilitate its purpose – the social relations not being
restricted to the "nation state" presently self designated "The United States of America" but
including classes in other "nation states".
Consequently alternative purposes and social relations pose an existential threat to "The
United States of America"; this being perceived of lesser significance in regard to "The
Soviet Union" and greater in regard to the Russian Federation.
"At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United
States, has been on an aggressive campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause."
The American establishment's problem with Russia is simply that Russia is the only country
on earth capable of obliterating the United States. Not even China has yet reached that
capacity.
"Carthago delenda est"
Skip Scott , December 9, 2019 at 06:13
There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting,
and worked to benefit average Russian citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the
scenes" to know the "cause".
Bruno DP , December 8, 2019 at 02:34
The West is ganging up on Russia? Replace "West" by "United States of America", and I will agree.
Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The
Magnitsky Act monster, the election interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met
with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a very telling moment
for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic.
Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin
seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined.
I'm German, living in the US, and I agree with your comment. I especially love the last
two sentences:
"Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems
to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined."
@Moi You are quite correct. The overly sanguine attitude of many Christians toward
nuclear war one might call "nuclear exceptionalism." They adopted the imaginary hope of
Anglo-Irish 1800's cult leader John Nelson Darby: "Darby has been credited with originating
the pre-tribulational rapture theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove His bride, the
Church, from this world to its heavenly destiny before the judgments of the tribulation."
(Wikipedia).
The military leadership are loaded with rapture believers, in particular the Air Force. So
if the world nukes itself, that's fine by them; they have no skin in the "game."
Except that on Judgment Day they will have to give account for the lives they destroy by
their recklessness. The turning of Christ into a war god is both blasphemy and idolatry, for
which also they will give account. "My Kingdom is not of this world," said the Lord to
Pilate. Christians are to contend for the Gospel through love, not war.
Both Saker reviews are important, and I'll get both books.
My own experience with US Army officers and enlisted – and this extended over40
years off and on, the last encounters six continuous years ending in 1992 – was that
the WW2 men were realists and competent. And that their replacements were delusional fools.
The level of incompetence was breath-taking by 1992 – when NATO as the cloak of Empire
undertook to bomb cities in Yugoslavia – self evidently criminal and foolish officers
went along And I said Adios MoFo
@peterAUS Tactical nukes. Such a humane idea. Doesn't that make everyone feel warm and
fuzzy all over. Nuclear war, even a first strike, is now acceptable. Isn't semantics
wonderful! Tactical nukes are the thing, to NOT prick the conscience of the western public.
I do not envy the Russian position. They can't publicly warn the US/Israel against nuclear
strikes. The MSM would take such a common sense position and spin into more Russian bullying.
How dare they tell us what we can't do! The Russian message would quickly be lost in a wave
of western hysterics.
On the other hand, a secret warning is of limited value. If they listen, great. What if
they call Russia's bluff? Being secret, the Russians could back down and not even lose face.
It seems obvious that the psychopathic thinking among western elites is based on the idea
that they can get away with nuclear strikes against Iran because Russian retaliation will
mean the end of humanity therefore they will not respond.
I'm sure the Russians have already calculated what is and is not acceptable when war comes
to Iran. How much damage will nuking an entire country do to Russia and all of Asia? If the
fall out is that extreme then they might treat such an attack as an attack on Russia itself.
I do think the likely plan is to make the best of whatever happens. No matter how one spins
it, a Russian nuclear response is the end of humanity. An extreme option the Russians will
try to avoid if possible.
All this is based on the assumption Israel or America will use their nuclear arsenal. If
Hitler had the bomb in 1945 would he have used it? Of course he would have. The people
running the West have shown the same callous disregard for human life. There is no moral
deterrent to stop these people. Plus all western propaganda the past 20 years has been aimed
at making the use of nuclear weapons acceptable. Why would they be conditioning their public
unless they wished to have the option to use them?
How do we get there? Yes the US military has the ability to drop lots of bombs and destroy
many things. Yet in any war primary targets will all be hit fairly quickly. Then what? From
Day Two they are into the phase of diminishing returns. This is what confronted the IDF in
2006. So you go to tactical nukes. However I see the nuclear attack coming on the heels of a
ferocious Iranian counter attack. Psychologically can America handle even minimal losses? The
most likely response will be a huge temper tantrum: "how dare they fight back!" The nuclear
option will be taken because things will have gone wrong. It will be as much a show of
weakness as strength. Plus it won't be just one of two bombs. Because the Iranians will not
say "Uncle". The Japanese did after Nagasaki, however the Japanese were trying to surrender
the entire time. The Iranians will never surrender. Therefore 80 million dead might not be
unreasonable. Especially if there is no longer any Reason left in the western world.
This can be prevented but only by the western public. You know the most apathetic/ignorant
and propagandized public on the planet. As Vietnam and Iraq proved, Americans have no
conscience when it comes to dead foreigners. They get what they deserve for "starting" a war
against Uncle Sam. Yet there are two Achilles Heels.
1) Americans hate losing. Iraq was a great success during the Mission Accomplished phase.
The moment the narrative changed Americans quickly switched to hating their leadership for
botching Iraq. So how long before Americans turn against an Iran War that isn't an easy win
– and can't be won because the Iranians will never surrender. Or how well does the MSM
do in turning such losses into part of a patriotic war that Americans' must support and
win?
2) Quality of life. All westerners are the most spoiled people in human history.
Consequently we have become the most materialistic and the most superficial people ever. We
are an "end justifies the means" society. So long as we have our tvs and weekend football and
our quality of life hasn't fallen too far, too fast, we are perfectly happy to give our
political elites a blank cheque to do whatever they like. Bomb Yugoslavia, invade
Afghanistan, destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, murder Palestinians, sanction or threaten
regime change the list is endless. Everything is on the table – likely nuclear
holocaust too(so long as it's them doing the dying) – just don't mess with our Cozy
Prisons! Support for war on Iran will evaporate pretty fast unless such a war can be
prosecuted quickly and everything can return to normal fast. Definitely westerners –
not just Americans – will support nuclear strikes. There will be some initial shock,
which the MSM will cover over. Then everyone will fall into line because we'll need to win
the war and get back to normal. Nuclear weapons will be seen as the convenient solution for
the problem. End justifies the means.
Maybe I'm wrong about westerners and they still have a conscience. After 20 years of
accepting endless wars, it doesn't seem likely.
Circle 2021 on your calendars. Once Trump is re-elected there will be nothing to stop him.
If there are any history classes in the future then 2021 will be remember like 1914 or 1789
or 1066. I still hope it is remembered as the year the states of Israel and USA ceased to
exist.
@Jim Christian "Fact is, if the elites and corporate defense establishment of the US
would become diplomatic, imagine the cooperation between us and Russia that could take place.
Imagine the prosperity! Even the elites could share in it!"
Exactly so. This was the basis for my immediate initial support for Trump; his calling
bullshit on the entire rationale behind the empire, and the potential benefits of a new
detente. (Even if we were evil geni, it would make more sense to at least pretend to be
non-threatening.) This is the root of the hostility to Trump, IMO.
Incidentally, this piece and it's commentary is greatly supportive of Ron's argument that
heavy users should step up and financially support the UR. I haven't seen this sort of thing
anywhere else easily available on the web. I don't comment much here (feeling somewhat too
short for this ride ) but I do spend hours everyday, reading most of the articles and many
comments. Would definitely donate.
@Andrei Martyanov I suspect that the US is extremely concerned about Russia's
decapitating first strike capability via nuclear armed Zircons (1-2 minutes flight time to
Washington DC or New York) who are hard to detect, almost impossible to stop missiles. The US
does not have a capability like this. This is why the whole talk about buying Greenland. It
is very important to stop russian subs from reaching the Atlantic US Coast.
How can a US president sleep if he knows that a russian tactical nuclear missile could
arrive in 1-2 minutes?
In 1-2 minutes the WhiteHouse, Congress, Federal Reserve HQ, CIA and NSA HQs, Pentagon,
etc will be gone. No wonder Putin is trolling the US about selling some hypersonic
weapons.
.the psychopathic thinking among western elites is based on the idea that they can get
away with nuclear strikes against Iran because Russian retaliation will mean the end of
humanity therefore they will not respond.
Something like that.
I'm sure the Russians have already calculated what is and is not acceptable when war
comes to Iran.
Any interested state-level player has.
No matter how one spins it, a Russian nuclear response is the end of humanity.
Yep.
There is no moral deterrent to stop these people.
You mean TPTBs in the West? Yep ..
The Iranians will never surrender. Therefore 80 million dead might not be
unreasonable.
Disagree.
This can be prevented but only by the western public. You know the most
apathetic/ignorant and propagandized public on the planet.
Don't say.
So how long before Americans turn against an Iran War that isn't an easy win – and
can't be won because the Iranians will never surrender.
The Iranian regime can surrender–>from then on there are a couple of
scenarios.
As, for example:
So long as we have our tvs and weekend football and our quality of life hasn't fallen
too far, too fast, we are perfectly happy to give our political elites a blank cheque to do
whatever they like
And so long as I don't get drafted to be a part of occupying force in Iran among some
other things.
Definitely westerners – not just Americans – will support nuclear strikes.
There will be some initial shock, which the MSM will cover over. Then everyone will fall
into line because we'll need to win the war and get back to normal. Nuclear weapons will be
seen as the convenient solution for the problem. End justifies the means.
Yep.
Maybe I'm wrong about westerners and they still have a conscience. After 20 years of
accepting endless wars, it doesn't seem likely.
Now, the key question is, how is this relevant. I have no doubt that this and previous book
contain good info, but can this info be ever digested by the US politicians and neocons? Of
course not!
The US elites have degenerated to the point of no return. This always happens to the
elites of dying empires. So, discussing the reality, military or economic, with them is like
teaching madhouse inmates calculus. You might be right, but they won't appreciate it.
@Jim Christian There is already some internal opposition to war with Iran. Out of the
various recent provocations, the US has been reluctant to escalate. Maybe its Trump's
skepticism regarding the list of options provided by the military. Or his political
instincts. It would be an unpopular war without a rapid, decisive victory, which is
unrealistic.
I think other than a rather weak veto power, Trump is too weak to prevent a war. So I
think some other faction of the elite is resisting. Maybe the military. It would be logical
for them to resist. They got their big budget without needing a war. And they would be stuck
with the mess.
The war has been teed up for a Trump signoff two or three times lately. If the only
missing piece is finding the sucker to take the blame, it is inevitable. Rather, I would
infer that there is some deep opposition, that is lying low. The large defense contractors
have it pretty good right now, but they probably aren't set up to oppose any war, however
foolish.
@Andrei Martyanov Our societies have been gutted by thieves and their accomplices while
the thieves buddies look on and play loud music to confuse everyone. The thieves are the
buzzard 'capitalists', the accomplices are the crooked politicians and the noise comes from
the media.
The common denominator in the U.S., Canada, Australia, the U.K., NZ and others is that the
thieves den is a triumvirate: Old Money 'elite' (read: scum), New Money Jews and the
politicos (multi-generational civil servant families and the con artists talking head actors
who play president, pm, etc.).
The West has been systematically destroyed. Every institution has been corrupted including
our religions. The Vatican, for example, was completely corrupted in the early 1960's when,
according to Father Malachi Martin, Satan formally enthroned himself in Vatican City.
There is a common denominator here gentlemen: destruction. Satan is always close to any such
destruction which is why Communism has always been so anti-Christian and anti-religion (China
destroyed Buddhism and is destroying Falun Gong, or trying to). Our elites and the elite Jews
have a religion of their own: Luciferianism.
It is time to pray gentlemen. We need a miracle. It isn't too late to turn this ship around.
We just need the willpower to do it. Prayer is the beginning of building the strength to do
what is needed for our progeny.
@Passer by{ the US is extremely concerned about Russia's decapitating first strike
capability} {How can a US president sleep if he knows that a russian tactical nuclear missile could
arrive in 1-2 minutes?}
By making sure US does not initiate a nuke strike on Russia.
Why would Russia initiate a 'decapitating* nuke strike' on US?
What will she gain by it? Nothing.
Both US and Russia will have more than enough surviving nukes to wipe the other out, and then
some, if one of them initiates a nuke first strike.
My guess is Russia continues developing faster, harder to detect nuke strike systems to
deter the psychopaths in US from doing something stupid and awful. But the problem with all
these developments of ever faster strike capabilities – on both sides – is that
the possibility of an accidental nuke strike by one side or another, keeps increasing.
Because it takes a few minutes for a missile to reach its target, you cannot afford to wait:
if your defenses falsely detect a 'launch', then you _have_ to launch and then the runaway
chain reaction of strike-counterstrike-countercounterstrike begins ..and everything ends.
______________________________
* there is no such thing as 'decapitating' nuke strike against US or Russia. Both are
large enough and have enough nuke warheads (8,000-10,000) to render the idea of a
'decapitating' strike meaningless. Just one (surviving) boomer sub (US or Russia) carries
enough nuke warheads/megatons to wipe most of US/Russia.
"... Hillary Clinton, Her husband Bill and Barak Obama are all deep cover CIA agents in addition to their other positions, as documented in the book "CIA: Crime Incorporated of America". ..."
"... The arms came from more places than simply Libya, although Libya was the central shipping and gathering point to go to Turkey and then on to Syria. Turkey was part of the Obama enablers of ISIS and ISIL big time ! Obama made sure ISIS got all the weapons and munitions and equipment we left behind and did literally nothing to stop them at all. He, Brennan, Hillary as well as Kerry all have massive blood on their hands via the atrocities of ISIS ! ..."
"... Not forgetting William Browder, part of the same gang, whose grandfather was the Leader of the US Communist Party. No doubt with close ties to Allen Dulles and ''peration Paperclip'. ..."
"... Will never forget Brennan, going to Ukraine, with instructions, just prior to 2 May 2014 and the Odessa Trade Union Massacre. Coincidence or what? ..."
"... Brennan may well have already been CIA when he joined the CPUSA. In any case, he's scum. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson and the author of this article asks, How can someone like Brennan be provided security clearance for top secrets in the CIA. A very easy answer: the entire American financial/judicial/military/spy organizations have become highly corrupt. Meanwhile, millions of adult Americans could care less. ..."
"... "When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America...America will triumph over you". https://t.co/uKppoDbduj -- John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) March 17, 2018 ..."
Let's get something clear from the start. In 1976, in his 20s, John Brennan was a card carrying communist who supported the then
Soviet Union, at the height some might say of the Cold War, so much so he voted and assisted Gus Hall, the communist candidate for
President against a devout Christian, Jimmy Carter who ultimately won the Presidency.
Yet under four years later, just after the then Soviet Union invaded, just weeks before, Afghanistan and months after the tumultuous
Iranian revolution of 1979, which at the time many thought the Soviet Union had a hand in, Brennan was accepted into the CIA as a
junior analyst.
At that time, John Brennan should have never got into the CIA, or any Western Intelligence agency given his communist background.
Think on that carefully as you continue to read this.
Also reflect on the fact that Brennan, later in his CIA career, was surprisingly elevated from junior analyst to the prestigious
position of Station Chief in Saudi Arabia where he spent a few years.
Its said he was appointed purely for 'political' reasons, alleged to have been at the direct request of Bill Clinton and other
Democrats not because of a recommendation or merit from within the Agency.
Its further said that the Saudis liked Brennan because he became very quickly 'their man' so to speak. Some reports, unsubstantiated,
even allege Brennan became a Muslim while there to ingratiate himself with the Saudis.
Important to read is an NBC news article entitled 'Former Spooks Criticize CIA Director John Brennan for Spying Comments' by Ken
Dilanian dated March 2nd, 2016.
The article contains many revealing facts and evidence, while giving a flavour, of the feelings of many in the CIA who felt that
Brennan was totally unsuitable and unqualified to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
A final controversy is the little known fact of Brennan's near four year departure from the CIA into the commercial world, having
been 'left out in the cold' from the CIA, from November 2005 to January 2009 when he was CEO of a private company called 'The Analysis
Corporation'.
So why was he then reinstated into the CIA, to the surprise of CIA's senior management, by newly elected President Obama, to head
the CIA? No answer is available as to why he left the CIA in 2005.
Lastly let's not forget Brennan's many failures as CIA head in recent years, one most notable is the Benghazi debacle and the
death of a US Ambassador and others there. Something else to ponder.
Back to the present an the issue of security clearances.
In early August, on the well known American TV Rachel Maddow Show, Brennan back tracked on his Trump traitor claim by saying "I
didn't mean he (Trump) committed treason. I meant what he has done is nothing short of treasonous." Rachel Maddow responded correctly
"If we diagram the sentence, 'nothing short of treason' means it's treasonous?"
A simple question follows. Since he is no longer in the CIA, why does he need a security clearance other than to commercially
exploit it?
Tucker Carlson explains succinctly here:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Kzxf9TcJ_3k
Last month what can be described as 200+ 'friends of Brennan', former CIA officials of varying rank, responded against the removal
of former CIA Director Brennan's security clearances, in support of him.
These men and women too most likely will have their clearances revoked.
And why not?
Since the only purpose they retain it is to make money as civilians?
A potentially more serious issue than 'the Brennan controversies' is that the US intelligence community has around 5 million people
with security clearances as a whole includes approximately 1.4m people holding top secret clearances. It is patently a ridiculously
high number and makes a mockery of the word secret.
Former CIA veteran Sam Faddis is one of the few people brave enough and with the integrity required, that has stood up
and told some of the real truths about Brennan in an 'Open Letter', yet this letter's contents have hardly at all been reported in
the media.
Generally by nature, CIA Officers sense of service and honour to their Country, their professionalism and humility, and disdain
for publicity has dissuaded most of them to enter the current very public Brennan controversy; but for how much longer?
I implore you to cease and desist from continuing to attempt to portray yourself in the public media as some sort of impartial
critic concerned only with the fate of the republic. I beg you to stop attempting to portray yourself as some sort of wise, all-knowing
intelligence professional with deep knowledge of national security issues and no political inclinations whatsoever.
None of this is true.
You were never a spy. You were never a case officer. You never ran operations or recruited sources or worked the streets abroad.
You have no idea whatsoever of the true nature of the business of human intelligence. You have never been in harm's way. You have
never heard a shot fired in anger.
You were for a short while an intelligence analyst. In that capacity, it was your job to produce finished intelligence based
on information provided to you by others. The work of intelligence analysts is important, however in truth you never truly mastered
this trade either.
In your capacity as an analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency, while still a junior officer, you were designated to brief
the President of the United States who was at that time Bill Clinton. As the presidential briefer, it was your job to read to
the president each morning finished intelligence written by others based on intelligence collected by yet other individuals. Period.
While serving as presidential briefer you established a personal relationship with then President Bill Clinton. End of story.
Everything that has transpired in your professional career since has been based on your personal relationship with the former
president, his wife Hillary and their key associates. Your connection to President Obama was, in fact, based on you having established
yourself by the time he came to office as a reliable, highly political Democratic Party functionary.
All of your commentary in the public sphere is on behalf of your political patrons. It is no more impartial analysis then would
be the comments of a paid press spokesman or attorney. You are speaking each and every time directly on behalf of political forces
hostile to this president. You are, in fact, currently on the payroll of both NBC and MSNBC, two of the networks most vocally
opposed to President Trump and his agenda.
There is no impartiality in your comments. Your assessments are not based on some sober judgment of what is best for this nation.
They are based exclusively on what you believe to be in the best interests of the politicians with whom you long since allied
yourself.
It should be noted that not only are you most decidedly not apolitical but that you have been associated during your career
with some of the greatest foreign policy disasters in recent American history.
Ever since this President was elected, there has been a concerted effort to delegitimize him and destabilize him led by you.
This has been an unprecedented; to undermine the stability of the republic and the office of the Presidency, for solely partisan
political reasons. You and your patrons have been complicit in this effort and at its very heart.
You abandoned any hope of being a true intelligence professional decades ago and became a political hack. Say so.
Sam Faddis
EPILOGUE:
I decided to update this article with this epilogue that summarises events since its first publication, but by not writing more.
By simply adding links showing Brennan speaking in March just before Meuller's Report was released, and excerpts of other interviews
and commentaries.
In this way, reader's can judge for themselves Brennan's essentially undoubtable despicable character which shines through by
watching and reading the below 8 links up to 1st April 2019. There are many more, but in consideration of space, I've selected these
links.
These are not in chronological order, date/time wise.
I would add that, for his own 'survival', and that of his co-conspirators, there will, I predict, over the coming days and weeks,
be an attempt by Brennan to STILL try and fabricate 'dirt' on President Trump to justify his treacherous behaviour against importantly
more than just Trump, but 'the Office of the President', something for which, in my opinion, he and those involved should be prosecuted
for, even some jailed for.
Most particularly in addition to Brennan is clearly Obama himself, Clinton, Clapper and Comey et al.
The CIA operation in Benghazi was smuggling weapons captured from the Libyan army to Syria via Jordan and Turkey to arm the
anti Assad forces. This operation was directed by Brennan, Clinton, Obama and General Petraeus and was in total violation of national
and international law.
Ambassador Stevens was aware of this operation and allowed to die by delaying a military rescue operation, as part of a cover
up of this illegal operation. Dead men tell no tales.
Hillary Clinton, Her husband Bill and Barak Obama are all deep cover CIA agents in addition to their other positions, as documented
in the book "CIA: Crime Incorporated of America".
They don't like Trump because he is the first non CIA President in a long while
(George W. Bush was not CIA but under his father's influence) and not part of the secret team. Hopefully, they eventually will
be punished for their crimes. Qanon gives hope!
The arms came from more places than simply Libya, although Libya was the central shipping and gathering point to go to Turkey
and then on to Syria. Turkey was part of the Obama enablers of ISIS and ISIL big time ! Obama made sure ISIS got all the weapons
and munitions and equipment we left behind and did literally nothing to stop them at all. He, Brennan, Hillary as well as Kerry
all have massive blood on their hands via the atrocities of ISIS !
Not forgetting William Browder, part of the same gang, whose grandfather was the Leader of the US Communist Party. No doubt
with close ties to Allen Dulles and ''peration Paperclip'.
Which provided safe passage and new identities for the Nazi and Bolshevik
Elite. Funny how the stench behind the overthrow of he Russian Empire, can still be found, firmly embedded in the swamps of the
21st century.
Will never forget Brennan, going to Ukraine, with instructions, just prior to 2 May 2014 and the Odessa Trade Union
Massacre. Coincidence or what?
Wasn't McCain's father also good friends with Allen Dulles? Wonder where Clinton fitted into the work of Dulles?
One of the more murky issues is the murder of Michael Hastings. A lot of information died with his murder but some info indicates
that he was working on a major report on Brennan. He reportedly advised his friends that the fbi was working on an investigation
on him and he was fearful for his survival
As many will recall, Hastings died in June 2013 in fiery crash of his Mercedes which
was speeding at up to 100 mph in a calif neighborhood.
Also, many will recall, the leaking of "Vault 7" by wikileaks indicated that one of the tools revealed was the ability to remotely
control a vehicle without any input from the driver, positive or negative. This ability is described in detail in the following:
How do you think the Royal Family killed princess Diana? If they can control a drone on the other side of the globe, they can
certainly control the accelerator, brakes and steering of a motor vehicle.
Only the most creepy evil people are allowed to be in our government. They have done a terrible job. Our country is like a
plane in a death spiral, and the same list of creeps keeps getting into the White House. The same people no matter who we elect.
Trump has the same people, or worse than Obama or Hillary or Bush had. It's past time to try and salvage whatever is left of this
country.
100 Stinger shoulder launch ground-to-air missiles. Stevens tried to block the shipment, the embassy was attacked by a highly
skilled, armed, assault team - the story told by "Tonto", one of the military contractors involved in the attempted rescue. All
those Americans in Benghazi were sacrificed in the same way the USS Liberty crew was sacrifice.
Greater Israel is the base of all this violence. Incidentally, "Tonto" and his mates had to commandeer a private jet, after
the fire-fight, that got them to Germany - the US/CIA/State Dept., etc. left them to their own methods and they got out, to the
consternation of the Obama/Clinton Administration.
Tucker Carlson and the author of this article asks, How can someone like Brennan be provided security clearance for top secrets
in the CIA. A very easy answer: the entire American financial/judicial/military/spy organizations have become highly corrupt. Meanwhile,
millions of adult Americans could care less.
Well............Those two contrasts will be intriguing to watch how the grandchildren and great-grandchilren will fare when
the US Empire becomes so degraded, that the young will have to forage on their own for housing, water, and food.
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful
place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy
America...America will triumph over you".
https://t.co/uKppoDbduj -- John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) March 17, 2018
He has to be part of a CIA "cleansing" operation.
Better put him in jail with no rights whatsoever . Let that turd rot in some humid dungeon . That's for the rats like this one
.
"... Primacists use the security threats that are responding to the unnecessary use of U.S. military force to justify why the U.S. shouldn't stop, or in fact increase, the use of force. ..."
"... These stale arguments claim there will be consequences of leaving while conveniently ignoring the consequences of staying, which of course are far from trivial. For example, veteran suicide is an epidemics and military spending to perpetuate U.S. primacy continues at unnecessarily high rates. The presence of U.S. soldiers in these complex conflicts can even draw us into more unnecessary wars. The United States can engage the world in ways that don't induce the security dilemma to undermine our own security; reduce our military presence in the Middle East, engage Iran and other states in the region diplomatically and economically, and don't walk away from already agreed upon diplomatic arraignments that are favorable to all parties involved. ..."
"... September 11th was planned in Germany and the United States, the ability to exist in Afghanistan under the Taliban without persecution didn't enable 9/11, and denying this space wouldn't have prevented it. ..."
"... For those arguing to maintain the ongoing forever wars, American credibility will always be ruined in the aftermath of withdrawal. Here's the WSJ piece on that point: "When America withdraws from the Middle East unilaterally, the Russians internalize this and move into Crimea and Ukraine; the Chinese internalize it and move into the South China Sea and beyond in the Pacific." ..."
"... The exorbitant costs of the U.S.'s numerous military engagements around the world need to be justified by arguing that they secure vital U.S. interests. Without it, Primacists couldn't justify the cost in American lives. Whether the military even has the ability to solve all problems in international relations aside, not all interests are equal in severity and importance. ..."
"... This article originally appeared on LobeLog.com . ..."
The unrivaled and unchallenged exertion of American military power around the world, or
what's known as "primacy," has been the basis for U.S. Grand Strategy over the past 70 years
and has faced few intellectual and political challenges. The result has been stagnant ideas,
poor logic, and an ineffective foreign policy. As global security challenges have evolved, our
foreign policy debate has remained in favor of primacy, repeatedly relying on a select few,
poorly conceived ideas and arguments. Primacy's greatest hits arguments are played on repeat
throughout the policy and journalism worlds and its latest presentation is in a recent
article in
the Wall Street Journal, written by its chief foreign policy correspondent, titled,
"America Can't Escape the Middle East." The piece provides a case study in how stagnant these
ideas have become, and how different actors throughout the system present them without serious
thought or contemplation.
Hyping the threat of withdrawal
The WSJ piece trotted out one of the most well-worn cases for unending American military
deployments in the region. "The 2003 invasion of Iraq proved to be a debacle," it rightly
notes. However, there's always a "but":[B]ut subsequent attempts to pivot away from the region
or ignore it altogether have contributed to humanitarian catastrophes, terrorist outrages and
geopolitical setbacks, further eroding America's standing in the world."
Primacists often warn of the dire security threats that will result from leaving Middle East
conflict zones. The reality is that the threats they cite are actually caused by the
unnecessary use of force by the United States in the first place. For example, the U.S. sends
military assets to deter Iran, only to have Iran increase attacks or provocations in response.
The U.S. then beefs up its military presence
to protect the forces that are already there. Primacists use the security threats that
are responding to the unnecessary use of U.S. military force to justify why the U.S. shouldn't
stop, or in fact increase, the use of force.
These stale arguments claim there will be consequences of leaving while conveniently
ignoring the consequences of staying, which of course are far from trivial. For example,
veteran suicide is an epidemics and military spending to perpetuate U.S. primacy continues at
unnecessarily high rates. The presence of U.S. soldiers in these complex conflicts can even
draw us into more unnecessary wars. The United States can engage the world in ways that don't
induce the security dilemma to undermine our own security; reduce our military presence in the
Middle East, engage Iran and other states in the region diplomatically and economically, and
don't walk away from already agreed upon diplomatic arraignments that are favorable to all
parties involved.
Terrorism safe havens
And how many times have we heard that we must defend some undefined geographical space to
prevent extremists from plotting attacks? "In the past, jihadists used havens in Afghanistan,
Yemen, Syria and Iraq to plot more ambitious and deadly attacks, including 9/11," the WSJ piece
says. "Though Islamic State's self-styled 'caliphate' has been dismantled, the extremist
movement still hasn't been eliminated -- and can bounce back."
The myth of the terrorism safe havens enabling transnational attacks on the United States
has
persisted despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and significant scholarly research
that contradicts it. The myth persists because it provides a simple and comforting narrative
that's easy to understand. September 11th was planned in Germany and the United States, the
ability to exist in Afghanistan under the Taliban without persecution didn't enable 9/11, and
denying this space wouldn't have prevented it.
Terrorists don't need safe havens to operate, and only gain marginal increases in
capabilities by having access to them. Organizations engage in terrorism because they have such
weak capabilities in the first place. These movements are designed to operate underground with
the constant threat of arrest and execution. The Weatherman Underground in the United States
successfully carried out bombings while operating within the United States itself. The Earth
Liberation Front did the same by organizing into cells where no cell knew anything about the
other cells to prevent the identification of other members if members of one cell were
arrested. Organizations that engage in terrorism can operate with or without safe havens.
Although safe havens don't add significantly to a terrorist groups' capabilities, governing
your own territory is something completely different. ISIS is a commonly used, and misused,
example for why wars should be fought to deny safe havens. A safe haven is a country or region
in which a terrorist group is free from harassment or persecution. This is different from what
ISIS created in 2014. What ISIS had when it swept across Syria and Iraq in 2014 was a
proto-state. This gave them access to a tax base, oil revenues, and governing resources. Safe
havens don't provide any of this, at least not at substantial levels. The Islamic State's
construction of a proto-state in Syria and Iraq did give them operational capabilities they
wouldn't have had otherwise, but this isn't the same as the possible safe havens that would be
gained from a military withdrawal from Middle Eastern conflicts. The conditions of ISIS's rise
in 2014 don't exist today and the fears of an ISIS resurgence like their initial rise are
unfounded .
Credibility doesn't work how you think it works
For those arguing to maintain the ongoing forever wars, American credibility will always
be ruined in the aftermath of withdrawal. Here's the WSJ piece on that point: "When America
withdraws from the Middle East unilaterally, the Russians internalize this and move into Crimea
and Ukraine; the Chinese internalize it and move into the South China Sea and beyond in the
Pacific."
Most commentators have made this claim without recognition of their own contradictions that
abandoning the Kurds in Syria would damage American credibility. They then list all the other
times we've abandoned the Kurds. Each of these betrayals didn't stop them from working with the
United States again, and this latest iteration will be the same. People don't work with the
United States because they trust or respect us, they do it because we have a common interest
and the United States has the capability to get things done. As we were abandoning the Kurds
this time to be attacked by the Turks, Kurdish officials were continuing to
share intelligence with U.S. officials to facilitate the raid on ISIS leader Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi because both the United States and the Kurds wanted Baghdadi eliminated and only
the United States had the capability to get it done.
Similarly, the idea that pulling out militarily in one region results in a direct chain of
events where our adversaries move into countries or areas in a completely different region is
quite a stretch of the imagination. Russia moved into Crimea because it's a strategic asset and
it was taking advantage of what it saw as an opportunity: instability and chaos in Kiev. Even
if we left troops in every conflict country we've ever been in, Russia would have correctly
assessed that Ukraine just wasn't important enough to spark a U.S. invasion. When the Soviets
withdrew from Afghanistan, did the United States invade Cuba? What alliance did the Soviets or
Chinese abandon before the United States entered the Korean War?
Assessments of credibility , especially in times of crisis (like that in Ukraine), are made
based on what leaders think the other country's interests are and the capabilities they have to
pursue those interests. There is no evidence to support -- in fact there is a lot of evidence
that contradicts -- the idea that withdrawing militarily from one region or ending an alliance
has any impact on assessments of a country's reliability or credibility.
Not all interests are created equal
Threat inflation isn't just common from those who promote a primacy-based foreign policy,
it's necessary. Indeed, as the WSJ piece claimed, "There is no avoiding the fact that the
Middle East still matters a great deal to U.S. interests."
The exorbitant costs of the U.S.'s numerous military engagements around the world need
to be justified by arguing that they secure vital U.S. interests. Without it, Primacists
couldn't justify the cost in American lives. Whether the military even has the ability to solve
all problems in international relations aside, not all interests are equal in severity and
importance. Vital interests are those that directly impact the survival of the United
States. The only thing that can threaten the survival of the United States is another powerful
state consolidating complete control of either Europe or East Asia. This would give them the
capabilities and freedom to strike directly at the territorial United States. This is why the
United States stayed in Europe after WWII, to prevent the consolidation of Europe by the
Soviets. Addressing the rise of China -- which will require some combination of cooperation and
competition -- is America's vital interest today and keeping troops in Afghanistan to prevent a
terrorism safe haven barely registers as a peripheral interest. There are U.S. interests in the
Middle East, but these interests are not important enough to sacrifice American soldiers for
and can't easily be secured through military force anyway.
Consequences
Most of these myths and arguments can be summarized by the claim that any disengagement of
any kind by the United States from the Middle East comes with consequences. This isn't entirely
wrong, but it isn't really relevant either unless compared with the consequences of continuing
engagement at current levels. We currently have 67,000 troops in the
Middle East and Afghanistan and those troops are targets of adversaries, contribute to
instability, empower hardliners in Iran, and provide continuing legitimacy to insurgent and
terrorist organizations fighting against a foreign occupation. One
article in The Atlantic argued that the problem with a progressive foreign policy
is that restraint comes with costs, almost ironically ignoring the fact that the U.S.'s current
foreign policy also comes with, arguably greater, costs. A military withdrawal, or even
drawdown, from the Middle East does come with consequences, but it's only believable that these
costs are higher than staying through the perpetuation of myths and misconceptions that inflate
such risks and costs. No wonder then that these myths have become the greatest hits of a
foreign policy that's stuck in the past.
"... " Any president, any administration is justified in investigating corruption . There was serious evidence of real corruption concerning Hunter Biden. [He] was on the board of Burisma, the largest natural gas company in Ukraine. Do you know how much he was paid every month? $83,000 -- that's a million dollars a year," said Cruz - adding "The media ought to care if there is actual corruption ... Do you think Hunter Biden with zero experience justifies making ten times as much as the board member of Exxon Mobil? " ..."
"... Todd then asked Cruz: "Do you believe Ukraine meddled in the American election in 2016?" - to which Cruz replied "I do. And I think there is considerable evidence ." ..."
"... Todd then suggested that President Trump could have created "a false narrative" in order to hurt Cruz during the 2016 Republican primary - to which Cruz shot back: "Ha, ha, ha. Except that's not what happened. The president released the transcript of the phone call. You can read what was said in the phone call." ..."
"... "On the evidence, Russia clearly interfered in our election, but here's the game the media is playing because Russia interfered, the media pretends ..."
"... Media & Chuck Todd, having lied throughout the Russia "collusion" BS, now lie about Ukraine. And if Todd wants to be the mouthpiece for the Dems, then he should have the integrity to resign from the news business &push his propaganda as a paid DNC hack ..."
Resistance activist and NBC host Chuck Todd lost his cool on Sunday after Sen. Ted Cruz
(R-TX) said that Ukraine "blatantly interfered" in the 2016 US election.
Of note, less than three months before Donald Trump was elected, Ukrainian officials working
with a DNC operative leaked a " black
ledger " containing evidence of off-book payments to Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort -
leading to his disruptive ouster, while Ukraine's ambassador to the UK, Valeriy Chaly wrote in
an Op-Ed for
The Hill slamming Trump in the same month.
While Democrats have sought to ignore or downplay this as a 'debunked' theory, Republicans
aren't letting it go - nor are they giving the Bidens a pass for what looks like textbook
corruption while then-Vice President Joe Biden was in charge of the Obama administration's
Ukraine policy.
" Any president, any administration is justified in investigating corruption . There was
serious evidence of real corruption concerning Hunter Biden. [He] was on the board of Burisma,
the largest natural gas company in Ukraine. Do you know how much he was paid every month?
$83,000 -- that's a million dollars a year," said Cruz - adding "The media ought to care if
there is actual corruption ... Do you think Hunter Biden with zero experience justifies making
ten times as much as the board member of Exxon Mobil? "
Todd then asked Cruz: "Do you believe Ukraine meddled in the American election in 2016?" -
to which Cruz replied "I do. And I think there is considerable evidence ."
Todd then suggested that President Trump could have created "a false narrative" in order to
hurt Cruz during the 2016 Republican primary - to which Cruz shot back: "Ha, ha, ha. Except
that's not what happened. The president released the transcript of the phone call. You can read
what was said in the phone call."
"On the evidence, Russia clearly interfered in our election, but here's the game the media
is playing because Russia interfered, the media pretends
Media & Chuck Todd, having lied throughout the Russia "collusion" BS, now lie about Ukraine. And if Todd wants to be the mouthpiece for the Dems, then he should have the
integrity to resign from the news business &push his propaganda as a paid DNC hack
top 7 donors all obvious connections to global agenda.... and Ireland by association, but
curious who the corporatocracies are connected to Ireland -Usual suspects I presume ( with
"usual suspects" having a group of real actors in contrast to the poser JV team in
Eiremen
"... "Except that's not what happened," Cruz said. He went on to accuse "the media" of playing "a game" and "pretends" no country except Russia interfered in the election. When Cruz invoked an op-ed from former Ukrainian ambassador Valeriy Chaly as proof of their interference, Todd derided that equivalence by saying "you're saying a pick-pocket, which essentially is a Hill op-ed, compared to Bernie Madoff and Vladimir Putin . You are trying to make them both seem equal. I don't understand that." ..."
"... "I understand that you want to dismiss Ukrainian interference because A: they were trying to get Hillary Clinton elected, which is what the vast majority of the media wanted anyway. And B: it's inconvenient for the narrative." ..."
Senator Ted Cruz and NBC's Chuck Todd had an intense exchange on Meet the Press over
the media's role in fueling President Donald Trump's impeachment firestorm.
As Cruz defended Trump's dealings with Russia and Ukraine, he bashed House Democrats for the
"garbage" report they put out on Saturday to outline the legal argument for proceeding with
impeachment. This led to an initial flare-up where Todd and Cruz went back and forth about
whether Trump's conduct meets Constitutional standards for an impeachable misdemeanor.
Cruz segued the conversation toward Hunter Biden's controversial employment with Burisma,
saying "the media ought to care if there is actual corruption" regarding Joe Biden's son. Todd
countered by remarking that "the reason you know this information is the media reported it,"
and shortly after that, he asked Cruz "do you believe Ukraine meddled in the election in
2016?"
"I do," Cruz answered, "and I think there is considerable evidence."
... ... ...
"I appreciate you dragging up all that garbage, that's very kind of you," Cruz interjected
as Todd asked "Is it not possible that this president is capable of creating a false narrative
about somebody in order to help him politically?"
"Except that's not what happened," Cruz said. He went on to accuse "the media" of playing "a
game" and "pretends" no country except Russia interfered in the election. When Cruz invoked an
op-ed from former Ukrainian ambassador Valeriy Chaly as proof of their interference, Todd
derided that equivalence by saying "you're saying a pick-pocket, which essentially is a Hill
op-ed, compared to Bernie Madoff and Vladimir Putin . You are trying to make them both seem
equal. I don't understand that."
Cruz's retort:
"I understand that you want to dismiss Ukrainian interference because A: they were
trying to get Hillary Clinton elected, which is what the vast majority of the media wanted
anyway. And B: it's inconvenient for the narrative."
From page 12 of Martyanov's RRMA, " people such as Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, none of whom had spent a
day serving in cadre officer uniform "
Rumsfeld was in fact a Naval Aviator who flew ASW aircraft for a number of years and retired from the Navy Reserve as a full
Captain.
Rumsfeld was in fact a Naval Aviator who flew ASW aircraft for a number of years
A Tracker, in 1950s for a couple of years, while having a degree in Political Science. That sure qualifies him for making strategic
decisions, right? Especially in the 21st century. Well, we all saw results, didn't we?
@Jim Christian Jim, a lot of truth in what you say. But especially this:
As for the military? A reflection of our society. When I went into the Navy in 1975, it was Stars and Stripes and we served
in large part for Mom, Apple Pie and Chevrolet.
Here is a quote from one of Russian undercover intelligence assets which was outed when Anna Chapman was outed. Unlike her,
however, this guy was a real deal. Here is what he had to say recently about US:
What is THEIR weakness? As enemies these guys are mediocrities, second rate. They overate. Their previous generation was
stronger. They respected us, we respected them. We don't respect these ones,they didn't deserve it. They can bully, as for
the real fight–we'll see about that They are enraged that soon they will have to live within their means.They forgot how to
do so long time ago. That is why they want to solve a problem with us now, while others are still afraid of them.
I remember 70s and 80s clearly, being myself a Cold Warrior, these were different times. many different people. Today, as you
say, I see decay everywhere in everything, the country (the US) was literally robbed, people blinded and all for a reasons of
bottom line in "business" and for Israel's, Saudi and corporate interests. The America I encountered in 1990s is gone.
So a republican staffer, a neocon without any diplomatic experience was the NSC senior director of European and Russian
affairs, the successor of Fiona Hill.
Washington
-- A top National Security Council official who listened to President Trump's July call with the
president of Ukraine told lawmakers he "promptly" told White House lawyers he was concerned details of the call would
become public, but did not think "anything illegal was discussed" during the conversation.
Tim Morrison, the outgoing senior director of European and Russian affairs at the National Security Council and a
deputy assistant to the president, is testifying before committees leading the
impeachment inquiry
on Capitol Hill on Thursday. He has emerged as a central witness to the events at the center
of the inquiry, particularly the administration's policy toward Ukraine.
CBS News learned the substance of his opening statement to the committees, which ran six pages and appears below.
Morrison said the summary released by the White House of the call between Mr. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky accurately reflects his memory and understanding of the call, but he said he had three concerns in the event
the summary became public.
"[F]irst, how it would play out in Washington's polarized environment; second, how a leak would affect the
bipartisan support our Ukrainian partners currently experience in Congress; and third, how it would affect the
Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship," Morrison, who was in the Situation Room for the call, told
lawmakers. "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed."
However, he also corroborated a central allegation in the Democratic case against the president: that a U.S.
ambassador told a high-ranking Ukrainian official that the release of military aid was contingent on an investigation
into the Bidens.
Tim Morrison arrives for a deposition at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on October 31,
2019.
SAUL LOEB / AF
Morrison said his predecessor, Fiona Hill, told him about "concerns about two Ukraine processes that were
occurring": one led by traditional U.S. diplomatic entities, and one led by the U.S. Ambassador the E.U. Gordon
Sondland and Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. He said Hill told him about their efforts to get Ukraine
to investigate Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that had employed Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe
Biden's son.
"At the time, I did not know what Burisma was or what the investigation entailed," Morrison said. "After the
meeting with Dr. Hill, I googled Burisma and learned that it was a Ukrainian energy company and that Hunter Biden was
on its board."
Morrison said he spoke frequently with Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in the embassy in Kiev. Taylor
testified before the committees
last week and described his misgivings about efforts to pressure Ukraine
to open investigations into the president's rivals. Morrison, in his statement, confirmed the substance of Taylor's
account, but said he remembered two details differently.
Taylor testified that Morrison told him Sondland had demanded the Ukrainian president announce an investigation
into Burisma, while Morrison said he remembered Sondland saying an announcement by the country's top prosecutor would
suffice. Taylor also indicated Morrison met with the Ukrainian national security adviser in his hotel room, while
Morrison said it was in the hotel's business center.
Morrison said he learned about a delay in military aid to Ukraine shortly after assuming his post, and was tasked
with coordinating with various agencies to demonstrate why the aid was needed.
"I was confident that our national security principals -- the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency, and the head of the National Security Council -- could convince President Trump to
release the aid," he said.
Morrison testified he had "no reason to believe" the Ukrainians knew of a delay in military aid until August 28,
and said he was unaware the aid may have been tied to the demand for an investigation into Burisma until he spoke to
Sondland on September 1.
Morrison arrived on Capitol Hill before 8 a.m. Thursday for his deposition after Democrats issued a subpoena for
his testimony. A spokesman for House Intelligence Committee chairman declined to comment on his opening statement.
Morrison appeared on the same day the House
approved a resolution
greenlighting the rules for impeachment proceedings moving forward.
On Wednesday, officials said Morrison would be leaving his White House post. He said in his statement he has yet
to submit his resignation "because I do not want anyone to think there is a connection between my testimony today and
my impending departure."
"I am proud of what I have been able, in some small way, to help the Trump Administration to accomplish," he said.
Read Morrison's full statement
Opening Statement of Timothy Morrison
Before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and
the House Committee on Oversight and Reform
October 31, 2019
Chairman Schiff and Members of the Committees, I appear today under subpoena to answer your questions about my
time as Senior Director for European Affairs at the White House and the National Security Council ("NSC"). I will
give you the most complete information I can, consistent with my obligations to the President and the protection of
classified information. I do not know who the whistleblower is, nor do I intend to speculate as to who it may be.
Before joining the NSC in 2018, I spent 17 years as a Republican staffer, serving in a variety of roles in both
houses of Congress. My last position was Policy Director for the then-Majority Staff of the House Armed Services
Committee.
I. The Role of the National Security Council
From July 9, 2018 to July 15, 2019, I served as a Special Assistant to the President for National Security and as
the NSC Senior Director for Weapons of Mass Destruction and Biodefense. In that role, I had limited exposure to
Ukraine, focusing primarily on foreign military sales and arms control. On July 15, 2019, I became Deputy Assistant
to the President for National Security. In this role, I serve as the lead interagency coordinator for national
security issues involving Europe and Russia.
It is important to start with the role of the NSC. Since its creation by Congress in 1947, the NSC has
appropriately evolved in shape and size to suit the needs of the President and the National Security Advisor it
serves at the time. But its mission and core function has fundamentally remained the same: to coordinate across
departments and agencies of the Executive Branch to ensure the President has the policy options he needs to
accomplish his objectives and to see that his decisions are implemented. The NSC staff does not make policy. NSC
staff are most effective when we are neutral arbiters, helping the relevant Executive Branch agencies develop options
for the President and implement his direction.
In my current position, I understood our primary U.S. policy objective in Ukraine was to take advantage of the
once-in-a-generation opportunity that resulted from the election of President Zelensky and the clear majority he had
gained in the Ukrainian Rada to see real anti-corruption reform take root.
The Administration's policy was that
the best way for the United States to show its support for President Zelensky's reform efforts was to make sure the
United States' longstanding bipartisan commitment to strengthen Ukraine's security remained unaltered, it is easy to
forget here in Washington, but impossible in Kyiv, that Ukraine is still under armed assault by Russia, a
nuclear-armed state.
We also tend to forget that the United States had helped convince Ukraine to give up Soviet
nuclear weapons in 1994. United States security sector assistance (from the Departments of Defense and State) is,
therefore, essential to Ukraine. Also essential is a strong and positive relationship with Ukraine at the highest
levels of our respective governments.
In my role as Senior Director for European Affairs, I reported directly to former Deputy National Security
Advisor, Dr. Charles Kupperman, and former National Security Advisor, Ambassador John Bolton. I kept them fully
informed on matters that I believed merited their awareness or when I felt I needed some direction. During the time
relevant to this inquiry, I never briefed the President or Vice President on matters related to Ukrainian security.
It was my job to coordinate with the U.S. Embassy Chief of Mission to Ukraine William Taylor, Special Representative
for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker, and other interagency stakeholders in the Departments of Defense and State of
Ukrainian matters.
My primary responsibility has been to ensure federal agencies had consistent messaging and policy guidance on
national security issues involving European and Russian affairs. As Dr. Fiona Hill and I prepared for me to succeed
her, one of the areas we discussed was Ukraine. In that discussion, she informed me of her concerns about two Ukraine
processes that were occurring: the normal interagency process led by the NSC with the typical department and agency
participation and a separate process that involved chiefly the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union. Dr. Hill told
me that Ambassador Sondland and President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, were trying to get President
Zelensky to reopen Ukrainian investigations into Burisma. At the time, I did not know what Burisma was or what the
investigation entailed. After the meeting with Dr. Hill, I googled Burisma and learned that it was a Ukrainian energy
company and that Hunter Biden was on its board. I also did not understand why Ambassador Sondland would be involved
in Ukraine policy, often without the involvement of our duly-appointed Chief of Mission, Ambassador Bill Taylor.
My most frequent conversations were with Ambassador Taylor because he was the U.S. Chief of Mission in Ukraine and
I was his chief conduit for information related to White House deliberations, including security sector assistance
and potential head-of-state meetings. This is a normal part of the coordination process.
II. Review of Open Source Documents in Preparation for Testimony
In preparation for my appearance today, I reviewed the statement Ambassador Taylor provided this inquiry on
October 22, 2019. I can confirm that the substance of his statement, as it relates to conversations he and I had, is
accurate. My recollections differ on two of the details, however. I have a slightly different recollection of my
September 1, 2019 conversation with Ambassador Sondland. On page 10 of Ambassador Taylor's statement, he recounts a
conversation I relayed to him regarding Ambassador Sondland's conversation with Ukrainian Presidential Advisor Yermak.
Ambassador Taylor wrote: "Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until
President Zelensky committed to pursue the Burisma investigation." My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland's
proposal to Mr. Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general -- not President Zelensky -- would
commit to pursue the Burisma investigation. I also would like to clarify that I did not meet with the Ukrainian
National Security Advisor in his hotel room, as Ambassador Taylor indicated on page 11 of his statement. Instead, an
NSC aide and I met with Mr. Danyliuk in the hotel's business center.
I also reviewed the Memorandum of Conversation ("MemCont') of the July 25 phone call that was released by the
White House. I listened to the call as it occurred from the Situation Room. To the best of my recollection, the
MemCon accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call. I also recall that I did not see anyone from the
NSC Legal Advisor's Office in the room during the call. After the call, I promptly asked the NSC Legal Advisor and
his Deputy to review it. I had three concerns about a potential leak of the MemCon: first, how it would play out in
Washington's polarized environment; second, how a leak would affect the bipartisan support our Ukrainian partners
currently experience in Congress; and third, how it would affect the Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukraine
relationship. I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed.
III. White House Hold on Security Sector Assistance
I was not aware that the White House was holding up the security sector assistance passed by Congress until my
superior, Dr. Charles Kupperman, told me soon after I succeeded Dr. Hill. I was aware that the President thought
Ukraine had a corruption problem, as did many others familiar with Ukraine. I was also aware that the President
believed that Europe did not contribute enough assistance to Ukraine. I was directed by Dr. Kupperman to coordinate
with the interagency stakeholders to put together a policy process to demonstrate that the interagency supported
security sector assistance to Ukraine. I was confident that our national security principals -- the Secretaries of State
and Defense, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the head of the National Security Council -- could
convince President Trump to release the aid because President Zelensky and the reform-oriented Rada were genuinely
invested in their anti-corruption agenda.
Ambassador Taylor and I were concerned that the longer the money was withheld, the more questions the Zelensky
administration would ask about the U.S. commitment to Ukraine. Our initial hope was that the money would be released
before the hold became public because we did not want the newly constituted Ukrainian government to question U.S.
support.
I have no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge of the review until August 28, 2019. Ambassador
Taylor and I had no reason to believe that the release of the security sector assistance might be conditioned on a
public statement reopening the Burisma investigation until my September 1, 2019 conversation with Ambassador Sondland.
Even then I hoped that Ambassador Sondland's strategy was exclusively his own and would not be considered by leaders
in the Administration and Congress, who understood the strategic importance of Ukraine to our national security.
I am pleased our process gave the President the confidence he needed to approve the release of the security sector
assistance. My regret is that Ukraine ever learned of the review and that, with this impeachment inquiry, Ukraine has
become subsumed in the U.S. political process.
IV. Conclusion
After 19 years of government service, I have decided to leave the NSC. I have not submitted a formal resignation
at this time because I do not want anyone to think there is a connection between my testimony today and my impending
departure. I plan to finalize my transition from the NSC after my testimony is complete.
During my time in public service, I have worked with some of the smartest and most self-sacrificing people in this
country. Serving at the White House in this time of unprecedented global change has been the opportunity of a
lifetime. I am proud of what I have been able, in some small way, to help the Trump Administration to accomplish.
Well, spending 5% of GDP on military and lowering further the standard of living of population will definitely increase the
security of the US MIC. Not so much the security of Ukraine.
Attributed to Mark Twain. Perhaps the learned professor Karlan may affirm: "Never argue with
stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
I cannot understand how any Democrat who is interested in winning in 2020 can think that
Biden is their best candidate. Similarly, I do not understand how any neoliberal can think
that backing Biden will save their positions in the party apparatus. If Biden is nominated
and is badly beaten, the dinosaurs now running the party will not be able to simultaneously
hold off the prog left while also holding the party together. But they seem bent on repeating
the same mistake the GOP made in 2012 with Romney.
If Biden had a better answer - or any answer - regarding Hunter, that would be one thing.
Like Kamala Harris's inability to respond to attacks on her Weed-For-Me-But-Not-For-Thee
stance, the media shield surrounding Borg-ists does not help them when they are unable to
avoid questions about actually existing reality.
Questions about his crackhead son is an obvious trigger, and all Biden is doing is
telegraphing this opening to Trump. The President, who never got the memo that the job of
conservatives is to lose gracefully and repeatedly so long as the tax cuts flowed, will not
shrink from using this the way a loser like Romney would.
My guess is Democrats know they can't win in 2020, so they will sacrifice their most
expendable and/or most annoying.
Biden earned this 2020 shot by sheer longevity in the system, but since he will be a 2020
loser, why not put him in this unenviable position as the DNC nominee. John McCain served a
similar purpose in 2008 - when no GOP had a chance after GW Bush.
No one wanted the job, so falling on his sword with some sense of duty John McCain stood
up as best he could. He goosed the entire operation with his addition of Sarah Palin which
opened up new legions of GOP voters.
And exposed the hypocrisy of the Left at the same time - no one was more anti-women than
the Democrats who attacked both Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin with unrestrained venom.
Someone should be taking Joe Biden's car keys away not trying to give him an important
government position. His mental acuity was never above average seems to have degraded
significantly. Pity the corrupt DNC can not allow the likes of Gabbard or Yang to shine more
brightly.
You expose the most obvious flaw in Schiff's impeachment crusade. Trump did not need any
"dirt" on Biden in order to win 2020. Biden will dig his own 6 feet under abode on his own,
if he makes it to the DNC nomination.
In fact, Trump would have gone out of his way to make sure Biden was the DNC pick. Which
is why this entire impeachment charade continues to get no traction. It simply does not sound
in fact. Regardless of the trumped up charges we are now being exposed to.
The more realistic picture is Trump sweeping the path in front of Biden, with a broom like
in a curling match, making sure Biden gets the DNC nod.
"... Today USA even is no more an entity. You can not negotiate a thing with "America" because there is no such institution any more, but a hellish swarm of infighting spiders, each delightfully breaking anything negotiated by a rival spider. ..."
US political "elites" are generally appallingly incompetent in matters of war and are
"educated" mostly through Hollywood and Clansiesque "literature". I am not even sure that
they comprehend what Congressional Research Service prepares for them as compressed
briefings. Neocon wing of US political elite is simply mentally inadequate.
Very true, especially the part about "Hollywood and Clansiesque 'literature.'" I used to
read Clancy's books and, while entertaining, in retrospect they appear ridiculous, even
childish. But they probably capture the popular notion of American military invincibility
better than any other.
Most of Hollywood's output is garbage anyway, and its grasp of real war and military
matters appears to be that of a not so precocious third grader.
Katyn, whoever did it, was much before Cold War and before even first relatively small
nuclear blast.
And if you want to go that far – why not remember crisis over West Berlin, where
tank armees were watching one another, but no one pulled trigger?
Afghanistan was attacking one's own ally. Same as Prague 1968 and Hungary 1956.
If you want to compare – that is like USA invading Panama to remove their no longer
reliable puppet Norriega.
Did American attack on their own Panama risk USSR going ballistic? Hardly so. There was no Soviet invasion into Pakistan nor there was Chinese/American invasion into
India.
And looking away from purely military events, there was no attempt to arrest the whole
embassy stuff them, neither in Moscow nor in DC. No killing Soviet ambassadors in NATO states
during official events.
Those dirty games had red lines, both sides maintained. Today? Today USA even is no more
an entity. You can not negotiate a thing with "America" because there is no such institution
any more, but a hellish swarm of infighting spiders, each delightfully breaking anything
negotiated by a rival spider.
> deploying conventional anti-ballistic missile defenses around their most important
cities.
No, by then effective treaty both USSR and USA had only ONE region they were allowed to
protect.
Those were some nuclear launchpads in USA i guess, and one single city (Moscow) in USSR. No
more.
> deterrence [did not] worked > See the last phrase in bullet 2.
You suppose USSR killed itself trying to keep deterrence working.
That does not show it did not work, already.
That shows it worked so well (at least from Soviet perspective) that they gambled all they
had on the futile effort of keeping that deterrence working into the future.
"... This is just low level Soviet-style propaganda: "Beacon of democracy" and "Hope of all progressive mankind" cliché. My impression is that the train left the station long ago, especially as for democracy. Probably in 1963. The reality is a nasty struggle of corrupt political clans. Which involves intelligence agencies dirty tricks. BTW, how do you like that fact that Corporate Democrats converted themselves in intelligence agencies' cheerleading squad? ..."
"... And both Corporate Dems and opposing them Republican are afraid to discuss the real issues facing the country, such as loss of manufacturing, loss of good middle class jobs (fake labor statistics covers the fact the most new jobs are temps/contractors and McJobs), rampant militarism with Afghan war lasting decades, neocon dominance in foreign policy which led to increase of country debt to level that might soon be unsustainable. ..."
"... Both enjoy impeachment Kabuki theater. With Trump probably enjoying this theatre the most: if they just censure him, he wins, if charges go to Senate, he wins big. ..."
From the founding of this country, the power of the president was understood to have
limits. Indeed, the Founders would never have written an impeachment clause into the
Constitution if they did not foresee scenarios where their descendants might need to remove
an elected president before the end of his term in order to protect the American people and
the nation.
The question before the country now is whether President Trump's misconduct is severe
enough that Congress should exercise that impeachment power, less than a year before the 2020
election. The results of the House Intelligence Committee inquiry, released to the public on
Tuesday, make clear that the answer is an urgent yes. Not only has the president abused his
power by trying to extort a foreign country to meddle in US politics, but he also has
endangered the integrity of the election itself. He has also obstructed the congressional
investigation into his conduct, a precedent that will lead to a permanent diminution of
congressional power if allowed to stand.
The evidence that Trump is a threat to the constitutional system is more than sufficient,
and a slate of legal scholars who testified on Wednesday made clear that Trump's actions are
just the sort of presidential behavior the Founders had in mind when they devised the
recourse of impeachment. The decision by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to proceed with drafting
articles of impeachment is warranted.
Much of the information in the Intelligence Committee report, which was based on witness
interviews, documents, telephone records, and public statements by administration officials,
was already known to the public. The cohesive narrative that emerges, though, is worse than
the sum of its parts. This year, the president and subordinates acting at his behest
repeatedly tried to pressure a foreign country, Ukraine, into taking steps to help the
president's reelection. That was, by itself, an outrageous betrayal: In his dealings with
foreign states, the president has an obligation to represent America's interests, not his
own.
But the president also betrayed the US taxpayer to advance that corrupt agenda. In order
to pressure Ukraine into acceding to his request, Trump's administration held up $391 million
in aid allocated by Congress. In other words, he demanded a bribe in the form of political
favors in exchange for an official act -- the textbook definition of corruption. The fact
that the money was ultimately paid, after a whistle-blower complained, is immaterial: The act
of withholding taxpayer money to support a personal political goal was an impermissible abuse
of the president's power.
Withholding the money also sabotaged American foreign policy. The United States provides
military aid to Ukraine to protect the country from Russian aggression. Ensuring that fragile
young democracy does not fall under Moscow's sway is a key US policy goal, and one that the
president put at risk for his personal benefit. He has shown the world that he is willing to
corrupt the American policy agenda for purposes of political gain, which will cast suspicion
on the motivations of the United States abroad if Congress does not act.
To top off his misconduct, after Congress got wind of the scheme and started the
impeachment inquiry, the Trump administration refused to comply with subpoenas, instructed
witnesses not to testify, and intimidated witnesses who did. That ought to form the basis of
an article of impeachment. When the president obstructs justice and fails to respect the
power of Congress, it strikes at the heart of the separation of powers and will hobble future
oversight of presidents of all parties.
Impeachment does not require a crime. The Constitution entrusts Congress with the
impeachment power in order to protect Americans from a president who is betraying their
interests. And it is very much in Americans' interests to maintain checks and balances in the
federal government; to have a foreign policy that the world can trust is based on our
national interest instead of the president's personal needs; to control federal spending
through their elected representatives; to vote in fair elections untainted by foreign
interference. For generations, Americans have enjoyed those privileges. What's at stake now
is whether we will keep them. The facts show that the president has threatened this country's
core values and the integrity of our democracy. Congress now has a duty to future generations
to impeach him.
How can Trump have sabotaged American foreign policy, when he has full responsibility and
authority to set it?
IMO this impeachment is partly about Trump personally asking a foreign country for help
against a domestic political opponent. But it is mostly about geopolitics and the national
security bureaucracy's need for US world domination.
Just listen to the impeachment testimony--most of it is whining about Trump's failure to
follow the 'interagency' policies of the deep state.
Stalin would approve that. And if so, what is the difference between impeachment and a
show trial, Moscow trials style? The majority can eliminate political rivals, if it wishes
so, right? This was how Bolsheviks were thinking in 30th. Of course, those backward Soviets used "British spy" charge instead modern, sophisticated
"Putin's stooge" charge, but still ;-)
The facts show that the president has threatened this country's core values and the integrity
of our democracy.
This is just low level Soviet-style propaganda: "Beacon of democracy" and "Hope of all
progressive mankind" cliché. My impression is that the train left the station long ago, especially as for democracy.
Probably in 1963. The reality is a nasty struggle of corrupt political clans. Which involves intelligence
agencies dirty tricks. BTW, how do you like that fact that Corporate Democrats converted themselves in
intelligence agencies' cheerleading squad?
In short Boston Globe editors do not want that their audience understand the situation, in
which the county have found itself. They just want to brainwash this audience (with impunity)
And both Corporate Dems and opposing them Republican are afraid to discuss the real issues
facing the country, such as loss of manufacturing, loss of good middle class jobs (fake labor
statistics covers the fact the most new jobs are temps/contractors and McJobs), rampant
militarism with Afghan war lasting decades, neocon dominance in foreign policy which led to
increase of country debt to level that might soon be unsustainable.
Both enjoy impeachment Kabuki theater. With Trump probably enjoying this theatre the most:
if they just censure him, he wins, if charges go to Senate, he wins big.
Can you imagine result for Corporate Dems of Schiff (with his contacts with Ciaramella ) ,
or Hunter Biden (who was just a mule to get money to Biden's family for his father illegal
lobbing) testifying in Senate under oath.
The truth is that they are all criminals (with many being war criminals.) So Beria
statement "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime" is fully applicable. That really is
something that has survived the Soviet Union and has arrived in the good old USA.
Calling Trump 'Putin's boy' brings up coup tactics used by Birchers when Truman fired
MacArthur!
Brookings tools (Mr. Vindman (I have silver leaves Vindman does not fit) , Fiona Hill,
Holmes eavesdropping....) pleading to Schiff that Trump ain't their kind of 'Murekan empire
builder.
Making up "charges", hearsay evidence, hiding DNC US #resistance corruption, despise the
constitution, hide behind it and patriotism...... define democracy and who is 'patriotic'.
All the trappings of Mao and Hitler before they took over.
"...Making up 'charges', hearsay evidence, hiding DNC US #resistance corruption, despise the
constitution, hide behind it and patriotism...... define democracy and who is 'patriotic'.
All the trappings of Mao and Hitler before they took over."
[Funny (NOT) that they say the same thing about Trump. Your adversaries and yourself would
all make better lampshades or bars of soap than you do citizens.
Democracy has never been more than an illusion, sometimes just an allusion, particularly
though in modern republican times. Leaders have all too rarely been patriotic aside from
maybe George Washington, who largely despised the representative government that he had made.
TJ did not exactly fall in love with the US Congress either. In these times the political
class and their pet sycophants are more idiotic than patriotic.]
One bone: the coup #resistance despises the "office of the president" more than they (swamp
trolls like Schiff's tool Vindman) disdain deplorables and the US constitution.
It is a constitutional thingie in my view going back to the Henry Luce media and
Birchers/McCarthy (the ragings over "who lost Chiang's fiefdom in China?") going after anyone
who they described wrongfully in most cases as "subversives".
I believe that Washington was like Ike as to taking up the executive office.
"Eric Foner" in an effort to unearth this buried history
Calls Congressional Reconstruction
A second founding of the Republic
Reconstruction like the New Deal
Ended by producing its opposite
[ Please be careful in spelling names, and set down where the specific reference is. This
will be important, if a reference is set down. Also, further explanation when possible would
be helpful. ]
I doubt that it was imagination that characterized Joe McCarthy's behavior, but with friend
kurt then imagination appears to be in full blossom. Joe McCarthy was just an opportunistic
scoundrel crassly impersonating a concerned patriot as a pure political convenience for
attacking the left in general with specific intentions on casting a specter of fear over all
New Deal loyalists. He weaponized socialist sympathizers against FDR's legacy. Remember that
it was socialist sentiments that gave rise to FDR and his New Deal. It seemed only fair to
Joe that those same sentiments be used to cover FDR in his grave.
"... It may be as simple as Trump does not really know what he's doing. He doesn't seem to understand the complexity and dynamics of foreign policy. The way he handled Israel is an example as well as some of the bombs he ordered dropped on Afghanistan and Syria. Was he behind that or was someone else? ..."
"... After Bolton came onboard, and then Eliot Abrams, the 24/7 Russia-gate suddenly stopped. That was also around the time USA was fomenting a Venezuelan coup. Was obvious that Russia-Gate was designed to control Trump. ..."
"... The US had power, and no-one else had any. That's all they needed to know, and set about creating new, wonderfully intoxicating realities. As Rove famously inverted the MO they'll act first, creating realities and the analysis and calculation can come later. In awe of their creations, they failed to notice that while history may have ended in Washington, elsewhere it moved on to surround them with a reality where they found themselves in zugzwang, with no understanding how they got there. Flailing (and wailing) like a Mastodon in a tar pit, they've managed only to attract an unhelpful crowd of onlookers, fascinated by the abomination. ..."
"... If that's so, his is the most extraordinary political performance I thought I'd ever see. Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he promised to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing. I guess we'll see if he abandons buffoonery when his opponents finally sink into the tar. ..."
@Z-man I
wasn't sure how to characterize McMaster and Kelly. My sense was that they represented the
foreign policy establishment consensus, ergo neocon by default.
I share your optimism about Trump -- because it's the only strand of hope out there, and
his enemies are so impeccably loathsome -- but am fully prepared to be proved wrong.
"How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it
was the doing and legacy of the neocon John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security
adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate such
appointees."
It started before Bolton came on board.
Believe Trump when he says "Loyalty to me first". And that begins with his son in law
Jared .his former personal attorney Jason Greenblatt .his former bankruptcy attorney David
Friedman and his largest donor Sheldon Adelson .
Trump is too stupid to see that his Zios have no loyalty to him. Trump doesn't appoint anyone, doesn't even know anyone to appoint to national security or
foreign policy. He never had any associations or confidents in his business life in NY except
the above Jews .
Ask yourself how a 29 year old Jewish boy (now gone) with zero experience got brought onto
the WH NSC. He was recommended by Gen. Flynn who did it as a favor to Zio Frank Gaffney of
Iraq fame, and Jared because he was a friend of Jared and Gaffney was a friend Ezra's family.
..getting the picture?
All Trumps appointments look like a chain letter started by Kushner and his Zio
connections.
It may be as simple as Trump does not really know what he's doing. He doesn't seem to
understand the complexity and dynamics of foreign policy. The way he handled Israel is an
example as well as some of the bombs he ordered dropped on Afghanistan and Syria. Was he
behind that or was someone else?
He's a walking contradiction.
After Bolton came onboard, and then Eliot Abrams, the 24/7 Russia-gate suddenly stopped.
That was also around the time USA was fomenting a Venezuelan coup. Was obvious that
Russia-Gate was designed to control Trump.
There was a lull in the attacks on Trump between the time they stopped the 24/7
Russia-gate garbage and start of Impeachment inquiry.
He did something else to tick them all off, so now impeachment is on front burner.
In the days of Kissinger, Baker, et al the Imperial Staff were well coached in the
Calculus of Power, knew the limits to Empire and thrived within them. Since the end of
history, and the apparent end of limits, policy makers had no more need of realists and their
confusing calculations and analyses.
The US had power, and no-one else had any. That's all they needed to know, and set about
creating new, wonderfully intoxicating realities. As Rove famously inverted the MO they'll
act first, creating realities and the analysis and calculation can come later. In awe of
their creations, they failed to notice that while history may have ended in Washington,
elsewhere it moved on to surround them with a reality where they found themselves in
zugzwang, with no understanding how they got there. Flailing (and wailing) like a Mastodon in
a tar pit, they've managed only to attract an unhelpful crowd of onlookers, fascinated by the
abomination.
In the second term watch out Trump is not as dumb as they think
I too believe he isn't dumb, but the real question is whether he's playing the fool in
furtherance of a plan, or whether it's just who he is and his successes are accidental.
The Deep State's (aka: PFPE's) ongoing behaviour indicates that Trump's using buffoonery
to work a plan that's anathema to their created realities, and their increasing shrillness
indicates it's working. At every turn, he's managed to make unavailable the resources their
reality called for. From the M.E., to the Ukraine to N. Korea to Venezuela, things just
aren't working the way they're supposed to. In fact, they're invariably working out in a way
that exposes the Deep State's ineptitude and malevolence, and maximizes its
embarrassment.
If that's so, his is the most extraordinary political performance I thought I'd ever see.
Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he promised
to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing. I guess we'll see
if he abandons buffoonery when his opponents finally sink into the tar.
Decades old rhetorical question and answer-the indolent, indoctrinated and illiterate masses
who only care about the Super Bowl and other sports,Disneyland and burgers. Twelve per cent of
Americans have never heard of the Vice President Mike Pence - that is 30,870,000 American
adults.
It is the same people who have been making it since the creation of central banks in
America (all three of them).
Never in the history of America, probably never in the history of any country, had there
been such open and direct control of governmental activities by the very rich. So long as a
handful of men in Wall Street control the credit and industrial processes of the country,
they will continue to control the press, the government, and, by deception, the people. They
will not only compel the public to work for them in peace, but to fight for them in war.
– John Turner, 1922
What coup? There have been loads of offenses, mostly to the liberal sense of decorum and
mildly to the republican notion of fair play. Orange is the new black.
"The story that has emerged in the impeachment hearings is one of extortion and bribery."
Ralph Nader and conservative constitutional scholar Bruce Fein have put together a
succinct series of audio topics on these and other good articles of impeachment, some which
are probably much more serious but would have also applied to most other recent
presidents.
It comes to mind that since most of Ralph and Bruce's articles equally apply to previous
Democratic presidents, and expose institutional disfunction among all the branches, that
Leadership may be pursuing this rather narrow inquiry to avoid some kind of self
incrimination unpleasantness.
Yes, the reason Democrats haven't gone after Trump for his more obvious forms of criminality
is most likely that they are guilty of the same forms of corruption.
Has anyone checked out what O'Bomber has been up to lately. It turns out that he's been
cashing out (no quid pro quo there!) And he's been hobnobbing with the wealthy folks who own
the Democratic Party and in his spare time he's been criticizing the Left!
"Equipped with fame, wealth, and a vast reservoir of residual goodwill Obama now has more
power to do good in an hour than most of us do in a lifetime. The demands of etiquette and
propriety notwithstanding, he no longer has intransigent Blue Dog senators to appease, donors
to placate, or personal electoral considerations to keep him up at night. When he speaks or
acts, we can be reasonably certain he does so out of sincere choice and that the substance of
his words and actions reflect the real Barack Obama and how he honestly sees the world.
It therefore tells us a great deal that, given the latitude, resources, and moral authority
with which to influence events, Obama has spent his post-presidency cozying up to the global
elite and delivering vapid speeches to corporate interests in exchange for unthinkable sums
of money.
Though often remaining out of the spotlight, he has periodically appeared next to various
CEOs at events whose descriptions might be read as cutting satire targeting the hollowness of
business culture if they weren't all-too real. As the world teeters on the brink of
ecological disaster, he recently cited an increase in America's output of oil under his
administration as a laudable achievement.
When Obama has spoken about or intervened in politics, it's most often been to bolster the
neoliberal center-right or attack and undermine the Left." https://jacobinmag.com/2019/11/obama-socialism
But to EMichael and his ilk, it was all Republicans' fault that O'bombers didn't get much
done O'Bomber's eye on his personal prize--his post-presidential earning potential--never
figured in!!!
Stephen Cohen (one of the few pundits who actually knows something about Russia:)
"Almost daily for three years, Democrats and their media have told us very bad things
about Donald Trump's life, character, and presidency. Some of them are true. But in the
process, we have also learned some lamentable, even alarming, things about the Democratic
Party establishment, including self-professed liberals. Consider the following:
The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic
attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia
attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an
"attack" so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. But there was no "attack"
in 2016, only, as I have previously explained, ritualistic "meddling" of the kind that both
Russia and America have undertaken in the other's elections for decades. Little can be more
phobic than the allegation or belief that one has been "attacked by a hostile" entity. And
yet this myth and its false narrative persist in the Democratic Party's discourse,
campaigning, and fund-raising.
We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies under President
Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of National
Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential candidacy
and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. Early on, I termed this operation
"Intelgate," and it has since been well documented by other writers, including Lee Smith in
his new book. Intel officials did so in tacit alliance with certain leading, and equally
Russophobic, members of the Democratic Party, which had once opposed such transgressions.
This may be the most alarming revelation of the Trump years: Trump will leave power, but
these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will remain.
We also learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be
fully trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. Indeed, what the mainstream media --
leading national newspapers and two cable news networks, in particular -- chose to cover and
report, and chose not to cover and report, made the abuses and consequences of Russiagate
allegations possible. Even now, exceedingly influential publications such as The New York
Times seem eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William Barr and his
appointed special investigator John Durham into the origins of Russiagate. Barr's critics
accuse him of fabricating a "conspiracy theory" on behalf of Trump. But the real, or
grandest, conspiracy theory was the Russiagate allegation of "collusion" between Trump and
the Kremlin, an accusation that was -- or should have been -- discredited by the Robert
Mueller report.
And we have learned, or should have learned, that for all the talk by Democrats about
Trump as a danger to US national security, it is their Russiagate allegations that truly
endanger it. Consider two examples. Russia's new "hyper-sonic" missiles, which can elude US
missile-defense systems, make new nuclear arms negotiations with Moscow imperative and
urgent. If only for the sake of his legacy, Trump is likely to want to do so.But even if he
is able to, will Trump be entrusted enough to conduct negotiations as successfully as did his
predecessors in the White House, given the "Putin puppet" and "Kremlin stooge" accusations
still being directed at him?" https://www.thenation.com/article/inconvenient-truths-2/
The Russia thingie/falsehoods are part of corrupt demrats assault on the US constitution.
They are even now predicting their loss in 2020 due to "interference" and people wanting to
know how corrupt the DNC [front running] select has been!
Demrat allies in the shadow revolving door government of neocon humbug factories are
denouncing Trump for his ignoring their war mongering imperial objects.
[Adding assault to injury? The US Constitution was damning enough on its own. What are
they thinking inside the deep state apparatus? Don't they know that power and privilege is
reserved for holders of wealth by the US Constitution? Who do they think that they are really
working for?]
Friend ilsm may be less nuts than it appears, but friend ilsm is not less incomprehensible
than it appears. Would it be out of place to thank you for ilsm's sake?
Our two-party system was largely useless after FDR, but our two-party system has been
largely destructive since 1968. Let me know if anything really changes.
It isn't our two party system - it is one of the two parties contained within. The "both
sides" are bad is both demonstrably not accurate (with some exceptions that prove the rule)
and requires ignoring the shattered norms of the last 10 years that came from only one side.
Mitch McConnell is the most dangerous person in America. Trump and Pence are just useful
idiots. But Trump is also corrupt and dangerous because he doesn't believe he is constrained
by anything. And Mitch keeps proving him right.
The cause goes back as far as Truman with roots all the way back to our nation's founding on
the shoulders of slaves and a trail of tears, but "the shattered norms of the last 10 years
that came from only one side" were the inevitable effect of a failed political system. When
the US government has no obvious external enemies and imminent threats then it must
manufacture them from within to maintain a meaningful commanding presence. Otherwise the
government would be tasked with solving our nation's social and economic problems, which
would be both costly and far too complicated for simple self-absorbed minds.
I disagree. What the problem is now is that non-whites and women have taken some power - and
in fact may be able to displace the white christian patriarchy (actually, I think as long as
we can hang onto a free and fair democracy this is inevitable) and the white christian
patriarchy is trying to rule from the minority via fascism and authoritarianism.
I could almost understand this obsession had you never left Indiana, presumably Indianapolis
or somewhere similar, but unlikely Gary. There is greater diversity in the US than just what
you have seen. Every picture tells a story, and it is a different story for each.
Overall the common ground that moves everyone everywhere is money, which in some cases is
just a proxy for power and in other cases is a means to material satisfaction. If one already
has power, then purchase can be had in reverse, money for power instead of power for money.
This is a great explaination of why we need 1. independent regulatory agencies with power, 2.
white collar crime enforcement 3. rule of law and most of all 4. an independent judiciary
that is not overrun by ideologues and theocrats who ignore the first amendment wholesale.
It would have been nice if Obama has demonstrated his concern for the rule of law by frog
marching banksters to Rikers, closing Guantanamo, and prosecuting CIA torturers.
But kurt is only concerned with the rule of law when his party is not in power typical
partisan hack.
I have been to every state except Alaska and have lived in the North East, Southwest,
Midwest, South and California. My comment was about power structures - and the patriarchy of
white supremacy and christianity. I am well aware of the diversity. Heck - I even lived next
to the Great Checkerboard for 3 summers.
"... Just war theory and military ethics crumble to dust on the battle field. We rarely fight because it is right, but rather because in some context it seemed necessary at the time. After 9/11 there was an imperative that the US military wage an extended war against any and every group of Muslims that defied US global hegemony in any way. ..."
The average demorat, aside from worshipping Ba'al and hating the constitution, is depraved,
been such since crooked Hillary forgot that the neocon, empire spreading, war mongering
liberals living on the coasts do not run the world.
"...the neocon, empire spreading, war mongering liberals living on the coasts do not run the
world."
[Who says that they do not? Certainly, it is close enough to that for government work.
Besides, in the end corporations and the interests of the donor class dictate the rules of
engagement for both illiberal and unconservative politicians. How the dogs of politics fight
over scraps thrown out for them should be of less interest to the wage class than who is
throwing out the scraps to them.]
Of course a former Air Force military hardware procurements officer likely knows no more
about present day life among the wage class than a banker. That would be like thinking that a
kid raised in poverty by the welfare state knew how to farm. Still, it is possible for either
one to be haunted by guilt late in life.
You are bound with your adversaries in ways known only to God, not a religious testimonial
but merely a proxy for the abstraction of omniscience. Some things can be seen as clear as
day and remain a complete mystery, to me at least.
At the very least Trump is guilty of being Trump. So, if you believe the charges against
Trump are Trumped up, then what else would you expect?
Just war theory and military ethics crumble to dust on the battle field. We rarely
fight because it is right, but rather because in some context it seemed necessary at the
time. After 9/11 there was an imperative that the US military wage an extended war against
any and every group of Muslims that defied US global hegemony in any way.
The US Constitution was written and then rewritten repeatedly in blood going all the way
back to Apr 19, 1775. That is what it means to be an American, son, my Cherokee ancestors
notwithstanding.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made no secret of her desire to pass the
U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement by the end of the year
Meanwhile, a top priority for labor has been sitting quietly on Pelosi's desk and, unlike
USMCA, already commands enough support to get it over the House finish line. The Protecting
the Right to Organize Act would be the most comprehensive rewrite of U.S. labor law in
decades. It would eliminate right-to-work laws, impose new penalties on employers who
retaliate against union organizing, crack down on worker misclassification, and establish new
rules so that employers cannot delay negotiating collective bargaining contracts." https://theintercept.com/2019/12/02/nancy-pelosi-usmca-pro-act-unions/
Echoes of 2009, when Pelosi refused to pass union card check, when it had already passed
the House in 2007? The difference? In 2007 Bush would have vetoes. In 2009, Democrats had the
votes and a Democratic president, so they chose to ignore their campaign promise.
'Senate Intel Committee Chairman @SenatorBurr: "Every
elected official in the Ukraine was for Hillary Clinton. Is that very different than the
Russians being for Donald Trump?"
"You considered Russia meddling with just the preference they had before you knew the rest
of it. Apply the same standard to Ukraine. The President can say that they meddled because they
had a preference, the elected officials, that's not the current people."
Q: Is there any evidence that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election? BURR: I don't think
there's any question that elected officials in Ukraine had a favorite in the election.
Q: Would you consider that meddling? BURR: I mean, you'll have to define meddling, but that
was something that was publicly out there.'
The interview concluded with a long passage in which Burr does some tap-dancing that would
have shamed the Nicholas Brothers.
And the interview itself is even more preposterous given the news that the very committee
that Burr chairs already has dismissed the whole Ukrainian fantasy has groundless....
Even Burr now is parroting the absurd notion that a preference for Hillary Rodham Clinton on
the part of the Ukrainian leadership in 2016 -- a preference they shared with practically every
other government on the planet, then and now -- is somehow mysteriously equivalent to the
Russian ratfcking. They're all lost now, amazingly so. It will confound future historians, who
will wander through whatever's left, kicking the rubble ahead of them and wondering how
everybody had been so easily turned."
"... Such awareness of Manafort's plans could have been obtained either through FBI surveillance , which began in 2014 and ended in early 2016, or through information provided by Manafort associates, for example, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik , who worked for Manafort and was a FBI and Department of State asset, not a Russian agent as later painted by the Mueller investigation. ..."
"... According to White House visitor logs , on January 19, 2016, Eric Ciaramella chaired a meeting of FBI, Department of Justice and Department of State personnel, which had two main objectives: ..."
December 2015 was a pivotal month in many respects...
During the first week of December 2015, Donald Trump began to establish a substantial
lead over his
Republican primary opponents.
Vice President Joseph Biden traveled to Ukraine to announce, on
December 7th, a $190 million program to "fight corruption in law enforcement and reform the
justice sector," but behind the scenes explicitly linked a $1 billion loan guarantee to the
firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who had been investigating the energy company
Burisma, which employed Biden's son Hunter.
On December 9, 2015, the reported whistleblower Eric Ciaramella held a meeting in Room 236
of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building with Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the
Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center, which was 59%- funded by Barack Obama's State Department
and the International Renaissance Foundation, a George Soros organization.
Also attending that meeting was Catherine Newcombe, attorney in the Criminal Division,
Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, with the U.S. Department of Justice, where,
among other duties, she oversaw the Department's legal assistance programs to Ukraine.
By December 2015, Paul Manafort was undoubtedly considering approaching the Trump campaign
to rejuvenate his U.S. political bona fides and mitigate the legal and financial difficulties he was
experiencing at the time.
From the beginning of his association with the Trump campaign, Roger Stone, a long-time
Manafort partner, made a strong case to Trump to bring in
Manafort, who would officially connect to the campaign
immediately after the February 1, 2016 Iowa caucuses.
Based on events occurring during the same period, were Obama Deep State operatives aware of
Manafort's intent and already intending to use his past questionable practices and links to
Russia against Trump?
Such awareness of Manafort's plans could have been obtained either through FBI surveillance , which began
in 2014 and ended in early 2016, or through information provided by Manafort associates, for
example, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik , who worked for
Manafort and was a FBI and Department of State asset, not a Russian agent as later painted by
the Mueller investigation.
According to White House
visitor logs , on January 19, 2016, Eric Ciaramella chaired a meeting of FBI, Department of
Justice and Department of State personnel, which had two main objectives:
To coerce the Ukrainians to drop the Burisma probe , which involved Vice President Joseph
Biden's son Hunter, and allow the FBI to take it over the investigation.
To reopen a closed 2014 FBI investigation that focused heavily on GOP lobbyist Paul
Manafort , whose firm long had been tied to Trump through his partner and Trump pal, Roger
Stone.
That is, contain the investigation of Biden's son and ramp up the investigation of Paul
Manafort.
Again, according to White House
logs , the attendees at the January 19, 2016 meeting in Room 230A of the Eisenhower
Executive Office Building were:
Eric Ciaramella - National Security Council Director for Ukraine
Liz Zentos - National Security Council Director for Eastern Europe
David G. Sakvarelidze - Deputy General Prosecutor of Ukraine
Nazar A. Kholodnitsky, Ukraine's chief anti-corruption prosecutor
Catherine L. Newcombe - attorney in the Criminal Division, Office of Overseas
Prosecutorial Development, with the U.S. Department of Justice
Svitlana V. Pardus – Operations, Department of Justice, U.S. Embassy, Ukraine.
Artem S. Sytnyk - Director of the National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine
Andriy G. Telizhenko, political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington DC
Jeffrey W. Cole - Resident Legal Advisor at U.S. Embassy Ukraine, presumed to be FBI
Just two weeks after that meeting, on February 2, 2016, according to White
House logs , Eric Ciaramella chaired a meeting in Room 374 of the Eisenhower Executive
Office, which seems to be a planning session to re-open an investigation of Paul Manafort
(Note: one of the crimes of which Manafort was accused was money laundering, an area covered by
the Department of the Treasury). The attendees were:
Jose Borrayo - Acting Section Chief, Office of Special Measures, U.S. Department of the
Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Julia Friedlander - Senior Policy Advisor for Europe, Office of Terrorist Financing and
Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury
Michael Lieberman - Deputy Assistant Secretary, Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes,
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Scott Rembrandt - Anti-Money Laundering Task Force, Assistant Director/Director, Office
of Strategic Policy, Department of the Treasury
Justin Rowland - Special Agent (financial crimes), Federal Bureau of Investigation
It appears that Paul Manafort became a vehicle by which the Obama Deep State operatives
could link Trump to nefarious activities involving Russians, which eventually evolved into the
Trump-Russia collusion hoax.
Remember, the key claim of the follow-up Steele dossier, the centerpiece of the Mueller
investigation, was that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was the focal point of a
"well-developed conspiracy between them [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership."
Nellie Ohr, Fusion GPS employee and wife of Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr, not
only worked with Christopher Steele on the so-called Trump dossier, but, in May 2016, was the
conduit of information to her husband and two Department of Justice prosecutors of the
existence of the "black ledger" documents that contributed to Manafort's prosecution.
Bruce Ohr and Steele attempted to get dirt on Manafort from a Russian oligarch, Oleg
Deripaska, efforts that eventually led to a September 2016 meeting in which the FBI asked
Deripaska if he could provide information to prove that Manafort was helping Trump collude with
Russia.
The surveillance and entrapment attempts of Paul Manafort, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos
and others were designed to collect evidence about Trump
without formally documenting that Trump was the target.
After the election, to cover their tracks, James Comey, representing the FBI and the
Department of Justice, misleadingly told Trump that the investigation was about
Russia and a few stray people in his campaign, but they assured him he personally was not under
investigation.
They lied.
Donald Trump always was, and still is, the target of the Deep State , the left-wing media
and their Democrat Party collaborators.
"... A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have kept the allegations alive. ..."
"... The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today, Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even an Obama aide termed it , will remain. ..."
"... Listen to the podcast here ..."
"... War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate ..."
"... The John Batchelor Show ..."
"... Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument. The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline! ..."
"... You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills. ..."
"... It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision. They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy. ..."
"... CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it. ..."
"... We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths. If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or intelligence, so we should stop paying them. ..."
"... Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise. ..."
"... Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is, as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep "in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards. ..."
"... Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes likes it or not, except as . ..."
"... Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to conclude that he's fully on board. ..."
"... There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it, not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe propaganda value. ..."
"... In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination ..."
"... Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie enemies. It makes it ' real '. The ' heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches, etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice. ..."
"... To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens. In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security 'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world. (Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.) ..."
"... or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow continue to believe his campaign rhetoric? ..."
"... The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid. ..."
"... "TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ". Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ? ..."
"... Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics, and that's through America's brutal empire abroad. ..."
"... Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference, except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things. ..."
President Trump campaigned and was elected on an anti-neocon platform: he promised to reduce direct US involvement in areas where,
he believed, America had no vital strategic interest, including in Ukraine. He also promised a new détente ("cooperation") with Moscow.
And yet, as we have learned from their recent congressional testimony, key members of his own National Security Council did not
share his views and indeed were opposed to them. Certainly, this was true of Fiona Hill and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Both of them
seemed prepared for a highly risky confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, though whether retroactively because of Moscow's 2014
annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
Similarly, Trump was slow in withdrawing Marie Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer appointed by President Obama as ambassador
to Kiev, who had made clear, despite her official position in Kiev, that she did not share the new American president's thinking
about Ukraine or Russia. In short, the president was surrounded in his own administration, even in the White House, by opponents
of his foreign policy and presumably not only in regard to Ukraine.
How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it was the doing and legacy of the neocon
John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate
such appointees.
A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the
Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained
a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have
kept the allegations alive.
The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy
establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today,
Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views
of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave
power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even
an Obama aide termed it , will remain.
Listen to the podcast
here . Stephen F. Cohen Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. ANationcontributing editor, his most recent book,War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, is available
in paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host ofThe John Batchelor Show, now in their sixth
year, are available at www.thenation.com .
because of Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
In an otherwise decent overview, this sticks out like a sore thumb. It would be helpful to stop using the word annexation.
While correct in a technical sense – that Crimea was added to the Russian Federation – the word comes with all kinds of connotations,
that imply illegality and or force. Given Crimea was given special status when gifted to Ukraine for administration by the USSR,
one could just as easily apply "annexation" of Crimea to Ukraine. After Ukraine voted to "leave" the USSR, Crimea voted to join
Ukraine. Obviously the "Ukrainian" vote did not include Crimea. Even after voting to join Ukraine, Crimea had special status within
Ukraine, and was semi autonomous. If you can vote to join, you can vote to leave. Either you have the right to self determination,
or you don't.
This is what is so infuriating, Stephen! These silent coups of the executive branch have been taking place for my entire life!
Both parties are guilty of refusing to appoint cabinet members that the elected presidents would have chosen for themselves, because
both parties are more interested in making the president of the opposing party look bad, make him ineffective, and incapable of
carrying out policies that he was elected to carry out. That is the very definition of treason!
Things are a disaster. The JCPOA is at the heart of the issue and Trump and his advisors stubborn refusal to capitulate on
this issue very well may cause Trump to lose the 2020 election. Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the
DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument.
The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline!
The anti-Iranian fever has created so much havoc not only with Iran, but with every country on earth other than Israel, Saudi
Arabia, and the UAE. Germany announced that it is seeking to unite with Russia, not only for Gazprom, but is now considering purchasing
defense systems from Russia, and Germany is dictating EU policy, by and large. Germany has said that Europe must be able to defend
itself independent of America and is requesting an EU military and Italy is on board with this idea, seeking to create jobs and
weapons for its economy and defense.
The EU is fed up with the economic sanctions placed on countries that the U.S. has black-listed, particularly Russia and Iran,
and China as well for Huwaei 5G.
Nobody in their right mind could ever claim this to be the free market capitalism that Larry Kudlow espouses!
You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed
novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens
that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills.
It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this
blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura
Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision.
They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy.
CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them guilty
of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
It is a political game between to competing kleptocratic cults. The DNC and RNC are whores and will do what ever their donors
tell them to do. That is also treason. This country is just a total wasteland.
Everyone has pledged allegiance to fraud.
Too big to fail, like the Titanic and the Hindenberg.
We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or
intelligence, so we should stop paying them.
Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering
Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise.
What kind of stupid question is this? You mean you don't know or asking us for confirmation? If you really don't know then why
are you writing an article about it? If you do know then why are you asking the UNZ readers?
Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is,
as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to
the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep
"in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards.
It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
That's ok but it's a bit unfair to Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths After all most of the country is Hedonistic as hell,
it sells commercials or wtf. Satanic is philosophical and way over the heads of these clowns, though if the be a Satan, then they
are in the plan for sure, and right on the mark. As for psychopaths, those are criminals who are insane, but they can have remorse
and be their own worst enemies, often they just go off and go psycho and bad things happen, but can be unplanned off the wall
stuff, not diabolic.
Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's
are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as
kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes
likes it or not, except as .
So, once upon a time, a people got so hedonistic and they didn't watch the game and theier leaders were low quality
(especially religeous/morals ) and long story short Satan unleashed the Socio's , Things seem to be heading disastrously,
so will bit coin save the day? Green nudeal?
While massive attention is directed towards Russia and the Ukraine, the majority of the public are shown the slight of hand
and their attention is never brought near to the real perpetrators of subverting American and British foreign policy.
Doesn't matter if he's surrounded. A president CAN make foreign policy, and a president CAN fire people who disagree with his
policy. Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy
for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to
conclude that he's fully on board.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them
guilty of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
--
first off the supreme law of the land maybe the Constitution and to oppose it may be Treason, but the Law that is supreme to the
Law of the land is Human rights law.. it is far superior to, and it is the TLD of all laws of the land of all of the Nation States
that mankind has allowed the greedy among its masses, to impose.
There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it,
not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender
of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual
promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe
propaganda value.
If you note the USA constitution has seven articles..
Article 1 is about 525 elected members of congress and their very limited powers to control
foreign activities. Each qualified to vote member of the governed (a citizen so to speak) is allowed to
vote for only 3 of the 525 persons. so basically there is no real national election anywhere .
Article II grants the electoral college the power to appoint two persons full control of the assets,
resources and manpower of America to conquer the entire world or to make peace in the entire world.
Either way: the governed are not allowed to vote for either; the EC vote determines the P or VP.
Article III allows the Article II person to appoint yes men to the judiciary
Where exist the power of the governed to deny USA governors the ability to the use the powers the constitution claims
the governors are to have, against the governed? <==No where I can find? Theoretically, the governed are protected from abuse
for as long as it takes to conduct due process?
One person, the Article II person, is basically the king when in comes to constitutional authority to establish, conduct,
prosecute or defend USA involvement in foreign affairs.
No where does the constitution of the USA deny its President the use of American resources or USA military power, to
make and use diplomat appointments, or to use the USA to use the wealth of America and the hegemonic powers of the USA to make
a private or public profit in a foreign land. <= d/n matter if the profit is personal to the President or if it assigned by appointment
(like the feudal powers granted by the feudal kings to the feudal lords) to corporate feudal lords or oligarch personal interest.
AFAICT, the president can USE the USA to conduct war, invade or otherwise infringe on, even destroy, the territory, or a
private or public interest, within a foreign sovereign more or less at will. So if the President wants to command a private
or secret Army like the CIA, he can as far as I can tell, obviously this president does, because he could with his pen alone shut
it down.
Seems to me the "NO" from Wilson's four points
no more secret diplomacy peace settlement must not lead the way to new wars
no retribution, unjust claims, and huge fines <basically indemnities paid by the losers to the winners.
no more war; includes controls on armaments and arming of nations.
no more Trade Barriers so the nations of the world would become more interdependent.
have been made the essence of nation state operations world wide.
IMO, The CIA exists at the pleasure of the President.
@Curmudgeon all of that,
plus the Kosovo precedent.
In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force
self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination
Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment
there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie
enemies. It makes it ' real '. The 'heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But
the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches,
etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice.
To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens.
In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security
'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there
are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world.
(Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.)
Trump should have kept Steve Bannon as his advisor and should have fired instead his son-in-law. Perhaps "they" are blackmailing
Trump with photos like here: https://www.pinterest.com/richarddesjarla/creepy/
That would explain why Trump is so ineffective at making a reality anything he campaigned for.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
An anti-neocon president appears to have been surrounded by neocons in his own administration.
The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself
with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
Halfway around the world from Washington's halls of power, Ukraine sits along a civilizational and geopolitical fault line.
To Ukraine's west are the liberal democracies of Europe, governed by rule of law and democratic principles. To its east are
Russia and its client states in Eurasia, almost all of which are corrupt oligarchies. [ ] In this war on democratic movements
and democratic principles, Russia's biggest prize and chief adversary has always been the United States. Until now, however,
Russia has always had to contend with bipartisan resolve to counter
No mention of China, and this is the problem with the whole foreign policy establishment not just the neocons. Russia is more
of an annoyance than anything, but they are still operating assumptions on what is the
Geographical Pivot of History , so they want to talk about Russia. Like an Edwardian sea cadet we are supposed to care about
Russia getting (back) a water port in Crimea. Mahan's definition of sea power included a strong commercial fleet. After tearing
their own environment apart like a car in a wrecking yard and heating up the planet China has taken time out from deforestation
and colonising Tibet, to send huge container vessels full of cheap goods through the melting Arctic round the top of Russia all
the better to get to Europe and deindustrialise it.
Western elites have sold out to China, seen as the future, so we hear about Russia rather than the three million Uyghurs in
concentration camps complete with constantly smoking crematoria, and harvesting of organs for rich foreigners.
Who
poses a greater threat to the West: China or Russia?
By the time the West finds itself in open conflict with Beijing, we will have lost our relative advantage. Brendan Simms and
K.C. Lin [ ] The concept of China being a threat is harder to comprehend. In what way? Yes, its hacking and intellectual property
theft is a headache. But is it worse than what Russia is up to? And don't we need Chinese investment, so does it really matter
if China builds our 5G mobile networks? In London, ministers agonise over these issues -- not knowing whether to pity China
(we still send foreign aid there), beg for its money and contracts (with prime ministerial trade trips), or treat it as a potential
antagonist.
Aid ! They sent robots to the far side of the Moon
Beijing has been the beneficiary of liberal revulsion at the Trump presidency: if the Donald is against the Chinese,
who cannot be for them? As a result, Trump's efforts to address China's unfair trade practices have so far missed the mark
with the domestic and international audience. As Trump declares war on free trade, China -- one of the most protectionist economies
in the world -- is now celebrated at Davos as the avatar of free trade. Later this month, China's Vice-President is likely
to be in attendance at Davos -- and there is even talk of him meeting with Trump. Similarly, the messiness of American politics
has made China's one-party state an apparent poster boy of political stability and governability.
"TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by
Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic
known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ".
Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ?
Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal
authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free
speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics,
and that's through America's brutal empire abroad.
The military/intelligence imperial establishment definitely see Israel as a kind of American colony in the Mideast, and they
make sure that it's well provided for. That's what the Neocon Wars have been about. Paving over large parts of Israel's noisy
neighborhood. And that includes matters like keeping Syria off-balance with occupation in its northeast. And constantly threatening
Iran.
Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference,
except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things.
By the way, the last President who tried seriously to make foreign policy as the elected head of government left half of his
head splattered on thec streets of Dallas.
@Jon Baptist We have
all been brainwashed by the propaganda screened by the massmedia ,whether it be FOX , MSNBC , CBS ,etc.. SeptemberClues.info has
a good article entitled "The central role of the news media on 9/11 " :
"The 9/11 psyop relied foremostly on that weakspot of ours .We all fell for the images we saw on TV at the time we can only
wonder why so many never questioned the absurd TV coverage proposed by all the major networks The 9/11 TV imagery of the crucial
morning events was just a computer-animated, pre-fabricated movie."
@follyofwar Pat inhabits
a strange Hollywood type world, where the US is always the good guy. He believes that, although the US may make foreign policy
mistakes, its aims and ambitions are nevertheless noble and well intentioned.
In Pat's world it's still circa 1955, but even then, his take on US foreign policy would have been hopelessly unrealistic.
Exiting the news conference as she was addressed, Pelosi turned around, walked up to the
journalist -- James Rosen of Sinclair Broadcast Group -- and proceeded to wag her finger with
scorn.
"As a Catholic, I resent you using the word 'hate' in a sentence that addresses me,"
she said. "Don't mess with me when it comes to words like that."
To Republicans eager to paint Democrats as out-of-control partisans, the forceful rebuttal
was a sign of the speaker losing her grip.
"It's caused them to lose sight of why they got the majority," House Minority Whip Steve
Scalise (R-La.) said of impeachment and Pelosi's outburst. "I think things are starting to
unravel."
... ... ...
Indeed, Pelosi also has cast the constitutional clash in terms of defending
an ally against Russia, calling the concerns raised by the whistleblower complaint the "aha
moment" and repeating a phrase that she used in challenging Trump face-to-face at the White
House in October.
"All roads lead to Putin," she told reporters.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), a former CIA officer who was among the "national security
freshmen" who pushed Pelosi toward supporting an impeachment inquiry, praised her handling of
the process. From the beginning, she said, she asked Pelosi to ensure that the investigation
was done in a strategic, efficient and serious manner, and she said Pelosi has followed
through.
"... Lev Golinkin explained in The Nation a few months ago that the release of that ledger by Leshchenko and NABU was an important event -- and a direct intervention in the election. "The story rocked the 2016 election, given Manafort's position as head of Trump's campaign. The Hillary Clinton campaign immediately seized on it as proof that Manafort -- and therefore Trump -- was tied to Yanukovych and the Kremlin," he wrote. "Manafort was ousted based on handwritten pieces of paper -- the story would've never gone anywhere without NABU and Leshchenko's vouching for the ledger's authenticity. That's as direct as it gets." ..."
"... But three years later, this episode has been wiped from the collective memory of our media and political establishment. What used to be fact is now smeared as either a pro-Trump rightwing conspiracy theory or Russian propaganda -- and probably both. But saying that it didn't happen doesn't change the historical record. ..."
"... Yasha Levine is an investigative journalist and a founding editor of The eXiled Online. His latest book is "Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet." ..."
Not only did it happen, it was written up as fact by establishment papers and outlets as
varied as Yahoo, Politico and The Financial Times, reports Yasha Levine.
I know I've written about
this before, but I feel like I have to address it again -- seeing how just about every
impeachment witness has repeated the claim that meddling by Ukrainian government officials did
not happen in 2016 and that anyone who says otherwise is spreading toxic Russian propaganda.
I've been dipping into these hearings every now and again and I've seen this said over and
over. It reminds me of those new age quantum-mind-over-matter types in the "The Secret:"
Repeat the mantra often enough and convince yourself it's true and it is!
Let's start with a fact: Meddling in the 2016 election by Ukrainian politicians and
government agencies happened.
The above is true and no amount of denial is going to change that. What's more: Ukrainian
nationals didn't just meddle on their own, they also worked with Americans -- including
Ukrainian-American political operatives on the payroll of the Democratic Party. Not only
did all this happen, it was written up as fact by establishment papers and outlets as varied as
Yahoo , Politico
, and TheFinancial Times in
2016 on the eve of the election. ( See this by me here
.)
One of the best examples of this is the
plot to take down Paul Manafort -- the sleazy Republican political consultant who had long
worked in Ukraine and who headed Donald's Trump campaign.
In 2016, Serhiy Leshchenko, a Ukrainian member of parliament and an anti-corruption activist
(who got embroiled in his own corruption scandal), coordinated the release of a handwritten
ledger. The document purported to show off-the-book payments made to Manafort from the Party of
the Regions -- the political arm of the Viktor Yanukovich, the Ukrainian president who had been
overthrown in a coup-type revolt by a much more Western-friendly political faction. The ledger
itself was released by NABU, a Ukrainian government anti-corruption organization set up as
result of prodding by the Obama administration and which was
run with the backing and financial support of the FBI .
(As an aside: NABU -- which also got embroiled into its own political corruption scandal --
also happens to be at the heart of an internal Ukrainian political fight that sucked in
ex-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. But that's a different and
complicated story . And then there's the weird angle of the FBI being so closely involved
with NABU at a time when this Ukrainian anti-corruption agency decided to involve itself in an
American election.)
Anyway, Leshchenko -- a foreign politician -- made clear that his objective at the time was
to kill off Trump's candidacy. That's a direct admission of meddling. As Oleksiy Kuzmenko has
documented so well, Leshchenko repeated this statement in various ways in both English and
Ukraine over and over again.
Lev Golinkin explained in TheNationa few months ago that the
release of that ledger by Leshchenko and NABU was an important event -- and a direct
intervention in the election. "The story rocked the 2016 election, given Manafort's position as
head of Trump's campaign. The Hillary Clinton campaign immediately seized on it as proof that
Manafort -- and therefore Trump -- was tied to Yanukovych and the Kremlin," he wrote. "Manafort
was ousted based on handwritten pieces of paper -- the story would've never gone anywhere
without NABU and Leshchenko's vouching for the ledger's authenticity. That's as direct as it
gets."
But three years later, this episode has been wiped from the collective memory of our media
and political establishment. What used to be fact is now smeared as either a pro-Trump
rightwing conspiracy theory or Russian propaganda -- and probably both. But saying that it
didn't happen doesn't change the historical record.
Mark Ames makes a very good point: All this outside meddling didn't swing the election, but
it did help us learn something useful about our own political process. The hacking of email
accounts belonging to the John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee revealed to
Americans the corruption of the Democratic Party, including the way that the primaries are run.
And leaks about Manafort revealed the corruption inside Trump campaign (if anyone doubted it in
the first place) and ultimately sent a corrupt scumbag lobbyist to jail for tax evasion.
But this burst of transparency hasn't done much good. Instead of reckoning with the
fundamental rot in our political establishment and our political culture, all we've gotten is
this non-stop selective outrage -- a spectacle that puts Trump and his cronies and a foreign
power at the center of everything that's wrong domestically in America. But the problems are
larger than Trump and they sure are larger than whatever foreign meddling may have occurred --
whether from Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, Israel, or any of the other foreign and business
interests that are constantly jockeying to sway the world's most powerful empire.
Manafort did million dollar deals with the Podestas for over 10 years -- then offered to
work for Trump for free.
Daniel , December 5, 2019 at 09:08
I am a daily reader of this site and have always had a healthy skepticism of the
propaganda emanating from corporate media, but I am really struggling with this
Ukraine-interfered vs. that's-a-debunked-conspiracy-theory conflict. Corporate media is
really losing it's mind on this one with virtually ALL of it shaming and shutting down anyone
who acknowledges past reporting on this issue, as here. What is going on? How can one party
tell a story that is (seemingly) obviously true and another claim that it never happened? Do
the facts in this article and previous reporting have nothing to do with the 'debunked
conspiracy theory' we are being shamed about? Are these two separate stories? Or is objective
truth being ghosted out of existence now? I fear the latter.
The propaganda hyper-drive that corporate media has accelerated since Clinton's 2016
defeat has been quite astonishing to witness and a bit of a shock to me, even with all my
skepticism. But it is now apparent to me that there is no depth too low for our corporate
controllers to sink when tasked with defending their corrupt, violent, self-serving status
quo. Trump is too much of a wild card on some points for these folks, it seems, so of course
they feel he must be taken down. (On other points, they play right along as he delivers some
of the benefits they feel their positions have privileged them.)
And, despite my own feeling that the man is unfit for office and could rightly be
impeached on any number of counts, the degradation of our discourse in service of this right
now – and the slim propaganda-confused Ukraine shoulders upon which it is being laid
– is absolutely sickening to me, and seems wildly off the mark. It is, however, giving
those who benefit from our corrupt system a strong feeling of self-righteousness. So there's
that.
Wonder not why Trump's supporters aren't jumping ship (Schiff?). They can smell the BS as
well as anybody.
Eugenie Basile , December 5, 2019 at 04:44
Watched the house judiciary hearing yesterday on CNN. Do the analysts on the Jake Tapper
panel really believe all viewers of CNN have not one functioning brain cell left ?
What was clear yesterday is that the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot.
When even the chairman of the judiciary committee doesn't respect the principles of Law and
Justice, ordering his committee to rubberstamp the partisan report of the Intel committee
without any direct factchecking and possibility for minority members to call directly
involved witnesses, this impeachment becomes void of any legitimacy.
The three pro impeachment Law professors were so blinded by their Anti Trump feelings, they
didn't even realise the danger that this disastrous precedent will create.
DH Fabian , December 3, 2019 at 12:29
We see the same familiar phrases, "catch words," used throughout to sell Russia-gate, as
if all of it has been written by a single small group of people. We see the same claims that
someone said or wrote something that proves there was some INTENT to "meddle," this was
confirmed by (list pro-Democrat sources), and therefore Russia/Ukraine stole the election!
Meddle? How? This began with the Clinton campaign team claiming that Russia hacked into
voting machines across the country, a claim that media repeatedly stated was true. Proof?
Other media said it was true! Except that an extensive investigation of voting machines
across the country proved that it wasn't. No matter, just keep spinning the tale, weaving in
threads of Ukraine-gate in recent months. What does this "meddling" consist of? We still
don't know. They didn't invade the US and overthrow the government, didn't wage a massive
propaganda campaign -- although all of us who dared to criticize Clinton & Co. were
accused of being "foreign operatives." They didn't hack into voting machines, and efforts to
find the alleged "voter fraud" (on anyone's behalf) fell flat. They no longer even bother
trying to show that X did Y, invalidating the election results.
Go back to the 2016 election results. In spite of so much Dem voter opposition to the
Clinton right wing, Hillary Clinton got the most votes. Why did Russia and/or Ukraine try so
hard to get her into the White House? Never mind that, just keep repeating the allegations.
(Trump is president because he got the most electoral voted, something a foreign entity
couldn't influence, hack into, steal, etc., etc.)
Buddy , December 5, 2019 at 12:36
The George Constanza theory at work. "It's not a lie if you believe it." Oh how sad and
true that is. So many people prefer to believe a lie than accept the truth.
Piotr Berman , December 3, 2019 at 10:56
What is the latest on the authenticity of the "hand-written ledger" and Manafort payments?
After all, NABU investigators had a lot of adversaries and aimed to "ugrobit'" them (word
from Leshchenko tweet, "send to their tombs").
michael , December 4, 2019 at 04:20
I heard on the radio that 'the Ukraine did NOT interfere in the 2016 Election"; it has
been "debunked", just like Biden corruption there. There is no corruption in Ukraine,
officially. The Establishment has backed up all the coup-born Ukrainians, Ukrainian
Americans, "Anti-Corruption" Agencies and American Ambassadors who, despite published and
videoed facts from the last three or more years, now will tell you there was "no
interferference, no Black Ledger" of fake handwritten notes that has now disappeared ("no
evidence, no crime"). The Ukrainians had nothing to do with Manafort being toppled as Trump's
Campaign Manager, despite all the evidence to the contrary (evidently invented by the
Russians!!!) The US Establishment wants enough skirmishes with Russia on the Ukraine border
"to the last Ukrainian" to sell arms, based on loans that will never be repaid, with
politicians and their minions (not just Manafort!) lining their pockets.
Just watched Tim Canova's interview with Jimmy Dore from a few days ago. He ran in both 2016
and 2018. His story is a microcosm of what the Establishment has done to election integrity
in America. It is a joke. Once the Establishment silences alt media, there is no point in
having elections.
If you define "meddling" as "anything said or done by a non-US person that may somehow
influence a US voter" then by that standard just about every country out there "meddles" in
US elections.
The difference between Russian "meddling" and Ukrainian "meddling" is that the Ukrainian
flavor is welcomed by the US establishment.
Josep , December 4, 2019 at 18:19
I think it has something to do with the way Ukraine, like Georgia, is seen as a "victim"
of what is touted as "Russian aggression" thanks to its relatively smaller size, though your
guess is as good as mine.
Exiled reader , December 3, 2019 at 10:26
I'm surprised to see Mark Ames (and Yasha) allow that Russia "interfered" in the election,
especially in the context of WikiLeaks. Where is the evidence that Assange was some sort of
Kremlin cut-out?
Is this just a case of bowing slightly to the prevailing winds to prove a larger point, ie,
western presstitutes are incapable of dialectical thinking? Understandable but be careful,
1st thing you're making little concessions to establishment thinking, the next thing your
shilling for forever wars.
Bob Van Noy , December 3, 2019 at 09:39
As usual thank you CD.
"What's more: Ukrainian nationals didn't just meddle on their own, they also worked with
Americans -- including Ukrainian-American political operatives on the payroll of the
Democratic Party."
Many thanks Yasha Levine your statement above says it all and it's terribly important that
America understands that
michael , December 3, 2019 at 07:29
Of course the politicians of Ukraine worked openly with Ukrainian Americans and DNC
members to knock Manafort out as the head of Trump's campaign. These were locusts and
parasites who came into power based on the American-backed coup, and they were eager to show
their fealty to Hillary, and to Biden, as they stole everything that wasn't nailed down,
similar to the plague of Americans who descended on Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed.
The median income of Ukrainians dropped over half after the coup; their culture of
corruption, unlike that of their Ukrainian American overlords, is necessary to the bottom
Ukrainians survival. So they bragged, wanting the world and particularly Hillary to know that
Ukraine had interfered on her side in the Election. The facts are clear and straightforward,
as the author notes (although there is too much incredulity in his tone. Maybe he reads MSM
and is confused?)
However we will not see a three year investigation of Hillary and Biden being in the pocket
of Ukraine; that Russiagate nonsense was just a ruse to undercut America while they worked to
get their agendas back on track. They are the Establishment politicians, they are Democrats
of an administration who brought about coups and wars, and they want their monetary rewards
from these actions, as do the FBI, State Department and CIA (in a more institutional sense)
who crossed the red Hatch Act line to support political candidates (Hillary and Biden) in our
now banana republic. The Establishment have been pushing neolib/neocon agendas since at least
Bill Clinton, with ample support from Bush II (the groundwork) and particularly since Obama
(who was able to greatly expand both the domestic police state and the Empire). They do not
want some outsider, even the incompetent demagogue Trump, interfering in their best laid
plans, and in their consensus community foreign policies. This has nothing to do with America
per se, this is about extending their corrupt profitable dreams which are coming together
after 20+ years of preparations.
" three years later, this episode has been wiped from the collective memory of our media
and political establishment."
But everything important in the United States is treated that way now. Everything.
America has conducted more than 15 years of aggressive war in the Middle East, and you'd
be hard put to find a single honest article about any of it in a mainline American
publication or a story on air by broadcast journalism.
America just conducted a coup against an elected government in Bolivia, attempted another,
again against an elected government, in Venezuela, and is heavily pressuring the governments
of Cuba and Nicaragua. What you see in America's mainline press is not what has happened.
And the nasty Bolsonaro government in Brazil definitely represents fiddling with the
country's institutions, including its courts, but you won't read that in America's press.
Children are being hurt by lack of medicines and foodstuff in Iran, a country which done
absolutely nothing illegal, yet that land of eighty million is just ignored, except for
unwarranted insults. Never once are any of its leaders – including some highly
intelligent and civil men like the President and the Foreign Minister – interviewed or
allowed to make their case.
A creepy outfit like the White Helmets in Syria receives nothing but admiration in
America's press, even though its main job has been to create pressure for increased
bombing.
America's huge fleet of drones, each carrying Hellfire missiles, works day and night to
kill people in many places without the least pretence of legality or justice. Try finding the
victims' faces in the press. Try finding stories about the bizarre buzz-cut CIA workers who
sit at computer screens playing electronic games with live human beings.
Doing that would represent a bit of what Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange did, and just
look at their fates.
If it weren't for alternative and foreign press on the Internet, we'd know little about
any of these things and far more. But even those sources are limited. All the Western
European mainline press is under the same thumb. The Guardian or the BBC read like they were
written in Langley Virginia when it comes to such matters.
Russian sources are constantly attacked and vilified and threated. Outfits like Google,
Washington's willing helpers, now make it hard even to find legitimate alternate news
sources. And what those sources write gets buried in search results. Wikipedia has armies of
folks writing articles now in the same vein as those of the mainline press.
The United States literally does not make any sense anymore. Contradictions all the time.
No logic, no honest words ever come from officials or the press about any important
matter.
That is the just the nature of being at the center of a brutal empire, one engaged in
countless dark and dishonest activities, not ready to be observed, and certainly not
criticized, in any of them.
Correcting the record is almost meaningless anymore. As is speaking the truth on almost
any important matter.
Look at Tulsi Gabbard and how she is treated by the establishment, including that of her
own party.
She's the only Democratic candidate even saying a few honest things, and she is abused or
ignored or brushed aside.
Those who speak to establishment interests are given daily headline coverage, as Biden or
Warren, even though they have nothing to say that is new or helpful or even honest.
It really is a losing battle.
The Inner Party has a small army of Outer Party workers constantly writing and rewriting
Oceania's current events and recent history. Computers make the work easier and more
efficient than ever.
I think the quality of truth in America today makes Donald Trump a perfect representative
of the country. In many ways the perfect President. Full of contradictions and confusion,
given to bellowing and virtually never telling the truth.
michael , December 3, 2019 at 18:34
Agree that this is representative of the American character. Disagree that it is a recent
phenomenon. Americans killed off 15 to 20% of North Koreans in the Korean War (that
percentage would equate to 50-60 million Americans), and killed 2.5 to 4 million in Southeast
Asia (with quite a bit of CIA involvement in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. George HW Bush (who
headed and was active with the CIA) ran the Iran Contra drug running scheme to get Reagan
elected with the October Surprise, killing any Latin Americans who opposed his Freedom
Fighters. Clinton's sanctions killed 500,000 kids in Iraq and Albright noted "we think the
price is worth it"; Clinton had no interest in the Rwanda genocide. The seven Forever Wars
will likely multiply under Trump or his successor. That's where the money is.
9/11 supposedly happened because the CIA failed to "turn" Khalid al Mihdhar, who was also
heavily involved with Saudi spooks. The CIA always escape any accountability or
responsibility. Most of the CIA involved with "mistakes" of 9/11 were promoted despite
(because?) of their illegal actions, which led to the Patriot Act, and forever wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, joined now by Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Ukraine and
Honduras. Perkin's "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" showed the basic model; the CIA, his
"jackals", have become less covert, their visibility projects power. The principals and goals
are the same.
More and more domestic actions will occur at the hands of the CIA, and their propaganda is
passed down by the MSM on any important issue. The CIA is the Gestapo of the American Police
State. Elected politicians are just clowns for entertainment.
Caitlin Johnstone just published an article this morning about despair. It is an
inevitable emotion for those of us who know the truth about the current state of affairs.
Keep soldiering on John, your words have value. Who knows how many eyes are being opened
every day by your efforts? And in the end we could never live with ourselves if we just quit
the game.
In some ways Trump is the perfect President for making the desperation of the Deep State
more visible to the average person. There is less faith in the MSM today than there ever was
before. It's a starting point.
ML , December 4, 2019 at 22:29
Good post, Mr. Chuckman. Try and keep a sense of humor to ward off despair. Your post
reminded me of one of my favorite H. L. Mencken quotes regarding who Americans elect as their
presidents:
"All the odds are on the man who is intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre- the man who
can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends,
year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office of the President
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious
day, the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts's desire at last and the White House
will be adorned by a downright moron." H.L. Mencken
robert e williamson jr , December 5, 2019 at 17:47
Perfect read on it being what it is.
Hunter S. Thompson described the dumbing down of America in his 1990 "SONGS OF THE DOOMED"
.
He was right and we now see the effects of the demise of American acceptable set of
values. Far too many Americans have bull shitted themselves for far too long and it
shows.
Americans get what government they demand no more no less. The bar is pretty close to
touching the ground right now.
Some Americans want a malcontent, despot, bully to push "the other " around and Trump is
proving it by playing to his base.
The far too many of rest of Americans could care less just as long as nobody screws up
their good deal.
This should be interesting and may become painful enough to enough Americans that some
real progress and change can happen.
We need to hope that this happens by ballot rather than by bullet.
Eugenie Basile , December 3, 2019 at 04:20
A general warning for all viewers of the impeachment hearings: this is a political process
that has no factual value. The witnesses are nothing more than politicized instruments for
either political party.
Congress being under control of the democrats, we got their version As soon as the procedure
is passed to the Senate, the republicans will take control.
The timing should be a bonus for the reelection of Trump . seems the DNC has learned nothing
from their 2016 defeat.
Hmmm , December 3, 2019 at 00:49
I think most of the politicians, press, and pundits can and do hold both thoughts in their
head. They just lie about it shamelessly. Take Fiona Hill -- she certainly knows better. But
she's an anti-Russian ideologue, on top of which she knows that her reputation in the proper
circles now depends on promoting one of the two thoughts and dismissing the other. (Indeed,
the mainstream press has been fawning over her as a "heroine" since her testimony.)
Some people with influence may genuinely be unable to understand. But even with them, it's
mostly what Upton Sinclair said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when
his salary depends on his not understanding it."
There's no price to be paid for this lie. An article in Consortium News, or even The
Nation -- while commendable and most welcome, to be sure -- doesn't do the trick. Similar
points made in conservative outlets get dismissed as pro-Trump propaganda.
Anyway, it's nice to run across a piece like this as a sanity check.
Piotr Berman , December 3, 2019 at 11:12
"An article in Consortium News, or even The Nation -- while commendable and most welcome,
to be sure -- doesn't do the trick. "
The outcome of these revelations is hard to foresee, but currently they are amplified by
Fox News and other pro-Republican media. War liberals of the Democratic Party getting
squeezed from both sides. Trump does not have many talents, but I know no one better at
making adversaries look stupid, while getting away with inane rants -- a trick that never
ceases to amaze me.
A tragedy is that by focusing on Russia, Democrats take oxygen away from other fires they
should tend, pretty much like in 2016.
Excellent, but I was surprised to see the words "The hacking of email accounts belonging
to the John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee," when CN has well documented
articles that it was an insider leak and not a hack. We need to squash the myth of hacking
whenever we can.
Eugenie Basile , December 3, 2019 at 04:25
The Guccifer2 was definitely a hack with some Cyrillic traces ..( bit too obvious )
jdd , December 2, 2019 at 19:40
Robert Mueller's babbling notwithstanding, the VIPS have proven through uncontroverted
forensic analysis, that Popdesta's email account, like that of Hillary Clinton, was leaked
not hacked. As Julian Assange, who is slowly being murdered in a British prison, has
repeatedly stated, he did not receive the emails from "a state actor." Yet the truth of what
they revealed was, among other things, that the DNC conspired with the Clinton campaign to
rig the 2016 primaries against Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton to be a craven puppet of
Wall Street. The big lie of "Russian hacking" needs to be fully exposed, as it sits at the
very heart of the Russiagate narrative, and is the basis for all the lies that followed..
Jeff Harrison , December 2, 2019 at 19:22
The truth is that lots of countries meddle in large and small ways and in effective and
ineffective ways. The biggest meddler is Israel. Without US support, Israel would be a small
piece of pea gravel on a hot asphalt road with a full sized steam roller headed her way. So
they control the direction of the steam roller. The only countries that don't meddle in
American politics are countries that don't care what the US does. There aren't many of those.
Companies hire lobbyists to meddle in Congressional decisions so that the government will
issue edicts that favor their business over the people. Countries do the same thing.
Sometimes they skip the lobbyist and do it themselves. Only Americans are stupid enough to
think that it doesn't happen. We have recently seen a parade of Americans who are that stupid
and worse, they don't seem to realize that the US has been doing that and worse all over the
world.
Jb , December 3, 2019 at 06:44
Amen!!
AnneR , December 3, 2019 at 07:33
Jeff – So true. I would only add that what Americans decry in other (usually, you
know, those "lesser" countries of Africa, Asia and MENA) as rank corruption and blatant
bribery is so well-established, deeply rooted, and by all appearances legalized in this
country, particularly in DC that for the general population, whose voices, needs and
desperation go totally unheeded (no money to sway Congressional minds), the lobbying, the
really existing political meddling by such countries as Israel (Occupied Palestine) and, I
would also add, the UK, is normal. And not the bribery, conniving, interference and
corruption that it really, truly is.
As for the well-educated bourgeoisie – they have, largely, benefited from the
results of that bribery and corruption. Until the Strumpet pipped Killary to the post. (Not
that they've not continued enjoy their self-presumed merited lifestyles even under him.)
And it is abundantly clear that repeating the lies (even, especially when they are known
to be lies by those controlling and disseminating the stories), obfuscating the truth by
avoidance of those topics that the ruling elites want to remain unnoticed, has not only
increased in the MSM but also continues to be believed by large swathes of the bourgeoisie
who consider themselves to be "progressive," "left-wing," and who are juggling which Demrat
candidate to vote for while ignoring what some candidates, at least, have voted *for* in
Congress.
"This was a debate over policy. Trump's critics may not have liked the policy he was
pushing. But as former Defense Intelligence Agency official Pat Lang noted on his blog last
week,
the statute in question applies only to "intelligence activities" but "does not include
differences of opinions concerning public policy matters."
That's what this fight is about, said Lang . Speaker after speaker at the hearings asserted
that Trump's views did not comport with official national policy. But the president sets that
policy, Lang said, not the diplomats.
"They think they are the people who set national policy and the president is this figurehead
who is guided by all these people around him who agree on everything," he said. "The president
doesn't need to use the State Department at all to conduct foreign policy." ' Paul Mulshine
-------------
Actually, I was too minimal in speaking of "diplomats." Vindman is not a diplomat and there
are many other actors in this drama of Borgist angst (foreign policy establishment ) who are
not diplomats.
For one thing a large percentage of the Drones at the State Department are civil service
employees rather than Foreign Service Officers, and although they do not play well together
they agree on the ultimate authority of the Supremacy Clause (non-existent) in the US
Constitution that gives the State Department dominion over all the Lord created. A career
ambassador's wife once lectured me that the US Army should change the cap badge that officers
wear because it looks too much like the Great Seal of the United States which in the State
Department can only be displayed by Ambassadors. I told her that she should petition the
Secretary of the Army in this matter.
Various departments of government, media, academia, thinktankeries, etc., all have heavy
infestations of folks who went to graduate school together in poly sci in all its branches, or
who wish to be thought worthy of such attendance. They specialize in group think, conformity,
and conformism, even to the solemn dress they affect. The four in hand tie knot is pretty much
mandatory for serious consideration for inclusion in the Borg. It indicates a certain preppy
insouciance and faux disregard for details of dress.
Trump's casual disregard for all that enrages the Borg who thought they had "won it all"
long ago and that they would have a Borgist neocon to deal with in Hillary.
Hillary's Foundation has lost millions recently, which has Hillary pursing her lips like
she's been using a lemon for her lipstick. I mean, worse than fish-lips, Hillary's pursing
expression.
Too bad that we can't form some cement shoes for the Borg and toss them into the east
river AKA the Atlantic, or send them back to hell from where they originated!
OT:
This afternoon my wife and I turned on the TV to watch football. We were flipping through
channels and came upon some local ABC affiliate (WMUR) which had on a documentary which
mentioned the Medal of Honor and a Catholic chaplain in Vietnam. Needless to say we stayed on
that channel. Long story short, it was one of the most powerful things we've ever watched. We
were both in tears by the end (nb: I don't cry easily) and we were changed from having
watched it. We immediately went online to purchase copies for family members. It was recently
released.
As the Borg like to say "We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our
own." They have done this with the four in hand tie knot which was previously worn by giants
like George Kennon and Chip Bohlen. Yet now, the midgetry prevails.
Colonel...This is another Reason why I appreciate your levels of Experience and knowledge
with SST..Thank you for doing that...I always come away with New Insight..and Understanding
of Real Dynamics..what has Progressively Developed inside the State.Department.with its
Influence On so Much POLICY...and .is as You say...The BORG..and Their Own Culture.your
Article put that all into a Big Picture for Me..(Connecting the Data..) .It.as you aptly
Described. is a Universal.Sect..and...At The National Level...They are Cyber Borgs..Shciff
Shapers..and that Whole Colony has Been Exposed.,,, Bad Products and All....
Fiona Hill appears to be part of the Borg, not really sure which part she's affiliated.
Some have called her a 'sleeper agent', but a sleeper for whom? British Intelligence agent of
influence? Or an Israeli agent of influence, or maybe a Daniel Pipes trained NEOCON agent of
influence? Any way one spins it, Fiona Hill has been undermining POTUS Trump while she was
part of his NSC and his advisory team. Why her intense hatred of Putin? Does he happen to
know through his nation's intelligence exactly who she is and whom she may be working on
behalf of? The Skripal incident showed just how much that the British Government and Crown
hate Russia. But why the intense British hatred of Russia, why?
Questions, so many questions regarding Ms. Hill and who she really works for.
"... Thanks again for making explicit what I have long known: To America, Ukraine is nothing but a weapon against Russia. The whole point of support for Ukraine is to make Russia bleed—doesn’t matter how many people die or suffer in the process or how much of Ukraine is destroyed. https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1202267180219478024 … ..."
"... So fomenting on a war on Russia's border is, it appears, self-evidently aids our national security. What's next? A war scare? Ramping up MH17? ..."
"'Our Democracy Is at Stake.' Pelosi Orders Democrats to Draft Articles of Impeachment
Against Trump" [ Time ]. With autoplay video.
""The President abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of
our national security by withholding military aid and a crucial Oval Office meeting in
exchange for an announcement of an investigation into his political rival." • So now when
a President doesn't allow The Blob to dictate Ukraine policy it's an impeachable offense?
Really? Yasha Levine quotes Democrat impeachment witness Karlan (see below) but the point is
the same:
Yasha Levine ✔ @yashalevine
Thanks again for making explicit what I have long known: To America, Ukraine is nothing but a weapon
against Russia. The whole point of support for Ukraine is to make Russia bleed—doesn’t matter how many people die or
suffer in the process or how much of Ukraine is destroyed.
https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1202267180219478024 …
So fomenting on a war on Russia's border is, it appears, self-evidently aids our
national security. What's next? A war scare? Ramping up MH17?
"Read opening statements from witnesses at the House Judiciary hearing" [
Politico ]. "Democrats' impeachment witnesses at Wednesday's judiciary committee hearing
plan to say in their prepared remarks that President Donald Trump's actions toward Ukraine were
the worst examples of misconduct in presidential history." • So again, it's all about
Ukraine. I feel like I've entered an alternate dimension. Aaron Maté comments:
My very subjective impression: I've skimmed three, and read Turley. Karlan, in particular,
is simply not a serious effort. Turley may be wrong -- a ton of tribal dunking on Twitter --
but at least he's making a serious effort. I'm gonna have to wait to see if somebody, say at
Lawfare, does a serious effort on Turley. Everything I've read hitherto is and posturing and
preaching to the choir. (Sad that Larry Tribe has so completely discredited himself, but that's
where we are.)
Lambert, while Trump was unable to complete his attempt to extort the President of
Ukraine, as someone who practiced the criminal law for 34 years, let me be the first to clue
you in to the concept in the criminal law of the inchoate offense . This is
criminal law, not contract law.
An inchoate offense includes an attempt, a conspiracy, and the solicitation of a crime.
All focus on the state of mind of the perpetrator, and none require that the offense be
completed -- only that a person or persons having the required criminal intent took material
steps toward completing the crime. Such a person becomes a principal in the contemplated
crime, and in the eyes of the law is just as guilty as if he or she had completed the
attempted offense.
(The details of Trump's offense differ from what David in Santa Cruz said they would be.)
"Inchoate" appears only in Turley's piece, indicating, to me, that his was the only serious
effort.
Republicans are afraid to raise this key question. Democrats are afraid of even mentioning CrowdStrike in Ukrainegate hearings.
The Deep State wants to suppress this matter entirely.
Alperovisch connections to Ukraine and his Russophobia are well known. Did Alperovich people played the role of "Fancy Bear"? Or
Ukrainian SBU was engaged? George Eliason clams that
"I have already clearly shown the Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian Intelligence Operators." ... "Since there is so much crap surrounding
the supposed hack such as law enforcement teams never examining the DNC server or maintaining control of it as evidence, could the hacks
have been a cover-up?"
Notable quotes:
"... So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual 'false flag' hack. A possible calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious questions about the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility. ..."
"... What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich's laptop, designed as part of a 'false flag' operation. ..."
"... On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant 'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48. Both are short, and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining the truth about 'Russiagate.' (See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6775665/clevenger-v-us-department-of-justice/ .) ..."
"... And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard drives' can be changed, and that the level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high. Another matter of some importance is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims' site is back up online. (See http://debunkingrodwheelersclaims.net ) ..."
"... The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.' ..."
"... Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the "Russian" conclusion instead. Why has that methodology been sealed? ..."
"... Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers. ..."
"... What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Mueller team that conspired to reach this Russian conclusion. ..."
"... Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's evidentiary demand to ascertain how exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian link ..."
"... Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -- Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question when you don't already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth ..."
"... Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike. ..."
"... In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives. ..."
"... His role in what we may define as "converting DNC leak into DNC hack" (I would agree with you that this probably was a false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services, is very suspicious indeed. ..."
"... Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with "kid gloves" may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time. ..."
The favor was for Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the 2016 DNC computer breach.
Reliance on Crowdstrike to investigate the DNC computer, and not an independent FBI investigation, was tied very closely to
the years long anti-Trump Russiagate hoax and waste of US taxpayer time and money.
Why is this issue ignored by both the media and the Democrats. The ladies doth protest far too much.
what exactly, to the extend I recall, could the Ukraine contribute the the DNC's server/"fake malware" troubles? Beyond, that
I seem to vaguely recall, the supposed malware was distributed via an Ukrainan address.
On the other hand, there seems to be the (consensus here?) argument there was no malware breach at all, simply an insider copying
files on a USB stick.
If people discovered there had been a leak, it would perfectly natural that in order to give 'resilience' to their cover-up
strategies, they could have organised a planting of evidence on the servers, in conjunction with elements in Ukraine.
So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual 'false flag' hack. A possible
calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious
questions about the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility.
The issues involved become all the more important, in the light of the progress of Ty Clevenger's attempts to exploit the clear
contradiction between the claims by the FBI, in response to FOIA requests, to have no evidence relating to Seth Rich, and the
remarks by Ms. Deborah Sines quoted by Michael Isikoff.
What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich's laptop, designed as part of
a 'false flag' operation.
On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against
the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant 'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48. Both are short,
and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining
the truth about 'Russiagate.' (See
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6775665/clevenger-v-us-department-of-justice/
.)
It is eminently possible that Ms. Hines has simply made an 'unforced error.'
However, I do not – yet – feel able totally to discount the possibility that what is actually at issue is a 'ruse', produced
as a contingency plan to ensure that if it becomes impossible to maintain the cover-up over Rich's involvement in its original
form, his laptop shows 'evidence' compatible with the 'Russiagate' narrative.
And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard drives' can be changed, and that the
level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high. Another matter of some importance
is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims' site is back up online. (See
http://debunkingrodwheelersclaims.net )
Looking at it from the perspective of an old television current affairs hack, I do think that, while it is very helpful to
have some key material available in a single place, it would useful if more attention was paid to presentation.
In particular, it would be a most helpful 'teaching aid', if a full and accurate transcript was made of the conversation with
Seymour Hersh which Ed Butowsky covertly recorded. What seems clear is that both these figures ended up in very difficult positions,
and that the latter clearly engaged in 'sleight of hand' in relation to his dealings with the former. That said, the fact that
Butowsky's claims about his grounds for believing that Hersh's FBI informant was Andrew McCabe are clearly disingenuous does not
justify the conclusion that he is wrong.
It is absolutely clear to me – despite what 'TTG', following that 'Grub Street' hack Folkenflik, claimed – that when Hersh
talked to Butowsky, he believed he had been given accurate information. Indeed, I have difficulty seeing how anyone whose eyes
were not hopelessly blinded by prejudice, a\nd possibly fear of where a quest for the truth might lead, could not see that, in
this conversation, both men were telling the truth, as they saw it.
However, all of us, including the finest and most honourable of journalists can, from time to time, fall for disinformation.
(If anyone says they can always spot when they are being played, all I can say is, if you're right, you're clearly Superman, but
it is more likely that you are a fool or knave, if not both.)
The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise
the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak
before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.'
1. Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What
was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the "Russian" conclusion instead. Why has that methodology been sealed?
2. Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently
put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to
help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.
3. What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Mueller team that conspired to reach this Russian
conclusion.
4. Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's evidentiary demand to ascertain how
exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian
link .
5. Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -- Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are
any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question
when you don't already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth .
Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently
put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted
to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.
Alperovich is really a very suspicious figure. Rumors are that he was involved in compromising PGP while in MacAfee( June 2nd,
2018 Alperovich's DNC Cover Stories Soon To Match With His Hacking Teams - YouTube ):
Investigative Journalist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the CEO Bill Larsen bought a small,
Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to Silicon Valley.
MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate to reduce NSA spying on the
public.
The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order
to crack encrypted communications to write a back door for law enforcement.
Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would
go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike.
In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted
communications for covert action operatives.
His role in what we may define as "converting DNC leak into DNC hack" (I would agree with you that this probably was a
false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services,
is very suspicious indeed.
Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with "kid gloves" may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After
all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time.
While all this DNC hack saga is completely unclear due to lack of facts and the access to the evidence, there are some stories
on Internet that indirectly somewhat strengthen your hypothesis:
"... Fact 10 : Shokin stated in interviews with me and ABC News that he was told he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy the Burisma investigation wasn't shut down. He made that claim anew in this sworn deposition prepared for a court in Europe. You can read that here . ..."
"... Fact 11 : The day Shokin's firing was announced in March 2016, Burisma's legal representatives sought an immediate meeting with his temporary replacement to address the ongoing investigation. You can read the text of their emails here . ..."
"... Fact 13 : Burisma officials eventually settled the Ukraine investigations in late 2016 and early 2017, paying a multimillion dollar fine for tax issues. You can read their lawyer's February 2017 announcement of the end of the investigations here . ..."
"... Fact 15 : The Ukraine embassy in Washington issued a statement in April 2019 admitting that a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa solicited Ukrainian officials in spring 2016 for dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in hopes of staging a congressional hearing close to the 2016 election that would damage Trump's election chances. You can read the embassy's statement here and here . Your colleague, Dr. Fiona Hill, confirmed this episode, testifying "Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They bet on Hillary Clinton winning." You can read her testimony here . ..."
"... Fact 18 : A Ukrainian district court ruled in December 2018 that the summer 2016 release of information by Ukrainian Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko and NABU director Artem Sytnyk about an ongoing investigation of Manafort amounted to an improper interference by Ukraine's government in the 2016 U.S. election. You can read the court ruling here . Leschenko and Sytnyk deny the allegations, and have won an appeal to suspend that ruling on a jurisdictional technicality. ..."
"... Fact 21 : In April 2016, US embassy charge d'affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office demanding that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down a series of investigations into how Ukrainian nonprofits spent U.S. aid dollars, including the Anti-Corruption Actions Centre. You can read that letter here . Kent testified he signed the letter here . ..."
"... Fact 22 : Then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a televised interview with me that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch during a 2016 meeting provided the lists of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups she did want to see prosecuted. You can see I accurately quoted him by watching the video here . ..."
"... Fact 27 : In May 2016, one of George Soros' top aides secured a meeting with the top Eurasia policy official in the State Department to discuss Russian bond issues. You can read the State memos on that meeting here . ..."
"... Fact 28 : In June 2016, Soros himself secured a telephonic meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to discuss Ukraine policy. You can read the State memos on that meeting here . ..."
honor and applaud Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's service to his country. He's a hero. I also respect his decision to testify
at the impeachment proceedings. I suspect neither his service nor his testimony was easy.
But I also know the liberties that Lt. Col. Vindman fought on the battlefield to preserve permit for a free and honest debate
in America, one that can't be muted by the color of uniform or the crushing power of the state.
So I want to exercise my right to debate Lt. Col. Vindman about the testimony he gave about me. You see, under oath to Congress,
he asserted all the factual elements in my columns at The Hill about Ukraine were false, except maybe my grammar
"I think all the key elements were false," Vindman testified.
Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y, pressed him about what he meant. "Just so I understand what you mean when you say key elements, are you
referring to everything John Solomon stated or just some of it?"
"All the elements that I just laid out for you. The criticisms of corruption were false . Were there more items in there, frankly,
congressman? I don't recall. I haven't looked at the article in quite some time, but you know, his grammar might have been right."
Such testimony has been injurious to my reputation, one earned during 30 years of impactful reporting for news organizations that
included The Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Washington Times and The Daily Beast/Newsweek.
And so Lt. Col. Vindman, here are the 28 primary factual elements in my Ukraine columns, complete with attribution and links to
sourcing. Please tell me which, if any, was factually wrong.
Fact 1 : Hunter Biden was hired in May 2014 by Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas company, at a time when his father
Joe Biden was Vice President and overseeing US-Ukraine Policy.
Here
is the announcement. Hunter Biden's hiring came just a few short weeks after Joe Biden urged Ukraine to expand natural gas production
and use Americans to help. You can read his comments to the Ukrainian prime minister
here . Hunter Biden's firm then began receiving monthly payments totaling $166,666. You can see those payments
here .
Fact 2 : Burisma was under investigation by
British authorities for corruption
and soon came under investigation by
Ukrainian authorities led by Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
Fact 3 : Vice President Joe Biden and his office were alerted by a
December 2015 New York Times article that Shokin's office was investigating Burisma and that Hunter Biden's role at the company
was undercutting his father's anticorruption efforts in Ukraine.
Fact 4 : The Biden-Burisma issue created the appearance of a conflict of interest, especially for State Department officials.
I especially refer you to State official George Kent's testimony
here . He testified he viewed
Burisma as corrupt and the Bidens as creating the perception of a conflict of interest. His concerns both caused him to contact the
vice president's office and to block a project that State's USAID agency was planning with Burisma in 2016. In addition, Ambassador
Yovanovitch testified she, too, saw the Bidens-Burisma connection as creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. You can read
her testimony
here .
Fact 5 : The Obama White House invited Shokin's prosecutorial team to Washington for meetings in January 2016 to discuss
their anticorruption investigations. You can read about that
here . Also, here is the official agenda for that meeting in
Ukraine and
English
. I call your attention to the NSC organizer of the meeting.
Fact 6 : The Ukraine investigation of Hunter Biden's employer, Burisma Holdings, escalated in February 2016 when Shokin's
office raided the home of company owner Mykola Zlochevsky and seized his property.
Here is the announcement of that court-approved
raid.
Fact 7 : Shokin was making plans in February 2016 to interview Hunter Biden as part of his investigation. You can read
his interview with me here, his sworn deposition to a court
here and his interview with
ABC News
here .
Fact 8 : Burisma's American representatives lobbied the State Department in late February 2016 to help end the corruption
allegations against the company, and specifically invoked Hunter Biden's name as a reason to intervene. You can read State officials'
account of that effort here
Fact 9 : Joe Biden boasted in a
2018 videotape
that he forced Ukraine's president to fire Shokin in March 2016 by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid. You can view his
videotape here
.
Fact 10 : Shokin stated in interviews with me and
ABC News that he was told he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy the Burisma investigation wasn't shut down. He made that
claim anew in this sworn deposition prepared for a court in Europe. You can read that
here .
Fact 11 : The day Shokin's firing was announced in March 2016, Burisma's legal representatives sought an immediate meeting
with his temporary replacement to address the ongoing investigation. You can read the text of their emails
here .
Fact 12 : Burisma's legal representatives secured that meeting April 6, 2016 and told Ukrainian prosecutors that "false
information" had been spread to justify Shokin's firing, according to a Ukrainian government memo about the meeting. The representatives
also offered to arrange for the remaining Ukrainian prosecutors to meet with U.S State and Justice officials. You can read the Ukrainian
prosecutors' summary memo of the meeting here and here and the Burisma lawyers' invite to Washington
here .
Fact 13 : Burisma officials eventually settled the Ukraine investigations in late 2016 and early 2017, paying a multimillion
dollar fine for tax issues. You can read their lawyer's February 2017 announcement of the end of the investigations
here .
Fact 14 : In March 2019, Ukraine authorities reopened an investigation against Burisma and Zlochevsky based on new evidence
of money laundering. You can read NABU's February 2019 recommendation to re-open the case
here , the March 2019 notice of suspicion by Ukraine prosecutors
here and a
May 2019 interview
here
with a Ukrainian senior law enforcement official stating the investigation was ongoing. And
here is an announcement this week that the Zlochevsky/Burisma probe has been expanded to include allegations of theft of Ukrainian
state funds.
Fact 15 : The Ukraine embassy in Washington issued a statement in April 2019 admitting that a Democratic National Committee
contractor named Alexandra Chalupa solicited Ukrainian officials in spring 2016 for dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
in hopes of staging a congressional hearing close to the 2016 election that would damage Trump's election chances. You can read the
embassy's statement
here and
here . Your colleague, Dr. Fiona Hill, confirmed this episode, testifying "Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They bet on Hillary
Clinton winning." You can read her testimony
here .
Fact 16 : Chalupa sent an email to top DNC officials in May 2016 acknowledging she was working on the Manafort issue. You
can read the email here .
Fact 17 : Ukraine's ambassador to Washington, Valeriy Chaly, wrote an OpEd in The Hill in August 2016 slamming GOP nominee
Donald Trump for his policies on Russia despite a Geneva Convention requirement that ambassadors not become embroiled in the internal
affairs or elections of their host countries. You can read Ambassador Chaly's OpEd
here and the Geneva Convention rules of conduct for foreign diplomats
here . And your colleagues
Ambassador Yovanovitch and Dr. Hill both confirmed this, with Dr. Hill
testifying this
week that Chaly's OpEd was "probably not the most advisable thing to do."
Fact 18 : A Ukrainian district court ruled in December 2018 that the summer 2016 release of information by Ukrainian Parliamentary
member Sergey Leschenko and NABU director Artem Sytnyk about an ongoing investigation of Manafort amounted to an improper interference
by Ukraine's government in the 2016 U.S. election. You can read the court ruling
here . Leschenko and Sytnyk deny the allegations, and have won an appeal to suspend that ruling on a jurisdictional technicality.
Fact 19 : George Soros' Open Society Foundation issued a memo in February 2016 on its strategy for Ukraine, identifying
the nonprofit Anti-Corruption Action Centre as the lead for its efforts. You can read the memo
here .
Fact 20 : The State Department and Soros' foundation jointly funded the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. You can read about
that funding here from the Centre's own funding records and George
Kent's testimony about it here
.
Fact 21 : In April 2016, US embassy charge d'affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office
demanding that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down a series of investigations into how Ukrainian nonprofits spent U.S. aid dollars,
including the Anti-Corruption Actions Centre. You can read that letter
here . Kent testified he signed the
letter here .
Fact 22 : Then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a televised interview with me that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch
during a 2016 meeting provided the lists of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups she did want to see prosecuted. You can see I
accurately quoted him by watching the video
here .
Fact 23 : Ambassador Yovanovitch and her embassy denied Lutsenko's claim, calling it a "fabrication." I reported their
reaction
here .
Fact 24 : Despite the differing accounts of what happened at the Lutsenko-Yovanovitch meeting, a senior U.S. official in
an interview arranged by the State Department stated to me in spring 2019 that US officials did pressure Lutsenko's office on several
occasions not to "prosecute, investigate or harass" certain Ukrainian activists, including Parliamentary member Leschenko, journalist
Vitali Shabunin, the Anti-Corruption Action Centre and NABU director Sytnyk. You can read that official's comments
here . In addition, George Kent confirmed this same information in his deposition
here .
Fact 25 : In May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions sent an official congressional letter to Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo asking that Yovanovitch be recalled as ambassador to Ukraine. Sessions and State confirmed the official letter,
which you can read here
.
Fact 26 : In fall 2018, Ukrainian prosecutors, using a third party, hired an American lawyer (a former U.S. attorney) to
proffer information to the U.S. government about certain activities at the U.S. embassy, involving Burisma and involving the 2016
election, that they believed might have violated U.S. law. You can read their account
here . You can also confirm it independently by talking to the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan or the American lawyer representing
the Ukrainian prosecutors' interests.
Fact 27 : In May 2016, one of George Soros' top aides secured a meeting with the top Eurasia policy official in the State
Department to discuss Russian bond issues. You can read the State memos on that meeting
here .
Fact 28 : In June 2016, Soros himself secured a telephonic meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to
discuss Ukraine policy. You can read the State memos on that meeting
here .
Lt. Col. Vindman, if you have information that contradicts any of these 28 factual elements in my columns I ask that you make
it publicly available. Your testimony did not.
If you don't have evidence these 28 facts are wrong, I ask that you correct your testimony because any effort to call factually
accurate reporting false only misleads America and chills the free debate our Constitutional framers so cherished to protect.
Pelosi interference in elections might cost democrats a victory. She enraged Trump base and
strengthened Trump, who before was floundering. Now election changed into "us vs them" question,
which is very unfavorable to neoliberal Dems. as neolibelism as ideology is dead. She also
brought back Trump some independents who othersie would stay home or vote for Dem candidate. No
action of House of Representatives can changes this. Bringing Vindman and Fiona Hill to testify
were huge blunders as they enhance the narrative that the Deep State, unaccountable Security
Establishment, controls the government, to which Trump represents very weak, but still a
challenge. As such they strengthened Trump
Essentially Dems had driven themselves into a trap. Moreover actions of the Senate can drag
democrats in dirt till the elections, diminishing their chances further and firther. Can you
image the effect if Schiff would be called testify under oath about his contacts with Ciaramella?
Or Biden questioning about his dirty dealing with both Yanukovich administration and Provisional
Government after the 2014 coup d'état (aka EuroMaydan, aka "the Revolution of dignity"
?
Notable quotes:
"... It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over "withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one. Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed "isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to criticize a president. ..."
"... Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe, Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S. involvement overseas are reducing it. ..."
"... We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually been adding to them. ..."
Gideon Rachman tries to find
similarities between the foreign policies of Trump and Obama:
Both men would detest the thought. But, in crucial respects, the foreign policies of
Donald Trump and Barack Obama are looking strikingly similar.
The wildly different styles of the two presidents have disguised the underlying
continuities between their approaches to the world. But look at substance, rather than style,
and the similarities are impressive.
There is usually considerable continuity in U.S. foreign policy from one president to
another, but Rachman is making a stronger and somewhat different claim than that. He is arguing
that their foreign policy agendas are very much alike in ways that put both presidents at odds
with the foreign policy establishment, and he cites "disengagement from the Middle East" and a
"pivot to Asia" as two examples of these similarities. This seems superficially plausible, but
it is misleading. Despite talking a lot about disengagement, Obama and Trump chose to keep the
U.S. involved in several conflicts, and Trump actually escalated the wars he inherited from
Obama. To the extent that there is continuity between Obama and Trump, it has been that both of
them have acceded to the conventional wisdom of "the Blob" and refused to disentangle the U.S.
from Middle Eastern conflicts. Ongoing support for the war on Yemen is the ugliest and most
destructive example of this continuity.
In reality, neither Obama nor Trump "focused" on Asia, and Trump's foray into
pseudo-engagement with North Korea has little in common with Obama's would-be "pivot" or
"rebalance." U.S. participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a major part of Obama's
policy in Asia. Trump pulled out of that agreement and waged destructive trade wars instead.
Once we get past generalizations and look at details, the two presidents are often
diametrically opposed to one another in practice. That is what one would expect when we
remember that Trump has made dismantling Obama's foreign policy achievements one of his main
priorities.
The significant differences between the two become much more apparent when we look at other
issues. On arms control and nonproliferation, the two could not be more different. Obama
negotiated a new arms reduction treaty with New START at the start of his presidency, and he
wrapped up a major nonproliferation agreement with Iran and the other members of the P5+1 in
2015. Trump reneged on the latter and seems determined to kill the former. Obama touted the
benefits of genuine diplomatic engagement, while Trump has made a point of reversing and
undoing most of the results of Obama's engagement with Cuba and Iran. Trump's overall hostility
to genuine diplomacy makes another one of Rachman claims quite baffling:
The result is that, after his warlike "fire and fury" phase, Mr Trump is now pursuing a
diplomacy-first strategy that is strongly reminiscent of Mr Obama.
Calling Trump's clumsy pattern of making threats and ultimatums a "diplomacy-first strategy"
is a mistake. This is akin to saying that he is adhering to foreign policy restraint because
the U.S. hasn't invaded any new countries on Trump's watch. It takes something true (Trump
hasn't started a new war yet) and misrepresents it as proof that the president is serious about
diplomacy and that he wants to reduce U.S. military engagement overseas. Trump enjoys the
spectacle of meeting with foreign leaders, but he isn't interested in doing the work or taking
the risks that successful diplomacy requires. He has shown repeatedly through his own behavior,
his policy preferences, and his proposed budgets that he has no use for diplomacy or diplomats,
and instead he expects to be able to bully or flatter adversaries into submission.
So Rachman is simply wrong he reaches this conclusion:
Mr Trump's reluctance to attack Iran was significant. It underlines the fact that his
tough-guy rhetoric disguises a strong preference for diplomacy over force.
Let's recall that the near-miss of starting a war with Iran came as a result of the downing
of an unmanned drone. The fact that the U.S. was seriously considering an attack on another
country over the loss of a drone is a worrisome sign that this administration is prepared to go
to war at the drop of a hat. Calling off such an insane attack was the right thing to do, but
there should never have been an attack to call off. That episode does not show a "strong
preference for diplomacy over force." If Trump had a strong preference for diplomacy over
force, his policy would not be one of relentless hostility towards Iran. Trump does not believe
in diplomatic compromise, but expects the other side to capitulate under pressure. That
actually makes conflict more likely and reduces the chances of meaningful negotiations.
It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over
"withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that
they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one.
Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed
"isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been
criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies
because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to
criticize a president.
Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most
of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is
guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe,
Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think
there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world.
Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn
non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S.
involvement overseas are reducing it.
Rachman ends his column with this assertion:
In their very different ways, both Mr Obama and Mr Trump have reduced America's global
commitments -- and adjusted the US to a more modest international role.
The problem here is that there has been no meaningful reduction in America's "global
commitments." Which commitments have been reduced or eliminated? It would be helpful if someone
could be specific about this. The U.S. has more security dependents today than it did when
Trump took office. NATO has been expanded to include two new countries in just the last three
years. U.S. troops are engaged in hostilities in just as many countries as they were when Trump
was elected. There are more troops deployed to the Middle East at the end of this year than
there were at the beginning, and that is a direct consequence of Trump's bankrupt Iran
policy.
We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really
have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually
been adding to them.
"... Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward Russia. The Council in turn is financed by Google Inc. ..."
"... In a perhaps unexpected development, another Atlantic Council funder is Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Those allegations were the subject of Trump's inquiry with Zelemsky related to Biden. The Biden allegations concern significant questions about Biden's role in Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. This took place during a period when Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from Burisma. ..."
"... Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower's complaint alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country" in the 2020 presidential race. ..."
"... Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. ..."
"... Together with Soros's Open Society, Omidyar also funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are "disputed." ..."
There are common threads that run through an organization repeatedly relied upon in the
so-called whistleblower's complaint about President Donald Trump and CrowdStrike, the outside
firm utilized to conclude that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee's servers
since the DNC would not allow the U.S. government to inspect the servers.
One of several themes is financing tied to Google, whose Google Capital led a $100 million
funding drive that financed Crowdstrike. Google Capital, which now goes by the name of
CapitalG, is an arm of Alphabet Inc., Google's parent company. Eric Schmidt, the chairman of
Alphabet, has been a staunch and active supporter of Hillary Clinton and is a longtime donor
to the Democratic Party.
CrowdStrike was mentioned by Trump in his call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign,
reportedly helped draft CrowdStrike to aid with the DNC's allegedly hacked server.
On behalf of the DNC and Clinton's campaign, Perkins Coie also paid the controversial
Fusion GPS firm to produce the infamous, largely-discredited anti-Trump dossier compiled by
former British spy Christopher Steele.
CrowdStrike is a California-based cybersecurity technology company co-founded by Dmitri
Alperovitch.
Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the
Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward
Russia. The Council in turn is financed
by Google Inc.
In a perhaps unexpected development, another Atlantic Council
funder is Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe
Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Those allegations were the subject of Trump's inquiry with
Zelemsky related to Biden. The Biden allegations concern significant questions about Biden's
role in Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. This took place during a period when
Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from Burisma.
Besides Google and Burisma funding, the Council is also financed by billionaire activist
George Soros's Open Society Foundations as well as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. and
the U.S. State Department.
Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State
Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization
repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower's complaint
alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign
country" in the 2020 presidential race.
The charges in the July 22 report referenced in the whistleblower's document and released
by the Google and Soros-funded organization, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting
Project (OCCRP), seem to be the public precursors for a lot of the so-called whistleblower's
own claims, as Breitbart News
documented .
One key section of the so-called whistleblower's document claims that "multiple U.S.
officials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of
other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the
Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov."
This was allegedly to follow up on Trump's call with Zelensky in order to discuss the
"cases" mentioned in that call, according to the so-called whistleblower's narrative. The
complainer was clearly referencing Trump's request for Ukraine to investigate the Biden
corruption allegations.
Even though the statement was written in first person – "multiple U.S. officials
told me" – it contains a footnote referencing a report by the Organized Crime and
Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
That footnote reads:
In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on
22 July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met
with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir.
The so-called whistleblower's account goes on to rely upon that same OCCRP report on three
more occasions. It does so to:
Write that Ukraine's Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko
"also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these
matters." Document that Trump adviser Rudi Giuliani "had spoken in late 2018 to former
Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani."
Bolster the charge that, "I also learned from a U.S. official that 'associates' of Mr.
Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team." The so-called
whistleblower then relates in another footnote, "I do not know whether these associates of
Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced
above."
The OCCRP
report repeatedly referenced is actually a "joint investigation by the Organized Crime
and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and BuzzFeed News, based on interviews and court and
business records in the United States and Ukraine."
BuzzFeed infamously also first
published the full anti-Trump dossier alleging unsubstantiated collusion between Trump's
presidential campaign and Russia. The dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign and
the Democratic National Committee and was produced by the Fusion GPS opposition dirt
outfit.
The OCCRP and BuzzFeed "joint investigation" resulted in both OCCRP and BuzzFeed
publishing similar lengthy pieces on July 22 claiming that Giuliani was attempting to use
connections to have Ukraine investigate Trump's political rivals.
The so-called whistleblower's document, however, only mentions the largely unknown OCCRP
and does not reference BuzzFeed, which has faced scrutiny over its reporting on the Russia
collusion claims.
Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal
billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.
Together with Soros's Open Society, Omidyar also
funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International
Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are
"disputed."
Like OCCRP, the Poynter Institute's so-called news fact-checking project is openly
funded by not only Soros' Open Society Foundations but also Google and the National
Endowment for Democracy.
CrowdStrike and DNC servers
CrowdStrike, meanwhile, was brought up by Trump in his phone call with Zelensky. According to the transcript, Trump told Zelensky, "I would like you to find out what
happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike I guess you have one of
your wealthy people The server, they say Ukraine has it."
In his extensive
report , Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller notes that his investigative team did not
"obtain or examine" the servers of the DNC in determining whether those servers were hacked
by Russia.
The DNC famously refused to allow the FBI to access its servers to verify the allegation
that Russia carried out a hack during the 2016 presidential campaign. Instead, the DNC
reached an arrangement with the FBI in which CrowdStrike conducted forensics on the server
and shared details with the FBI.
In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in January 2017, then-FBI Director
James Comey
confirmed that the FBI registered "multiple requests at different levels," to review the
DNC's hacked servers. Ultimately, the DNC and FBI came to an agreement in which a "highly
respected private company" -- a reference to CrowdStrike -- would carry out forensics on the
servers and share any information that it discovered with the FBI, Comey testified.
A senior law enforcement official stressed the importance of the FBI gaining direct access
to the servers, a request that was denied by the DNC.
"The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to
servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been
mitigated," the official was quoted by the news media as saying.
"This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions
caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier," the
official continued.
... ... ...
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter.
He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "
Aaron Klein Investigative
Radio ." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.
Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.
Russians did not hack the DNC system, a Russian named Dmitri Alperovitch is the hacker
and he works for President Obama. In the last five years the Obama administration has
turned exclusively to one Russian to solve every major cyber-attack in America, whether the
attack was on the U.S. government or a corporation. Only one "super-hero cyber-warrior" seems
to "have the codes" to figure out "if" a system was hacked and by "whom."
Dmitri's company, CrowdStrike has been called in by Obama to solve mysterious attacks on
many high level government agencies and American corporations, including: German Bundestag,
Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the White
House, the State Department, SONY, and many others.
CrowdStrike's philosophy is: "You don't have a malware problem; you have an adversary
problem."
CrowdStrike has played a critical role in the development of America's cyber-defense policy.
Dmitri Alperovitch and George Kurtz, a former head of the FBI cyberwarfare unit founded
CrowdStrike. Shawn Henry, former executive assistant director at the FBI is now CrowdStrike's
president of services. The company is crawling with former U.S. intelligence agents.
Before Alperovitch founded CrowdStrike in 2011, he was working in Atlanta as the chief
threat officer at the antivirus software firm McAfee, owned by Intel (a DARPA company). During
that time, he "discovered" the Chinese had compromised at least seventy-one companies and
organizations, including thirteen defense contractors, three electronics firms, and the
International Olympic Committee. He was the only person to notice the biggest cyberattack in
history! Nothing suspicious about that.
Alperovitch and the DNC
After CrowdStrike was hired as an independent "vendor" by the DNC to investigate a possible
cyberattack on their system, Alperovitch sent the DNC a proprietary software package called
Falcon that monitors the networks of its clients in real time. According to Alperovitch,
Falcon "lit up," within ten seconds of being installed at the DNC. Alperovitch had his
"proof" in TEN SECONDS that Russia was in the network. This "alleged" evidence of Russian
hacking has yet to be shared with anyone.
As Donald Trump has pointed out, the FBI, the agency that should have been immediately
involved in hacking that effects "National Security," has yet to even examine the DNC system to
begin an investigation. Instead, the FBI and 16 other U.S. "intelligence" agencies simply
"agree" with Obama's most trusted "cyberwarfare" expert Dmitri Alperovitch's "TEN SECOND"
assessment that produced no evidence to support the claim.
Also remember that it is only Alperovitch and CrowdStrike that claim to have evidence
that it was Russian hackers . In fact, only two hackers were found to have been in the
system and were both identified by Alperovitch as Russian FSB (CIA) and the Russian GRU (DoD).
It is only Alperovitch who claims that he knows that it is Putin behind these two hackers.
Alperovitch failed to mention in his conclusive "TEN SECOND" assessment that Guccifer 2.0
had already hacked the DNC and made available to the public the documents he hacked –
before Alperovitch did his ten second assessment. Alperovitch reported that no other hackers
were found, ignoring the fact that Guccifer 2.0 had already hacked and released DNC documents
to the public. Alperovitch's assessment also goes directly against Julian Assange's repeated
statements that the DNC leaks did not come from the Russians.
The ridiculously fake cyber-attack assessment done by Alperovitch and CrowdStrike
naïvely flies in the face of the fact that a DNC insider admitted that he had released the
DNC documents. Julian Assange implied in an interview that the murdered Democratic
National Committee staffer, Seth Rich, was the source of a trove of damaging emails the website
posted just days before the party's convention. Seth was on his way to testify about the DNC
leaks to the FBI when he was shot dead in the street.
It is also absurd to hear Alperovitch state that the Russian FSB (equivalent to the CIA) had
been monitoring the DNC site for over a year and had done nothing. No attack, no theft, and no
harm was done to the system by this "false-flag cyber-attack" on the DNC – or at least,
Alperovitch "reported" there was an attack. The second hacker, the supposed Russian military
(GRU – like the U.S. DoD) hacker, had just entered the system two weeks before and also
had done "nothing" but observe.
It is only Alperovitch's word that reports that the Russian FSB was "looking for files on
Donald Trump."
It is only this false claim that spuriously ties Trump to the "alleged"
attack. It is also only Alperovitch who believes that this hack that was supposedly "looking
for Trump files" was an attempt to "influence" the election. No files were found about Trump by
the second hacker, as we know from Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0's leaks. To confabulate that
"Russian's hacked the DNC to influence the elections" is the claim of one well-known Russian
spy. Then, 17 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously confirm that Alperovitch is correct
– even though there is no evidence and no investigation was ever conducted .
How does Dmitri Alperovitch have such power? Why did Obama again and again use Alperovitch's
company, CrowdStrike, when they have miserably failed to stop further cyber-attacks on the
systems they were hired to protect? Why should anyone believe CrowdStrikes false-flag
report?
After documents from the DNC continued to leak, and Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks made
CrowdStrike's report look foolish, Alperovitch decided the situation was far worse than he had
reported. He single-handedly concluded that the Russians were conducting an "influence
operation" to help win the election for Trump . This false assertion had absolutely no
evidence to back it up.
On July 22, three days before the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks dumped a
massive cache of emails that had been "stolen" (not hacked) from the DNC. Reporters soon found
emails suggesting that the DNC leadership had favored Hillary Clinton in her primary race
against Bernie Sanders, which led Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair, along with three
other officials, to resign.
Just days later, it was discovered that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
(DCCC) had been hacked. CrowdStrike was called in again and once again, Alperovitch immediately
"believed" that Russia was responsible. A lawyer for the DCCC gave Alperovitch permission to
confirm the leak and to name Russia as the suspected author. Two weeks later, files from the
DCCC began to appear on Guccifer 2.0's website. This time Guccifer released information about
Democratic congressional candidates who were running close races in Florida, Ohio, Illinois,
and Pennsylvania. On August 12, Guccifer went further, publishing a spreadsheet that included
the personal email addresses and phone numbers of nearly two hundred Democratic members of
Congress.
Once again, Guccifer 2.0 proved Alperovitch and CrowdStrike's claims to be grossly incorrect
about the hack originating from Russia, with Putin masterminding it all. Nancy Pelosi offered
members of Congress Alperovitch's suggestion of installing Falcon , the system that
failed to stop cyberattacks at the DNC, on all congressional laptops.
Key Point: Once Falcon was installed on the computers of members of the U.S.
Congress, CrowdStrike had even further full access into U.S. government accounts.
Alperovitch's "Unbelievable" History
Dmitri was born in 1980 in Moscow where his father, Michael, was a nuclear physicist, (so
Dmitri claims). Dmitri's father was supposedly involved at the highest levels of Russian
nuclear science. He also claims that his father taught him to write code as a child.
In 1990, his father was sent to Maryland as part of a nuclear-safety training program for
scientists. In 1994, Michael Alperovitch was granted a visa to Canada, and a year later the
family moved to Chattanooga, where Michael took a job with the Tennessee Valley Authority.
While Dmitri Alperovitch was still in high school, he and his father started an
encryption-technology business. Dmitri studied computer science at Georgia Tech and went on to
work at an antispam software firm. It was at this time that he realized that cyber-defense was
more about psychology than it was about technology. A very odd thing to conclude.
Dmitri Alperovitch posed as a "Russian gangster" on spam discussion forums which brought his
illegal activity to the attention of the FBI – as a criminal. In 2005, Dmitri flew to
Pittsburgh to meet an FBI agent named Keith Mularski, who had been asked to lead an undercover
operation against a vast Russian credit-card-theft syndicate. Alperovitch worked closely with
Mularski's sting operation which took two years, but it ultimately brought about fifty-six
arrests. Dmitri Alperovitch then became a pawn of the FBI and CIA.
In 2010, while he was at McAfee, the head of cybersecurity at Google told Dmitri that Gmail
accounts belonging to human-rights activists in China had been breached. Google suspected the
Chinese government. Alperovitch found that the breach was unprecedented in scale; it affected
more than a dozen of McAfee's clients and involved the Chinese government. Three days after his
supposed discovery, Alperovitch was on a plane to Washington where he had been asked to vet a
paragraph in a speech by the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.
2014, Sony called in CrowdStrike to investigate a breach of its network. Alperovitch needed
just "two hours" to identify North Korea as the adversary. Executives at Sony asked Alperovitch
to go public with the information immediately, but it took the FBI another three weeks before
it confirmed the attribution.
Alperovitch then developed a list of "usual suspects" who were well-known hackers who had
identifiable malware that they commonly used. Many people use the same malware and
Alperovitch's obsession with believing he has the only accurate list of hackers in the world is
plain idiocy exacerbated by the U.S. government's belief in his nonsense. Alperovitch even
speaks like a "nut-case" in his personal Twitters, which generally have absolutely no
references to the technology he is supposedly the best at in the entire world.
Dmitri – Front Man for His Father's Russian Espionage Mission
After taking a close look at the disinformation around Dmitri and his father, it is clear to
see that Michael Alperovitch became a CIA operative during his first visit to America.
Upon his return to Russia, he stole the best Russian encryption codes that were used to protect
the top-secret work of nuclear physics in which his father is alleged to have been a major
player. Upon surrendering the codes to the CIA when he returned to Canada, the CIA made it
possible for a Russian nuclear scientist to become an American citizen overnight and gain a
top-secret security clearance to work at the Oakridge plant, one of the most secure and
protected nuclear facilities in America . Only the CIA can transform a Russian into an
American with a top-secret clearance overnight.
We can see on Michael Alperovitch's Linked In page that he went from one fantastically
top-secret job to the next without a break from the time he entered America. He seemed to be on
a career path to work in every major U.S. agency in America. In every job he was hired as the
top expert in the field and the leader of the company. All of these jobs after the first one
were in cryptology, not nuclear physics. As a matter of fact, Michael became the top expert in
America overnight and has stayed the top expert to this day.
Most of the work of cyber-security is creating secure interactions on a non-secure system
like the Internet. The cryptologist who assigns the encryption codes controls the system
from that point on .
Key Point: Cryptologists are well known for leaving a "back-door" in the base-code so
that they can always have over-riding control.
Michael Alperovitch essentially has the "codes" for all Department of Defense sites, the
Treasury, the State Department, cell-phones, satellites, and public media . There is hardly
any powerful agency or company that he has not written the "codes" for. One might ask, why do
American companies and the U.S. government use his particular codes? What are so special about
Michael's codes?
Stolen Russian Codes
In December, Obama ordered the U.S. military to conduct cyberattacks against Russia in
retaliation for the alleged DNC hacks. All of the attempts to attack Russia's military and
intelligence agencies failed miserably. Russia laughed at Obama's attempts to hack their
systems. Even the Russian companies targeted by the attacks were not harmed by Obama's
cyber-attacks. Hardly any news of these massive and embarrassing failed cyber-attacks were
reported by the Main Stream Media. The internet has been scrubbed clean of the reports that
said Russia's cyber-defenses were impenetrable due to the sophistication of their encryption
codes.
Michael Alperovitch was in possession of those impenetrable codes when he was a top
scientist in Russia. It was these very codes that he shared with the CIA on his first trip
to America . These codes got him spirited into America and "turned into" the best
cryptologist in the world. Michael is simply using the effective codes of Russia to design
his codes for the many systems he has created in America for the CIA .
KEY POINT: It is crucial to understand at this junction that the CIA is not solely working
for America . The CIA works for itself and there are three branches to the CIA – two of
which are hostile to American national interests and support globalism.
Michael and Dmitri Alperovitch work for the CIA (and international intelligence
corporations) who support globalism . They, and the globalists for whom they work, are
not friends of America or Russia. It is highly likely that the criminal activities of Dmitri,
which were supported and sponsored by the FBI, created the very hackers who he often claims are
responsible for cyberattacks. None of these supposed "attackers" have ever been found or
arrested; they simply exist in the files of CrowdStrike and are used as the "usual culprits"
when the FBI or CIA calls in Dmitri to give the one and only opinion that counts. Only Dmitri's
"suspicions" are offered as evidence and yet 17 U.S. intelligence agencies stand behind the
CrowdStrike report and Dmitri's suspicions.
Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys
Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who
works with PKI. A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and
distribution of digital certificates which are used to
verify that a particular public key belongs to a certain entity. The PKI creates digital
certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores these certificates in a central
repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a
cryptographic
technique that enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure
public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an entity via digital signatures .
Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key
bound to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user
key relies on one's trust in the validity of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is
considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the
market .
Michael's past is clouded in confusion and lies. Dmitri states that his father was a nuclear
physicist and that he came to America the first time in a nuclear based shared program between
America and Russia. But if we look at his current personal Linked In page, Michael claims he
has a Master Degree in Applied Mathematics from Gorky State University. From 1932 to 1956, its
name was State University of Gorky. Now it is known as Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni
Novgorod – National Research University (UNN), also known as Lobachevsky University. Does
Michael not even know the name of the University he graduated from? And when does a person with
a Master's Degree become a leading nuclear physicist who comes to "visit" America. In Michael's
Linked In page there is a long list of his skills and there is no mention of nuclear
physics.
Also on Michael Alperovitch's Linked In page we find some of his illustrious history that
paints a picture of either the most brilliant mind in computer security, encryption, and
cyberwarfare, or a CIA/FBI backed Russian spy. Imagine that out of all the people in the world
to put in charge of the encryption keys for the Department of Defense, the U.S. Treasury, U.S.
military satellites, the flow of network news, cell phone encryption, the Pathfire (media control)
Program, the Defense Information Systems Agency, the Global Information Grid, and TriCipher
Armored Credential System among many others, the government hires a Russian spy . Go
figure.
Michael Alperovitch's Linked In Page
Education:
Gorky State University, Russia, MS in Applied Mathematics
VT
IDirect -2014 – Designing security architecture for satellite communications
including cryptographic protocols, authentication.
Principal SME (Contractor)
DISA
-Defense Information Systems Agency (Manager of the Global Information Grid) – 2012-2014
– Worked on PKI and identity management projects for DISA utilizing Elliptic Curve
Cryptography. Performed application security and penetration testing.
Technical Lead (Contractor)
U.S.
Department of the Treasury – 2011 – Designed enterprise validation service
architecture for PKI certificate credentials with Single Sign On authentication.
Comtech Mobile
Datacom – 2007-2010 – Subject matter expert on latest information security
practices, including authentication, encryption and key management.
BellSouth – 2003-2006 – Designed and built server-side Jabber-based messaging
platform with Single Sign On authentication.
Principal Software Research Engineer
Pathfire – 2001-2002
– Designed and developed Digital Rights Management Server for Video on Demand and content
distribution applications. Pathfire provides digital media distribution and management
solutions to the television, media, and entertainment industries. The company offers Digital
Media Gateway, a digital IP store-and-forward platform, delivering news stories, syndicated
programming, advertising spots, and video news releases to broadcasters. It provides solutions
for content providers and broadcasters, as well as station solutions.
Obama – No Friend of America
Obama is no friend of America in the war against cyber-attacks. The very agencies and
departments being defended by Michael Alperovitch's "singular and most brilliant" ability to
write encryption codes have all been successfully attacked and compromised since Michael set up
the codes. But we shouldn't worry, because if there is a cyberattack in the Obama
administration, Michael's son Dmitri is called in to "prove" that it isn't the fault of his
father's codes. It was the "damn Russians", or even "Putin himself" who attacked American
networks.
Not one of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies is capable of figuring out a successful
cyberattack against America without Michael and Dmitri's help. Those same 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies were not able to effectively launch a successful cyberattack against Russia. It seems
like the Russian's have strong codes and America has weak codes. We can thank Michael and
Dmitri Alperovitch for that.
It is clear that there was no DNC hack beyond Guccifer 2.0. Dmitri Alperovitch is a
"frontman" for his father's encryption espionage mission.
Is it any wonder that Trump says that he has "his own people" to deliver his intelligence
to him that is outside of the infiltrated U.S. government intelligence agencies and the Obama
administration ? Isn't any wonder that citizens have to go anywhere BUT the MSM to find
real news or that the new administration has to go to independent news to get good intel?
It is hard to say anything more damnable than to again quote Dmitri on these very
issues: "If someone steals your keys to encrypt the data, it doesn't matter how secure the
algorithms are." Dmitri Alperovitch, founder of CrowdStrike
"... And RUH8 is allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. ..."
"... Russia was probably not one of the hacking groups. The willful destruction of evidence by the DNC themselves probably points to Russia not being one of the those groups. The DNC wouldn't destroy evidence that supported their position. Also, government spy agencies keep info like that closely held. They might leak out tidbits, but they don't do wholesale dumps, like, ever. ..."
"... That's what the DNC is lying about. Not that hacks happened (they undoubtedly did), but about who did them (probably not Russian gov), and if hacks mattered (they didn't since everything was getting leaked anyway). ..."
"... The DNC/Mueller/etc are lying, but like most practiced liars they're mixing the lies with half-truths and unrelated facts to muddy the waters: ..."
"... An interesting question is, since it's basically guaranteed the DNC got hacked, but probably not by the Russians, is, what groups did hack the DNC, and why did the DNC scramble madly to hide their identities? ..."
"... And while you think about that question, consider the close parallel with the Awan case, where Dems were ostensibly the victims, but they again scrambled to cover up for the people who supposedly harmed them. level 2 ..."
"... DNC wasn't even hacked. Emails were leaked. They didn't even examine the server. Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools that we know about from wikileaks. It's important to know how each new lie is a lie. But man I am just so done with all this Russia shit. level 2 ..."
"... Crowdstrike claims that malware was found on DNC server. I agree that this has nothing to do with the Wikileaks releases. What I am wondering is whether Crowdstrike may have arranged for the DNC to be hacked so that Russia could be blamed. Continue this thread level 1 ..."
"... George Eliason promises additional essays: *The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear's hot/cold ongoing relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following: Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing Information War material as evidence for MH17: ..."
"... Fancy Bear is an inside unit of the Atlantic Council and their Digital Forensics Lab ..."
Cyberanalyst George Eliason has written some intriguing blogs recently claiming that the
"Fancy Bear" which hacked the DNC server in mid-2016 was in fact a branch of Ukrainian intelligence linked to the Atlantic
Council and Crowdstrike. I invite you to have a go at one of his recent essays:
Since I am not very computer savvy and don't know much about the world of hackers - added
to the fact that Eliason's writing is too cute and convoluted - I have difficulty navigating Eliason's thought. Nonetheless,
here is what I can make of Eliasons' claims, as supported by independent literature:
Russian hacker Konstantin Kozlovsky, in Moscow court filings, has claimed that he did the
DNC hack – and can prove it, because he left some specific code on the DNC server.
Kozlovsky states that he did so by order of Dimitry Dokuchaev (formerly of the FSB, and
currently in prison in Russia on treason charges) who works with the Russian traitor hacker group Shaltai Boltai.
According to Eliason, Shaltai Boltai works in collaboration with the Ukrainian hacker group
RUH8, a group of neo-Nazis (Privat Sektor) who are affiliated with Ukrainian intelligence.
And RUH8 is allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike.
Cyberexpert Jeffrey Carr has stated that RUH8 has the X-Agent malware which our
intelligence community has erroneously claimed is possessed only by Russian intelligence, and used by "Fancy Bear".
This might help explain why Adam Carter has determined that some of the malware found on
the DNC server was compiled AFTER Crowdstrike was working on the DNC server – Crowdstrike was in collusion with Fancy Bear
(RUH8).
In other words, Crowdstrike likely arranged for a
hack by Ukrainian intelligence that they could then attribute to Russia.
As far as I can tell, none of this is pertinent to how Wikileaks obtained their DNC emails,
which most likely were leaked.
How curious that our Deep State and the recent Mueller indictment have had nothing to say
about Kozlovsky's confession - whom I tend to take seriously because he offers a simple way to confirm his claim. Also
interesting that the FBI has shown no interest in looking at the DNC server to check whether Kozlovsky's code is there.
Its worth noting that Dimitri Alperovich's (Crowdstrike) hatred of Putin is
second only to Hillary's hatred for taking responsibility for her actions.
level 1
Thanks - I'll continue to follow Eliason's work. The thesis that Ukrainian
intelligence is hacking a number of targets so that Russia gets blamed for it has intuitive appeal.
level 1
and have to cringe.
Any hacks weren't related to Wikileaks, who got their info from leakers, but
that is not the same thing as no hack. Leaks and hacks aren't mutually exclusive. They actually occur together
pretty commonly.
DNC's security was utter shit. Systems with shit security and obviously
valuable info usually get hacked by multiple groups. In the case of the DNC, Hillary's email servers, etc.,
it's basically impossible they weren't hacked by dozens of intruders. A plastic bag of 100s will not sit
untouched on a NYC street corner for 4 weeks. Not. fucking. happening.
Interestingly, Russia was probably not
one of the hacking groups. The willful destruction of evidence by the DNC themselves probably points to Russia
not being one of the those groups. The DNC wouldn't destroy evidence that supported their position. Also,
government spy agencies keep info like that closely held. They might leak out tidbits, but they don't do
wholesale dumps, like, ever.
That's
what the DNC is lying about.
Not that hacks
happened
(they undoubtedly did), but about
who
did them (probably not Russian gov), and if hacks mattered
(they didn't since everything was getting leaked anyway).
The DNC/Mueller/etc are lying, but like most practiced liars they're mixing
the lies with half-truths and unrelated facts to muddy the waters:
Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools
Yes, but that spoofed 'evidence' is not the direct opposite of the truth,
like I see people assuming. Bad assumption, and the establishment plays on that to make critic look bad. The
spoofed evidence is just mud.
An interesting question is, since it's basically guaranteed the DNC got
hacked, but probably not by the Russians, is, what groups
did
hack the
DNC, and why did the DNC scramble madly to hide their identities?
And while you think about that question, consider the close parallel with
the Awan case, where Dems were ostensibly the victims, but they again scrambled to cover up for the people who
supposedly harmed them.
level 2
What's hilarious about the 2 down-votes is I can't tell if their from
pro-Russiagate trolls, or from people who who can't get past binary thinking.
level 1
DNC wasn't even hacked. Emails were leaked. They didn't even examine the
server.
Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools that we know about
from wikileaks. It's important to know how each new lie is a lie. But man I am just so done
with all this Russia shit.
level 2
Crowdstrike claims that malware was found on DNC server. I agree that this
has nothing to do with the Wikileaks releases. What I am wondering is whether Crowdstrike may have arranged for
the DNC to be hacked so that Russia could be blamed.
Continue this thread
level 1
George Eliason promises additional essays: *The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear's hot/cold ongoing
relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following: Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing
Information War material as evidence for MH17:
Fancy Bear is an inside unit of the Atlantic Council and their Digital
Forensics Lab
Fancy Bear worked with Crowdstrike and Dimitri Alperovich Fancy Bear is
Ukrainian Intelligence
How Fancy Bear tried to sway the US election for Team Hillary
Fancy Bear worked against US Intel gathering by providing consistently
fraudulent data
Fancy Bear contributed to James Clapper's January 2017 ODNI Report on Fancy
Bear and Russian Influence. [You really can't make this shit up.]
Fancy Bear had access to US government secure servers while working as
foreign spies.*
level 1
Fancy Bear (also know as Strontium Group, or APT28) is a Ukrainian cyber espionage group. Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike incorrectly has said
with a medium level of confidence that it is associated with the Russian military intelligence
agency GRU . CrowdStrike
founder,
Dmitri Alperovitch , has colluded with Fancy Bear. American journalist
George Eliason has written extensively on the subject.
There are a couple of caveats that need to be made when identifying the Fancy Bear hackers.
The first is the identifier used by Mueller as Russian FSB and GRU may have been true- 10 years
ago. This group was on the run trying to stay a step ahead of Russian law enforcement until
October 2016. So we have part of the Fancy bear hacking group identified as Ruskie traitors and
possibly former Russian state security. The majority of the group are Ukrainians making up
Ukraine's Cyber Warfare groups.
Eliason lives and works in Donbass. He has been interviewed by and provided analysis for RT,
the BBC , and Press-TV. His
articles have been published in the Security Assistance Monitor, Washingtons Blog, OpedNews,
the Saker, RT, Global Research, and RINF, and the Greanville Post among others. He has been
cited and republished by various academic blogs including Defending History, Michael Hudson,
SWEDHR, Counterpunch, the Justice Integrity Project, among others.
Fancy Bear is Ukrainian IntelligenceShaltai Boltai
The "Fancy Bear hackers" may have been given the passwords to get into the servers at the
DNC because they were part of the Team Clinton opposition research team. It was part of their
job.
According to Politico ,
"In an interview this month, at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing
ethnic communities -- including Ukrainian-Americans -- she said that, when Trump's unlikely
presidential campaign. Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev
and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private
intelligence operatives. While her consulting work began surging in late 2015, she began
focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well."
[1]
The only investigative journalists, government officials, and private intelligence
operatives that work together in 2014-2015-2016 Ukraine are Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine
Cyber Alliance, and the Ministry of Information.
All of these hacking and information operation groups work for Andrea
Chalupa with EuroMaidanPR and Irena
Chalupa at the Atlantic Council. Both Chalupa sisters work directly with the Ukrainian
government's intelligence and propaganda arms.
Since 2014 in Ukraine, these are the only OSINT, hacking, Intel, espionage , terrorist , counter-terrorism, cyber, propaganda , and info war channels
officially recognized and directed by Ukraine's Information Ministry. Along with their American
colleagues, they populate the hit-for-hire website Myrotvorets with people who stand against
Ukraine's criminal activities.
The hackers, OSINT, Cyber, spies, terrorists, etc. call themselves volunteers to keep safe
from State level retaliation, even though a child can follow the money. As volunteers motivated
by politics and patriotism they are protected to a degree from retribution.
They don't claim State sponsorship or governance and the level of attack falls below the
threshold of military action. Special Counsel Robert Mueller had a lot of latitude for
making the attribution Russian, even though the attacks came from Ukrainian Intelligence. Based
on how the rules of the Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber are
written, because the few members of the coalition from Shaltai Boltai are Russian in
nationality, Fancy Bear can be attributed as a Russian entity for the purposes of retribution.
The caveat is if the attribution is proven wrong, the US will be liable for damages caused to
the State which in this case is Russia.
How large is the Fancy Bear unit? According to their propaganda section InformNapalm, they
have the ability to research and work in over 30 different languages.
This can be considered an Information Operation against the people of the United States and
of course Russia. After 2013, Shaltay Boltay was no longer physically available to work for
Russia. The Russian hackers were in Ukraine working for the Ukrainian government's Information
Ministry which is in charge of the cyber war. They were in Ukraine until October 2016 when they
were tricked to return to Moscow and promptly arrested for treason.
From all this information we know the Russian component of Team Fancy Bear is Shaltai
Boltai. We know the Ukrainian Intel component is called CyberHunta and Ukraine Cyber Alliance
which includes the hacker group RUH8. We know both groups work/ worked for Ukrainian
Intelligence. We know they are grouped with InformNapalm which is Ukraine's OSINT unit. We know
their manager is a Ukrainian named Kristina Dobrovolska. And lastly, all of the above work
directly with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich.
In short, the Russian-Ukrainian partnership that became Fancy Bear started in late 2013 to
very early 2014 and ended in October 2016 in what appears to be a squabble over the alleged
data from the Surkov leak.
But during 2014, 2015, and 2016 Shaltai Boltai, the Ukrainian Cyber Alliance, and CyberHunta
went to work for the DNC as opposition researchers .
The
First Time Shaltai Boltai was Handed the Keys to US Gov Servers
The setup to this happened long before the partnership with Ukrainian Intel hackers and
Russia's Shaltai Boltai was forged. The hack that gained access to US top-secret servers
happened just after the partnership was cemented after Euro-Maidan.
In August 2009 Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department Huma Abedin
sent the passwords to her Government laptop to her Yahoo mail account. On August 16, 2010,
Abedin received an email titled "Re: Your yahoo account. We can see where this is going, can't
we?
"After Abedin sent an unspecified number of sensitive emails to her Yahoo account, half a
billion Yahoo accounts were hacked by Russian cybersecurity expert and Russian intelligence
agent, Igor Sushchin, in 2014. The hack, one of the largest in history, allowed Sushchin's
associates to access email accounts into 2015 and 2016."
Igor Sushchin was part of the Shaltai Boltai hacking group that is charged with the Yahoo
hack.
The time frame has to be noted. The hack happened in 2014. Access to the email accounts
continued through 2016. The Ukrainian Intel partnership was already blossoming and Shaltai
Boltai was working from Kiev, Ukraine.
So when we look at the INFRASTRUCTURE HACKS, WHITE HOUSE HACKS, CONGRESS, start with looking
at the time frame. Ukraine had the keys already in hand in 2014.
Alexandra
Chalupa hired this particular hacking terrorist group, which Dimitry Alperovich and
Crowdstrike dubbed "Fancy Bear", in 2015 at the latest. While the Ukrainian hackers worked for
the DNC, Fancy Bear had to send in progress reports, turn in research, and communicate on the
state of the projects they were working on. Let's face it, once you're in, setting up your
Fancy Bear toolkit doesn't get any easier. This is why I said the DNC hack isn't the big crime.
It's a big con and all the parties were in on it.
Hillary Clinton exposed secrets to hacking threats by using private email instead of secured
servers. Given the information provided she was probably being monitored by our intrepid
Ruskie-Ukie union made in hell hackers. Anthony Weiner exposed himself and his wife
Huma Abedin using
Weiner's computer for top-secret State Department emails. And of course Huma Abedin exposed
herself along with her top-secret passwords at Yahoo and it looks like the hackers the DNC hired to
do opposition research hacked her.
Here's a question. Did Huma Abedin have Hillary Clinton's passwords for her private email
server? It would seem logical given her position with Clinton at the State Department and
afterward. This means that Hillary Clinton and the US government top secret servers were most
likely compromised by Fancy Bear before the DNC and Team Clinton hired them by using legitimate
passwords.
Dobrovolska
Hillary Clinton retained State Dept. top secret clearance passwords for 6 of her former
staff from 2013 through prepping for the 2016 election. [2][3] Alexandra Chalupa was
running a research department that is rich in (foreign) Ukrainian Intelligence operatives,
hackers, terrorists, and a couple Ruskie traitors.
Kristina Dobrovolska was acting as a handler and translator for the US State Department in
2016. She is the Fancy Bear *opposition researcher handler manager. Kristina goes to Washington
to meet with Chalupa.
Alexandra types in her password to show Dobrovolska something she found and her eager to
please Ukrainian apprentice finds the keystrokes are seared into her memory. She tells the
Fancy Bear crew about it and they immediately get to work looking for Trump material on the US
secret servers with legitimate access. I mean, what else could they do with this? Turn over
sensitive information to the ever corrupt Ukrainian government?
According to the Politico article, Alexandra Chalupa was meeting with the Ukrainian embassy
in June of 2016 to discuss getting more help sticking it to candidate Trump. At the same time
she was meeting, the embassy had a reception that highlighted female Ukrainian leaders.
Four Verkhovna Rada [parlaiment] deputies there for the event included: Viktoriia Y.
Ptashnyk, Anna A. Romanova, Alyona I. Shkrum, and Taras T. Pastukh. [4]
According to CNN ,
[5] DNC sources said Chalupa
told DNC operatives the Ukrainian government would be willing to deliver damaging information
against Trump's campaign. Later, Chalupa would lead the charge to try to unseat president-elect
Trump starting on Nov 10, 2016.
Accompanying them Kristina Dobrovolska who was a U.S. Embassy-assigned government liaison
and translator who escorted the delegates from Kyiv during their visits to Albany and
Washington.
Kristina Dobrovolska is the handler manager working with Ukraine's DNC Fancy Bear Hackers.
[6] She took the Rada
[parliament] members to dinner to meet Joel Harding who designed Ukraine's infamous Information
Policy which opened up their kill-for-hire-website Myrotvorets. Then she took them to meet the
Ukrainian Diaspora leader doing the hiring. Nestor Paslawsky is the surviving nephew to the
infamous torturer The WWII OUNb leader, Mykola Lebed.
Fancy Bear's Second Chance at Top
Secret Passwords From Team Clinton
One very successful method of hacking is called
social engineering . You gain access to the office space and any related properties and
physically locate the passwords or clues to get you into the hardware you want to hack. This
includes something as simple as looking over the shoulder of the person typing in
passwords.
The Fancy Bear hackers were hired by Alexandra Chalupa to work for DNC opposition research.
On different occasions, Fancy Bear handler Kristina Dobrovolska traveled to the US to meet the
Diaspora leaders, her boss Alexandra Chalupa, Irena Chalupa, Andrea Chalupa, US Dept of State
personnel, and most likely Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich. Alperovich was working with the
hackers in 2015-16. In 2016, the only groups known to have Fancy Bear's signature tools called
X-tunnel and X-Agent were Alperovich, Crowdstrike, and Fancy Bear (Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta,
Ukraine Cyber Alliance, and RUH8/RUX8. Yes, that does explain a few things.
Alleged DNC
hack
There were multiple DNC hacks. There is also clear proof supporting the download to a USB
stick and subsequent information exchange (leak) to Wikileaks . All are separate events.
The group I previously identified as Fancy Bear was given access to request password
privileges at the DNC. And it looks like the DNC provided them with it.
the Podesta email hack looks like a revenge hack.
The reason Republican opposition research files were stolen can be put into context now
because we know who the hackers are and what motivates them.
At the same time this story developed, it overshadowed the Hillary Clinton email scandal. It
is a matter of public record that Team Clinton provided the DNC hackers with passwords to
State Department
servers on at least 2 occasions, one wittingly and one not. Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian
Intelligence Operators.
If the leak came through Seth Rich , it may have been because he saw
foreign Intel operatives given this access from the presumed winners of the 2016 US presidential
election . The leaker may
have been trying to do something about it. I'm curious what information Wikileaks might
have.
Alperovitch and Fancy Bear
George Eliason, Washingtonsblog: Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell
Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear. investigated. [7]
In the wake of the JAR-16-20296 dated December 29, 2016 about hacking and influencing
the 2016 election, the need for real evidence is clear. The joint report adds nothing
substantial to the October 7th report. It relies on proofs provided by the cyber security
firm Crowdstrike that is clearly not on
par with intelligence findings or evidence. At the top of the report is an "as is"
statement showing this.
The difference bet enough evidence is provided to warrant an investigation of
specific parties for the DNC hacks. The real story involves specific anti-American actors
that need to be investigated for real crimes. For instance, the malware used was an
out-dated version just waiting to be found. The one other interesting point is that the
Russian malware called Grizzly Steppe is from Ukraine. How did Crowdstrike miss this when
it is their business to know?
The bar for identification set by Crowdstrike has never been able to get beyond words
like probably, maybe, could be, or should be, in their attribution. The bar Dimitri
Alperovitch set for identifying the hackers involved is that low. Other than asking
America to trust them, how many solid facts has Alperovitch provided to back his claim of
Russian involvement?
information from outside intelligence agencies has the value of rumor or
unsubstantiated information at best according to policy. Usable intelligence needs to be
free from partisan politics and verifiable. Intel agencies noted back in the early 90's
that every private actor in the information game was radically political.
Alperovitch first gained notice when he was the VP in charge of threat research with
McAfee. Asked to comment on Alperovitch's discovery of Russian hacks on Larry King, John
McAfee had this to say. "Based on all of his experience, McAfee does not believe that
Russians were behind the hacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC), John Podesta's
emails, and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. As he told RT, "if it looks like
the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians."
How does Crowdstrike's story part with reality? First is the admission that it is
probably, maybe, could be Russia hacking the DNC. "Intelligence agencies do not have
specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin 'directing' the identified
individuals to pass the Democratic emails to Wiki Leaks." The public evidence never goes
beyond the word possibility. While never going beyond that or using facts, Crowdstrike
insists that it's Russia behind both Clinton's and the Ukrainian losses.
NBC carried the story because one of the partners in Crowdstrike is also a consultant
for NBC. According to NBC the story reads like this."The company, Crowdstrike, was hired
by the DNC to investigate the hack and issued a report publicly attributing it to Russian
intelligence. One of Crowdstrike's senior executives is Shawn Henry , a former senior FBI
official who consults for NBC News.
In June, Crowdstrike went public with its findings that two separate Russian
intelligence agencies had hacked the DNC. One, which Crowdstrike and other researchers
call Cozy Bear, is believed to be linked to Russia's CIA, known as the FSB. The other,
known as Fancy Bear, is believed to be tied to the military intelligence agency, called
the GRU." The information is so certain the level of proof never rises above "believed to
be." According to the December 12th Intercept article "Most importantly, the Post
adds that "intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in
the Kremlin 'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to
WikiLeaks."
The SBU, Olexander Turchinov, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense all agree that
Crowdstrike is dead wrong in this assessment. Although subtitles aren't on it, the former
Commandant of Ukrainian Army Headquarters thanks God Russia never invaded or Ukraine
would have been in deep trouble. How could Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike be this
wrong on easily checked detail and still get this much media attention?
Crowdstrike CEO Dmitri Alperovitch story about Russian hacks that cost Hillary
Clinton the election was broadsided by the SBU (Ukrainian Intelligence and Security) in
Ukraine. If Dimitri Alperovitch is working for Ukrainian Intelligence and is providing
intelligence to 17 US Intelligence Agencies is it a conflict of interest?
Is giving misleading or false information to 17 US Intelligence Agencies a crime? If
it's done by a cyber security industry leader like Crowdstrike should that be
investigated? If unwinding the story from the "targeting of Ukrainian volunteers" side
isn't enough, we should look at this from the American perspective. How did the Russia
influencing the election and DNC hack story evolve? Who's involved? Does this pose
conflicts of interest for Dmitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? And let's face it, a
hacking story isn't complete until real hackers with the skills, motivation, and reason
are exposed.
According to journalist and DNC activist Andrea Chalupa on her Facebook page "After
Chalupa sent the email to Miranda (which mentions that she had invited this reporter to a
meeting with Ukrainian journalists in Washington), it triggered high-level concerns
within the DNC, given the sensitive nature of her work. "That's when we knew it was the
Russians," said a Democratic Party source who has been directly involved in the internal
probe into the hacked emails. In order to stem the damage, the source said, "we told her
to stop her research."" July 25, 2016
If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her
sister Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news.
The DNC hacking investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by
Russian actors based on the work done byAlexandra Chalupa? That is the
conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the
Russian government connection.
How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he
should have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a
presidential election in a new direction. According to Esquire.com, Alperovitch has
vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the past. Because of
his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said the
measures taken were directly because of his work.
Alperovitch's relationships with the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian
propagandists, and Ukrainian state supported hackers [show a conflict of interest]. When
it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that tried hard to
influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016.
The Chalupas are not Democrat or Republican. They are OUNb. The OUNb worked hard
to start a war between the USA and Russia for the last 50 years. According to the
Ukrainian Weekly in a rare open statement of their existence in 2011, "Other
statements were issued in the Ukrainian language by the leadership of the
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (B) and the International Conference in
Support of Ukraine. The OUN (Bandera wing) called for" What is
OUNb Bandera? They follow the same political policy and platform that was developed
in the 1930's by Stepan Bandera . When these
people go to a Holocaust memorial they are celebrating
both the dead and the OUNb SS that killed.[8] There is no
getting around this fact. The OUNb have no concept of democratic values and want an
authoritarian
fascism .
Alexandra Chalupa- According to the Ukrainian Weekly , [9]
"The effort, known as Digital Miadan, gained momentum following the initial Twitter storms.
Leading the effort were: Lara Chelak, Andrea Chalupa, Alexandra Chalupa, Constatin Kostenko
and others." The Digital Maidan was also how they raised money for the coup. This was how the
Ukrainian emigres bought the bullets that were used on Euromaidan. Ukraine's chubby nazi,
Dima Yarosh stated openly he was taking money from the Ukrainian emigres during Euromaidan
and Pravy Sektor still fundraises openly in North America. The "Sniper Massacre" on the
Maidan in Ukraine by Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, University of Ottowa shows clearly detailed
evidence how the massacre happened. It has Pravy Sektor confessions that show who created the
"heavenly hundred. Their admitted involvement as leaders of Digital Maidan by both Chalupas
is a clear violation of the Neutrality Act and has up to a 25 year prison sentence attached
to it because it ended in a coup.
Andrea Chalupa-2014, in a Huff Post article Sept. 1 2016, Andrea Chalupa
described Sviatoslav Yurash as one of Ukraine's important "dreamers." He is a young
activist that founded Euromaidan Press. Beyond the gushing glow what she doesn't say
is who he actually is. Sviatoslav Yurash was Dmitri Yarosh's spokesman just after
Maidan. He is a hardcore Ukrainian nationalist and was rewarded with the Deputy
Director position for the UWC (Ukrainian World Congress) in Kiev.
In January, 2014 when he showed up at the Maidan protests he was 17 years old. He
became the foreign language media representative for Vitali Klitschko, Arseni
Yatsenyuk, and Oleh Tyahnybok. All press enquiries went through Yurash. To meet
Dimitri Yurash you had to go through Sviatoslav Yurash as a Macleans reporter found
out.
At 18 years old, Sviatoslav Yurash became the spokesman for Ministry of Defense
of Ukraine under Andrei Paruby. He was Dimitri Yarosh's spokesman and can be seen
either behind Yarosh on videos at press conferences or speaking ahead of him to
reporters. From January 2014 onward, to speak to Dimitri Yarosh, you set up an
appointment with Yurash.
Andrea Chalupa has worked with Yurash's Euromaidan Press which is associated with
Informnapalm.org and supplies the state level hackers for Ukraine.
Irene Chalupa- Another involved Chalupa we need to cover to do the story justice
is Irene Chalupa. From her bio– Irena Chalupa is a nonresident fellow with the
Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. She is also a senior correspondent
at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has worked for more than
twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the Atlantic Council,
where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the news anchor
for Ukraine's propaganda channel org She is also a Ukrainian emigre leader.
According to Robert Parry's article [10] At the forefront
of people that would have taken senior positions in a Clinton administration and
especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council . Their main
goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the CEEC (Central
and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with Russia.
Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you
willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support
throughout the campaign.
What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the
Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship
status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite
conflict of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground
and Clinton needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or
Homeland Security?
When you put someone that has so much to gain in charge of an investigation that
could change an election, that is a conflict of interest. If the think tank is linked
heavily to groups that want war with Russia like the Atlantic Council and the CEEC, it
opens up criminal conspiracy.
If the person in charge of the investigation is a fellow at the think tank that wants
a major conflict with Russia it is a definite conflict of interest. Both the Atlantic
Council and clients stood to gain Cabinet and Policy positions based on how the result of
his work affects the election. It clouds the results of the investigation. In Dmitri
Alperovitch's case, he found the perpetrator before he was positive there was a
crime.
Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence
groups is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and
Informnapalm.org which is the outlet for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers.
When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the
CEO of a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm and
its hackers individually. There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for
the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be
investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government. Crowdstrike is
also following their hack of a Russian government official after the DNC hack. It closely
resembles the same method used with the DNC because it was an email hack.
Crowdstrike's product line includes Falcon Host, Falcon Intelligence, Falcon
Overwatch and Falcon DNS. Is it possible the hackers in Falcons Flame are another service
Crowdstrike offers?
In an interview with Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA.
[11] They consider the
CIA amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance
is a quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity,
Falcon Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the
Myrotvorets site, Informnapalm analytical agency."
Although this profile says Virginia, tweets are from the Sofia, Bulgaria time zone and he
writes in Russian. Another curiosity considering the Fancy Bear source code is in Russian. This
image shows Crowdstrike in their network. Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker
network. In the image it shows a network diagram of Crowdstrike following the Surkov leaks. The
network communication goes through a secondary source. Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for
Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence.
The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates
journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could
be on the list.
Should someone tell Dimitri Alperovitch that Gerashchenko, who is now in charge of
Peacekeeper recently threatened president-elect Donald Trump that he would put him on his
"Peacemaker" site as a target? The same has been done with Silvio Berscaloni in the
past.
Trying not to be obvious, the Head of Ukraine's Information Ministry (UA
Intelligence) tweeted something interesting that ties Alperovitch and Crowdstrike to the
Ukrainian Intelligence hackers and the Information Ministry even tighter. This single
tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of Information
Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him and
Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or
shared. If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be
shared heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it
to themselves and not draw unwanted attention.
These same hackers are associated with Alexandra, Andrea, and Irene Chalupa through
the portals and organizations they work with through their OUNb. The hackers are funded
and directed by or through the same OUNb channels that Alperovitch is working for and
with to promote the story of Russian hacking.
When you look at the image for the hacking group in the euromaidanpress article,
one of the hackers identifies themselves as one of Dimitri Yarosh's Pravy Sektor
members by the Pravy Sektor sweatshirt they have on. Noted above, Pravy Sektor
admitted to killing the people at the Maidan protest and sparked the coup.
Going further with the linked Euromaidanpress article the hackers say "Let's
understand that Ukrainian hackers and Russian hackers once constituted a single very
powerful group. Ukrainian hackers have a rather high level of work. So the help of
the USA I don't know, why would we need it? We have all the talent and special means
for this. And I don't think that the USA or any NATO country would make such sharp
movements in international politics."
What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it
out for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored,
Russian language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack
they have the tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are
also laughing at US intel efforts.
The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting
a war between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt
Russia worst. Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by
Alperovitch, both he and these hackers need to be investigated.
According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought
the government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of
the personal in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate
the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any
other way," he told me. "I have."
While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism
is not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering
a conflict with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't
serving US interests. He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to
Ukraine.
The evidence presented deserves investigation because it looks like the case for
conflict of interest is the least Dimitri Alperovitch should look forward to. If these
hackers are the real Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, they really did make sharp movements in
international politics. By pawning it off on Russia, they made a worldwide embarrassment
of an outgoing President of the United States and made the President Elect the suspect of
rumor.
Obama, Brazile, Comey, and CrowdStrike
According to Obama the
hacks continued until September 2016. According to ABC, Donna Brazile says the hacks didn't stop
until after the elections in 2016. According to Crowdstrike the hacks continued into
November.
Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile said Russian hackers persisted in trying
to break into the organization's computers "daily, hourly" until after the election --
contradicting President Obama's assertion that the hacking stopped in September after he warned
Russian President Vladimir Putin to "cut it out."-ABC
This time frame gives a lot of latitude to both hacks and leaks happening on that server and
still agrees with the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs). According to
Bill
Binney , the former Technical Director for the NSA, the only way that data could move off
the server that fast was through a download to a USB stick. The transfer rate of the file does
not agree with a Guciffer 2.0 hack and the information surrounding Guciffer 2.0 is looking
ridiculous and impossible at best.
The DNC fiasco isn't that important of a crime. The reason I say this is the FBI would have
taken control over material evidence right away. No law enforcement agency or Intel agency ever
did. This means none of them considered it a crime Comey should have any part of investigating.
That by itself presents the one question mark which destroys any hope Mueller has proving law
enforcement maintained a chain of custody for any evidence he introduces.
It also says the US government under Barrack Obama and the victimized DNC saw this as a
purely political event. They didn't want this prosecuted or they didn't think it was
prosecutable.
Once proven it shows a degree of criminality that makes treason almost too light a charge in
federal court. Rest assured this isn't a partisan accusation. Team Clinton and the DNC gets the
spotlight but there are Republicans involved.
Investigative Jouralist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the
CEO Bill Larsen bought a small, Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to
Silicon Valley.
MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate
to reduce NSA spying on the public.
The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was
sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order to crack encrypted communications to write a back door
for law enforcement.
Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named
Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking
scandal - Crowdstrike.
In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry
platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives.
Our leaders like to say we value human rights around the world, but what they really manifest
is greed. It all makes sense in a Gekko- or Machiavellian kind of way.
Highly recommended !
Notable quotes:
"... Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise) path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional" belief system, what is? ..."
"... A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for America's vast military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety, especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today, it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right. ..."
"... If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything, it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium. Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life. ..."
"... I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama administration too. ..."
"... Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it. ..."
"... they are not only lobbyists for MIC, but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of militarism. ..."
"... Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower. ..."
"... The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive resources. ..."
"... Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.) ..."
"... The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus, the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world. Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep! ..."
By William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and history professor. His
personal blog is Bracing Views .
Originally published at TomDispatch
Ever since 2007, when I first started writing for TomDispatch , I've been arguing
against America's forever wars, whether in Afghanistan , Iraq , or elsewhere . Unfortunately, it's no surprise that,
despite my more than 60 articles, American blood is still being spilled in war after war across the Greater Middle
East and Africa, even as foreign peoples pay a far higher price in lives lost and cities
ruined . And I keep asking myself: Why, in this century, is the distinctive feature of
America's wars that they never end? Why do our leaders persist in such repetitive folly and the
seemingly eternal disasters that go with it?
Sadly, there isn't just one obvious reason for this generational debacle. If there were, we
could focus on it, tackle it, and perhaps even fix it. But no such luck.
So why do America's disastrous wars
persist ? I can think of many reasons , some obvious and easy to
understand, like the endless pursuit of profit through weapons sales for those very wars, and some more
subtle but no less significant, like a deep-seated conviction in Washington that a willingness
to wage war is a sign of national toughness and seriousness. Before I go on, though, here's
another distinctive aspect of our forever-war moment: Have you noticed that peace is no longer even a topic in America
today? The very word, once at least part of the rhetoric of Washington politicians, has
essentially dropped out of use entirely. Consider the current crop of Democratic candidates for
president. One, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, wants to end regime-change wars, but is otherwise
a self-professed hawk on the
subject of the war on terror. Another, Senator Bernie Sanders, vows to end " endless
wars " but is careful to express strong support for Israel and the ultra-expensive
F-35 fighter jet.
The other dozen or so tend to make vague sounds about cutting defense spending or gradually
withdrawing U.S. troops from various wars, but none of them even consider openly speaking
of peace . And the Republicans? While President Trump may talk of ending wars, since his
inauguration he's sent more
troops to Afghanistan and into the Middle East, while greatly expanding drone and other
air strikes ,
something about which he openly
boasts .
War, in other words, is our new normal, America's default position on global affairs, and
peace, some ancient, long-faded dream. And when your default position is war, whether against
the Taliban, ISIS, "terror" more generally, or possibly even Iran or Russia
or
China , is it any surprise that war is what you get? When you garrison the world with an
unprecedented 800 or so
military bases , when you configure your armed forces for what's called power projection,
when you divide the globe -- the total planet -- into areas of dominance (with acronyms
like CENTCOM, AFRICOM, and SOUTHCOM) commanded by four-star generals and admirals, when you
spend more on your military than the next
seven countries combined, when you insist on modernizing a
nuclear arsenal (to the tune of perhaps $1.7 trillion ) already
quite capable of ending all life on this and several other planets, what can you expect but a
reality of endless war?
Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the
predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise)
path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the
world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation
after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional"
belief system, what is?
If we're ever to put an end to our country's endless twenty-first-century wars, that mindset
will have to be changed. But to do that, we would first have to recognize and confront war's
many uses in American
life and culture.
War, Its Uses (and Abuses)
A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for
America's vast
military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety,
especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of
national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today,
it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right.
As the title of a book by former war reporter Chris Hedges so aptly put it , war is
a force that gives us meaning. And let's face it, a significant part of America's meaning in
this century has involved pride in having the toughest military on the planet, even as
trillions of tax dollars went into a misguided attempt to maintain bragging rights to being
the world's sole superpower.
And keep in mind as well that, among other things, never-ending war
weakens democracy while strengthening authoritarian tendencies in politics and society. In
an age of
gaping inequality , using up the country's resources in such profligate and destructive
ways offers a striking exercise in consumption that profits the few at the expense of the
many.
In other words, for a select few, war pays dividends in ways that peace doesn't. In a
nutshell, or perhaps an artillery shell, war is anti-democratic, anti-progressive,
anti-intellectual, and anti-human. Yet, as we know, history makes heroes out of its
participants and celebrates mass murderers like Napoleon as "great captains."
What the United States needs today is a new strategy of containment -- not against communist
expansion, as in the Cold War, but against war itself. What's stopping us from containing war?
You might say that, in some sense, we've grown addicted to it , which is true enough, but here
are five additional reasons for war's enduring presence in American life:
The
delusional idea that Americans are, by nature, winners and that our wars are therefore
winnable: No American leader wants to be labeled a "loser." Meanwhile, such dubious
conflicts -- see: the Afghan War, now in its 18th year, with
several more years, or even generations
, to go -- continue to be treated by the military as if they were indeed winnable, even though
they visibly aren't. No president, Republican or Democrat, not even Donald J. Trump, despite
his promises that American soldiers will be coming home from such fiascos, has successfully
resisted the Pentagon's siren call for patience (and for yet more trillions of dollars) in the
cause of ultimate victory, however poorly defined, farfetched, or far-off. American
society's almost completeisolationfrom war's deadly
effects: We're not being droned (yet). Our cities are not yet lying in ruins (though
they're certainly suffering from a lack of funding, as is our most essential infrastructure , thanks in part to the
cost of those overseas wars). It's nonetheless remarkable how little attention, either in the
media or elsewhere, this country's never-ending war-making gets here. Unnecessary and
sweeping secrecy: How can you resist what you essentially don't know about? Learning its
lesson from the Vietnam War, the Pentagon now
classifies (in plain speak: covers up) the worst aspects of its disastrous wars. This isn't
because the enemy could exploit such details -- the enemy already knows! -- but because the
American people might be roused to something like anger and action by it. Principled whistleblowers like
Chelsea Manning have been imprisoned or otherwise dismissed or, in the case of Edward Snowden,
pursued and indicted for sharing honest
details about the calamitous Iraq War and America's invasive and intrusive surveillance
state. In the process, a clear message of intimidation has been sent to other would-be
truth-tellers. An unrepresentative government: Long ago, of course, Congress
ceded to
the presidency most of its constitutional powers when it comes to making war. Still, despite
recent
attempts to end America's arms-dealing role in the genocidal Saudi war in Yemen (overridden
by Donald Trump's veto power), America's duly elected representatives generally don't represent
the people when it comes to this country's disastrous wars. They are, to put it bluntly,
largely captives of (and sometimes on leaving politics quite literally go
to work for) the military-industrial complex. As long as money is speech ( thank
you , Supreme Court!), the weapons makers are always likely to be able to shout louder in
Congress than you and I ever will. \America's persistent empathy gap.
Despite our size, we are a remarkably insular nation and suffer from a serious empathy gap when it comes to
understanding foreign cultures and peoples or what we're actually doing to them. Even our
globetrotting troops, when not fighting and killing foreigners in battle, often stay on vast
bases, referred to in the military as "Little Americas," complete with familiar stores, fast
food, you name it. Wherever we go, there we are, eating our big burgers, driving our big
trucks, wielding our big guns, and dropping our very big bombs. But
what those bombs do, whom they hurt or kill, whom they displace from their homes and lives,
these are things that Americans turn out to care remarkably little about.
All this puts me sadly in mind of a song popular in my youth, a time when Cat Stevens sang
of a " peace train " that was
"soundin' louder" in America. Today, that peace train's been derailed and replaced by an armed
and armored one eternally prepared for perpetual war -- and that train is indeed soundin'
louder to the great peril of us all.
War on Spaceship Earth
Here's the rub, though: even the
Pentagon knows that our most serious enemy is
climate change , not China or Russia or terror, though in the age of Donald Trump and his
administration of arsonists
its officials can't express themselves on the subject as openly as they otherwise might.
Assuming we don't annihilate ourselves with nuclear weapons first, that means our
real enemy is the endless war we're waging against Planet Earth.
The U.S. military is also a major consumer of fossil fuels and therefore a significant
driver of climate change. Meanwhile, the Pentagon, like any enormously powerful system, only
wants to grow more so, but what's welfare for the military brass isn't wellness for the
planet.
There is, unfortunately, only one Planet Earth, or Spaceship Earth, if you prefer, since
we're all traveling through our galaxy on it. Thought about a certain way, we're its
crewmembers, yet instead of cooperating effectively as its stewards, we seem determined to
fight one another. If a house divided against itself cannot stand, as Abraham Lincoln pointed
out so long ago, surely a spaceship with a disputatious and self-destructive crew is not likely
to survive, no less thrive.
In other words, in waging endless war, Americans are also, in effect, mutinying against the
planet. In the process, we are spoiling the last, best hope of earth: a concerted and pacific
effort to meet the shared challenges of a rapidly warming and changing planet.
Spaceship Earth should not be allowed to remain Warship Earth as well, not when the
existence of
significant parts of humanity is already becoming ever more precarious. Think of us as
suffering from a coolant leak, causing cabin temperatures
to rise even as food and other resources dwindle .
Under the circumstances, what's the best strategy for survival: killing each other while
ignoring the leak or banding together to fix an increasingly compromised ship?
Unfortunately, for America's leaders, the real "fixes" remain global military and resource
domination, even as those resources continue to shrink on an ever-more fragile globe. And as
we've seen recently, the resource part of that fix breeds its own madness, as in President
Trump's recently stated desire to keep U.S. troops in Syria
to steal that country's oil resources, though its wells are largely wrecked (thanks in
significant part to American bombing) and even when repaired would produce only a miniscule
percentage of the world's petroleum.
If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything,
it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human
as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium.
Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life.
Despite all of war's uses and abuses, its allures and temptations, it's time that we
Americans showed some self-mastery (as well as decency) by putting a stop to the mayhem. Few
enough of us experience "our" wars firsthand and that's precisely why some idealize their
purpose and idolize their practitioners. But war is a bloody, murderous mess and those
practitioners, when not killed or wounded, are marred for life because war functionally makes
everyone involved into a murderer.
We need to stop idealizing war and idolizing its so-called warriors. At stake is
nothing less than the future of humanity and the viability of life, as we know it, on Spaceship
Earth.
I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign
policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the
State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under
Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully
controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama
administration too.
They preach “Full Spectrum Dominance” (Wolfowitz doctrine) and are not shy to
unleash the wars to enhance the USA strategic position in particular region (color revolution
can be used instead of war, like they in 2014 did in Ukraine). Of course, being chichenhawks,
neither they nor members of their families fight in those wars.
For some reason despite his election platform Trump also populated his administration with
neoconservatives. So it might be that maintaining the USA centered global neoliberal empire
is the real reason and the leitmotiv of the USA foreign policy. that’s why it does not
change with the change of Administration: any government that does not play well with the
neoliberal empire gets in the hairlines.
Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected
officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for
the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be
bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and
every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it.
Good point. But why the rise of the neocons? Why did they prosper? I'd say because of the
military-industrial complex. Or you might say they feed each other, but the Complex came
first. And of course the Complex is a dominant part of the Deep State. How could it not be?
Add in 17 intelligence agencies, Homeland Security, the Energy Dept's nukes, and you have a
dominant DoD that swallows up more than half of federal discretionary spending each year.
I agree, but it is a little bit more complex. You need an ideology to promote the interests
of MIC. You can't just say -- let's spend more than a half of federal discretionary spending
each year..
That's where neo-conservatism comes into play. So they are not only lobbyists for MIC,
but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of
militarism.
wjastore December 2, 2019 at 12:25 PM
Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about
containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We
heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling
full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower.
The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put
their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive
resources.
Think about how no one was punished for the colossal intelligence failure of 9/11.
Instead, all the intel agencies were rewarded with more money and authority via the PATRIOT
Act.
The Afghan war is an ongoing disaster, the Iraq war a huge misstep, Libya a total failure,
yet the Complex has even more Teflon than Ronald Reagan. All failures slide off of it.
greglaxer , December 2, 2019 at 4:12 PM
There is a still bigger picture to consider in all this. I don't want to open the door to
conspiracy theory–personally, I find the claim that explosives were placed inside the
World Trade Center prior to the strikes by aircraft on 9/11 risible–but it certainly
was convenient for the Regime Change Gang that the Saudi operatives were able to get away
with what they did on that day, and in preparations leading up to it.
Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the
Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes
human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and
Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for
development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down
business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.)
Once the great majority of folks in Africa have cellphones and subscriptions to Netflix
whither capitalism? Trump denies the severity of the climate crisis because that is part of
the ideology/theology of the GOP.
The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become
ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus,
the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they
advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world.
Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere
on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that
concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep!
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint; an
intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information of
a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also
the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901)
originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of
the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes
Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the
DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA
court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI
contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations
as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter
of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
The possibility of CrowdStrike central role in creation of Russiagate might be one reason that Congressional Democrats (and
Republicans) were trying to swipe under the carpet the part of Trump conversation where he asked Zelenski to help to recover
server images CrowdStrike shipped to Ukraine.
Another question is that now it is possible that one of CrowdStrike employees or Alperovich himself played the role of Gussifer
2.0
Notable quotes:
"... There is strong reason to doubt Mueller's suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange. ..."
"... Mueller's decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions. ..."
"... the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking. ..."
"... John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller's investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump. ..."
Most of the material in this article will be familiar to regular readers of SST because I
wrote about it first. Here are the key conclusions:
The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that
Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence
officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to
WikiLeaks.
The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative,
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not
only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that
provided them.
There is strong reason to doubt Mueller's suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout
called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
Mueller's decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims
Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of
evidence on fundamental questions.
U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the
Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers
themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for
the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as "Russian dossier" compiler Christopher Steele,
also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors
squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller
ignores.
Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel
to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be
revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
Mueller's report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out
the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a
private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was
sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the
collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked
hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all
facets of what became Mueller's investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial
collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment
that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate.
Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral
party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.
I encourage you to read the piece. It is well written and provides an excellent overview of
critical events in the flawed investigation.
This is just a bad show... Republicans are afraid to ask critical question. And Democrats are
afraid even to touch the issue of their alliance with CIA, as they have way to many skeletons
buried in the closet. I would like to see Obama testifying on Trump spying he ordered Brennan to
conduct, Brennan contacts with MI6 which he authorized and on his actions in Ukraine, when he
crushed a fragile constitutional order and installed right-wing junta. Nobody wants truth.
Instead, they peddled three hyper-partisan scholars in front of the House Judiciary
Committee who had an obvious emotional investment in impeaching Trump, over claims that he
abused his office by asking Ukraine to investigate credible allegations of corruption by former
Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
The lone moderate was George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley, who told House
Democrats that by attempting such an ill-founded impeachment they are the ones abusing their
power.
... ... ...
Gaetz ends by suggesting that if "wiretapping a political opponent is an impeachable
offense, I look forward to reading that Inspector General's report because maybe it's a
different president we should be impeaching.
Too bad this questioning could not go on further. She is a total A$$, to say the least.
Just an example of the elite in our "Elite" colleges. I hope the admin of Stanford is happy
with her "performance"! Good thing I wasn't smart enough to go there! Embarrassing.
"Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan raised eyebrows online for suggesting during
congressional impeachment hearings that the US must keep Ukraine strong "so they fight the
Russians there and we don't have to fight them here."
Yes, you read that right. It seems in Karlan's mind, all that's stopping "the Russians" from
invading the US is the Ukrainian army, which must be kept strong to stave off the ultimate
disaster. The law professor made the baffling comment during the House Judiciary Committee
impeachment hearing on Wednesday."
The most likely outcome of a continuation of the impeachment fiasco is the reelection of
Trump
In the push for a December impeachment vote, House Democrats appear poised to make history.
It will be the shortest investigation producing the thinnest record of wrongdoing for the
narrowest impeachment in history.
This is the worst sort of self-interested partisan politics and factional bureaucratic power
grab creeping into a full-blown war. Nobody represents me in this fight, and nobody is serving
the national interest. Remove them all before they blow us all up.
Those people who want Trump out of office ASAP because of the damage he is doing to the
country and the world, should understand that the rot is too entrenched and both parties want the
things Trump is doing. So changing who is at the help of the Titanic is not going to change a
damn thing.
And now about the level of corruption of US academy or professor as a gangster: Stanford law
professor Pamela Karlan raised eyebrows online for suggesting during congressional impeachment
hearings that the US must keep Ukraine strong "so they fight the Russians there and we don't have
to fight them here."
"presumed" the aid to Ukraine was conditioned on
investigations." [snip]
"Will Chamberlain, lawyer and publisher of the conservative journal Human Events, went a
step further and argued that Schiff's report actually exonerates Trump. By noting that the
president's view of Ukraine as corrupt was based on discussions with Hungarian PM Viktor Orban,
the report actually gives evidence that Trump's actions were based on policy concerns –
which would make them perfectly in line with his authority as president, Chamberlain argued on
Twitter.
Not that any of this matters for the further course of the impeachment inquiry. The
publication of Schiff's report was a mere formality, as House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry
Nadler (D-New York) had scheduled the first of his own impeachment hearings for Wednesday."
'House Democrats begin next phase of impeachment drive', By Patrick Martin, 3 December 2019 ,
wsws.org
"The Democratic Party effort to impeach President Trump for withholding military aid to
Ukraine moves into its next stage Wednesday [today], with the first formal hearing before the
House Judiciary Committee, which is expected to draw up articles of impeachment for a vote by
the full House before the end of the month.
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, in a five-page letter sent Sunday to Judiciary Committee
Chair Jerrold Nadler, denounced the hearing and said Trump would not send a legal
representative or otherwise participate.
Wednesday's hearing will review the legal and constitutional requirements for impeachment,
without any testimony on the nature of the charges being brought against Trump. Late Monday,
Nadler released the names of the four witnesses. All are law school professors, including three
called by the Democrats -- Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School, Pamela Karlan of Stanford Law
School, and Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina School of Law -- and one
called by the Republicans, Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School.'
[snip]
If Biden was corrupt as hell, why not to coordinate with President administration and his
personal lawyer about this matter. Biden status as a Democratic contender does not absolve him
from criminal liability under Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq.
("FCPA"), 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.
Contained within a 300-page report on the Democrats' impeachment investigation was a
startling admission; House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) had obtained
call records between Rep. Devin Nunes, Rudy Giuliani, Ukraine intermediary Lev Parnas,
and journalist John Solomon .
In response, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) said "It
raises a lot of serious questions," before demanding to know what Schiff was up to.
" I want to know all the people Adam Schiff is spying on ," Schiff told the Washington Examiner . "Are there other members of Congress that he is spying on,
and what justification does he have? He needs to be held accountable and explain what he's
doing, going after journalists, going after members of Congress, instead of doing his job."
The records showed calls between Nunes and President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy
Giuliani, and calls between Nunes and Lev Parnas , a Giuliani associate now under indictment
for funneling foreign money to U.S. political candidates.
Schiff said the calls raise questions about whether Nunes was involved in what Democrats
believe was a scheme to undermine Trump's political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. -
Washington Examiner
On Tuesday, Schiff said "I find it deeply concerning at a time when the president of the
United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there
may be evidence of members of Congress complicit in that activity ."
Nunes says he doesn't recall speaking with Parnas, and that any discussions with Giuliani
would have likely revolved around the Mueller report.
"I remember talking to Rudy Giuliani, and we were actually laughing about how Mueller bombed
out," Nunes told Fox News on Tuesday. Democrats claim that the Nunes call records
reveal that he's been coordinating with the Trump administration and Giuliani to go after
former Vice President Joe Biden, who has been credibly accused of corruption in Ukraine
involving his son Hunter.
Democrats have been critical of Nunes since his tenure as the House Intelligence Committee
chairman from 2017 to 2019. During that time, Nunes made a trip to the White House to inform
Trump his transition meeting messages were intercepted by U.S. intelligence.
"I always felt that Mr. Nunes was a dividing character," Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell of
New Jersey told the Washington Examiner . "We know of his meetings with the president,
which he had every right to do by the way. But in the peculiar position he was in, it was
obvious where he was getting his orders and how he proceeded. And I think he's going to get
what's coming to him."
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said "there are serious questions" about the calls between
Nunes and Giuliani and Parnas. He said Democrats "need to look at them and see what action
ought to be taken, if any."
Hoyer declined to say whether it would be in the form of a House ethics investigation or a
punitive House floor measure.
"I want to have input from other people before I opine on what we ought to be doing. I
will be doing that," he said. - Washington Examiner
The call record produced by House Democrats also reveal calls in late April between Lev
Parnas and journalist John Solomon, a previous columnist for The Hill who has broken
several bombshell stories regarding the Russia investigation and the Bidens.
"I'm interested in why he was doing this," said Scalise of Schiff. "And under what
authority."
The fraction of RussiaGate/UkraineGate that can be taken seriously is quite small. An
enormous amount of it is "it's ok when we do it"-level material. Difficult to sort without
presenting a range encompassing all factions.
It's possible I'm too jaded, but "reporters presents material derived from his political
faction" isn't all that exciting, since I don't belong to either of the factions engaged in
this battle. I remember the Lewinsky Matter, WMDs, and (see today's Links), being smeared by
Prop0rNot, and UkraineGate just a little too well.
I believe we are talking about the "Fruit of the poisonous tree" objection. That evidence
obtained illegally cannot be used and anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as
well.
Two questions: Was the whistle blower action illegal or just "improper"?
And if illegal, does the "attenuation doctrine" apply here?
"For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent
intervening factor to sufficiently "attenuate" the connection between the government's
illegal discovery of the witness and the witness's voluntary testimony itself. (United States
v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))"
Most likely, if this case were being heard in a court of law, it would be thrown out as fruit
of the poisoned tree doctrine. However, the problem here is there are no judges with the
authority to issue a ruling ordering Congress to stop these hearings.
However, it is certain that if Congress votes for impeachment, the Senate, same as the
House, can also do what it wants and the GOP majority may vote to throw the case out on the
grounds of fruit of the poisoned tree. However, I believe a full trial with witnesses
favorable to the president testifying and focusing on Biden corruption would show the
American people the impeachment process was bogus from the beginning and thus be more
favorable to Trump. In any event, it is highly unlikely that the GOP majority Senate will
provide the 67 votes necessary for impeachment.. So, at then end of the day, this is one big
show trial where the end result will be Trump serving out his elected term or terms.
I tend to agree and suspect Team Trump is keeping its powder dry for a
potential/inevitable Senate trial. The patent illegality of the original complaint, as
accurately described here, will be just one of many bombshells dropped I expect. Trump is a
master at giving his enemies enough rope to hang themselves and the Pelosi-Schiff show
appears to me to be a classic example. My hope is the fire is lit while the witch hunters are
still busying themselves atop the fagot pile.
While the Impeachment circus act was in gear, the Democrats were quietly reauthorizing The
Patriot Act in the funding resolution keeping the government afloat for another 3
months.
I am a bit puzzled with what the Democrats are doing.
In reading the Constitution, there's nothing that I can see that enumerates a specific
procedure on impeachment in the House. It also appears that there is no definition of what
High Crimes & Misdemeanors are and it would be whatever the House says it is. It
appears the House can impeach by bringing the Articles of Impeachment to the floor for a
vote. Nancy Pelosi has enough votes in her caucus to pass that with just her own party
votes.
What is prompting the current process they are following? An inquiry by the
Intelligence Committee, where the majority decides which witnesses can be called and there's
no opportunity for the accused to cross-examine and provide rebuttal evidence and
testimony.
They have controlled the media news cycle for most of the last few weeks. They are also
deploying and testing soundbites. Given the news from FB, Twitter and Google to limit the
ability of "political ads" to target audiences with unique adds. That's all coordinated
against Trump. The fact these hearings showed the career bureaucracy is not only out of touch
with America but contemptuous of most Americans.
The last two were prime examples. The "good immigrant" - and a woman; check a couple of
boxes for democratic party declared support groups being victimized by Trump's Tweets
(now labeled attacks, kind of like the hate speech label). Then there is wonderboy Mr.
Holmes. Do you think either know what's going on in Tupelo or Topeka, or give a damn? Mr.
Holmes was upset that two Ukrainians recently died in combat. That was last night in Detroit.
And Baltimore. And Chicago. Of course the Dynamic Duo was working to end corruption: in
Kiev.
Of course those aren't the lives that matter to the Council on Foreign Relations crowd or
those who went to that fine proletarian school: St. Andrews - in Scotland. A fine school all
middle class Americans aspire too. Yep, just regular ole American's. You are concerned about
due process and evidence faked by police? Just ask some inner city black Americans if that
happens in their neighborhood.
Once Trump RIFs 90 percent of these people they can go put their skills in corruption
fighting to good use in a country they all love. I'm sure these two fine examples of white
privelege integrity and honest governance will have no trouble getting hired in a place
like Baltimore. They hired DeRay McKesson; these well credentialed experts will have no
problems at all fixing that city. It's full of honest Americans.
Witches are devious and the nature of their witchcraft may only be apparent to the accusers.
See how at each session the Witchfinder General takes plenty of time to explain to onlookers
the nature of the witchcraft lest they mistake it for, say, a regular phone call.
Democrats reluctance to go on record impeaching a popular opposition party President is what
is driving this Democrat-led inquiry process - almost impeachment but not quite impeachment.
The intent is to wound, smear, damage, distract and distort. Typical Democrat politics of
personal destruction that we have seen in play now for three long painful years.
I live in California, so we see a lot of this 24/7/365. It has been a very effective and
intimidating tactic since now most Democrat central committee chosen candidates run u
unopposed - no one wants to face the Democrat mean machine meat grinder.
The only wild card is how tough Trump has been facing this onslaught down. He is our
favorite schmoo doll who simply cannot be knocked down. Thank you President Trump.
Winning.
blue peacock, I am also puzzled by the Democrats - soviet style show trial like, a campaign whose
„face" now is Adam Schiff. I have asked the SST commenters, in different article, why
would DT be so viciously attacked by the very same supporters of Israel, who should be very
grateful to him for his many actions in favor of Israel. One commenter replied that DT is not
going to wage war on Iran and therefore he is not useful anymore. I disagree with that
assessment, and am still puzzled by the whole theater. Adam Schiff and his show trial is
playing in the hands of republicans, and the democrats will bitterly regret that they did not
follow once more the mantra of Nancy Pelosi - in different context - „impeachment is
off the table".
One of the problems with show trials is that they usually backfire...
Notable quotes:
"... What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella - there are penalties for filing false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the whistle-blower law. ..."
"... Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint. Only if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant. ..."
"... The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job isn't it? ..."
"... turcopolier , 20 November 2019 at 09:46 PM ..."
"... I will try again. The law has nothing to do with non-intelligence matters and there were no intelligence matters in the phone call. ..."
"... The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal destruction. While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint of irony) to be the one candidate who can "bring the country together again" after Trump alone has torn it asunder. ..."
"... If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires. ..."
"... Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating complaints about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect luggage at the airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint; an intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'. ..."
"... Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway. ..."
"... Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting. ..."
"... Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse. ..."
Only way out is to call for the impeachment, have a vote and either lick their wounds if
they lose (mainly Schiff and Nadler get sacrificed - Fancy Nancy has been dancing on a tight
rope so she gets a pass); or vote to pass articles of impeachment and finally send this
turkey on to the senate.
Wild card, how many Democrats not engaged in this blatant publicity stunt also want no
part in it. What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella - there are penalties for
filing false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the
whistle-blower law.
Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint.
Only if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant.
Otherwise, all you have are the opening opinion statements in tonights DNC debate, sneered
out by Rachael Maddow, picked up with even more sneers by Kamala Harris and echoed by every
single DNC candidate as already a fait accompli.
The unocntested party line tonight is this "whistle blower" busted Trump wide open as a
crook and a self-confessed crook at that.
That political message flowing from this "irrelevant complaint "is hard to overcome as the
DNC debate crowd cheered, unless the perpetrator is brought to justice under the relevance of
this law. We shall wait patiently for that moment. As the Democrats all stated tonight - 2020
election is all about JUSTICE AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
I do, which is what I meant by
"In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act."
The point I was making is that, as drafted, there is in adequate redress/protection for
those who witness acts which are clearly covered. This is not conducive to keeping government
on the straight and narrow. The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been
massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and
saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job
isn't it?
The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal
destruction. While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint
of irony) to be the one candidate who can "bring the country together again" after Trump
alone has torn it asunder.
Exactly right. If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower
complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence
activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires.
Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating
complaints about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect
luggage at the airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson
is the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint;
an intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information
of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also
the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901)
originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of
the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes
Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the
DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA
court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI
contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations
as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very
epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
On Sunday, Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, was on "Meet the Press"
spreading this disinformation . "I think both Russia and Ukraine interfered," he said.
Russia may have been more aggressive and sophisticated, he allowed, but "that does not exclude
the fact that President Poroshenko actively worked for Secretary Clinton."
... ... ...
Mr. Kennedy went even further a week earlier, when he suggested on "Fox News Sunday" that,
in fact, Ukraine had hacked the Democratic computer server, obtaining emails that embarrassed
Hillary Clinton's campaign. "I don't know, nor do you, nor do any of us," he
told the host, Chris Wallace. (The next day he
told CNN's Chris Cuomo: "I was wrong. It was Russia who tried to hack the computer. I've
seen no indication that Ukraine tried to do it." It is unclear what changed his mind.
Again.)
... ... ...
The day after Dr. Hill's testimony, Mr. Trump
regaled "Fox & Friends" with wild assertions that the F.B.I. never properly examined
the hacked server because it had been handed over to a shadowy Ukrainian company called
CrowdStrike.
More broadly, the dueling Ukraine narratives are fomenting division and confusion among the
American public, an enduring goal of Mr. Putin's.
The Democrats are intent on impeaching Trump. As they have shown with the vote to launch
the impeachment inquiry, they're quite happy to do it on a purely partisan party line vote.
And they have the full support of the mainstream media and many in the bureaucracy including
serving officers in the military. The only question IMO, is how many Republican senators will
either abstain or vote to convict in the Senate trial?
The Resistance as Barr has called them are so blind with hatred for Trump that they can't
see beyond their nose. They will now create a precedent where a House majority of one party
can impeach at will the President of the opposing party while using a kangaroo court inquiry.
This must lead to complete chaos for our political system that each of our adversaries would
love. IMO, only the American voter can change this by stopping to vote the lesser evil and
electing candidates outside the duopoly. Of course that ain't happening in my life time as
most Americans are consumed with partisan warfare on the side of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle
Dum.
The law doesn't matter. The IC and courts will interpret the laws however they wish.
This is the flip side of the fundamental problem in Sir Thomas More's famous formulation
of the law in "A Man for All Seasons". The laws of England or any other law are of no
protection to anyone if he cannot enforce them.
Similarly, even if the laws clearly condemn a action, even if the action is wrongful, that
is of no matter, if the people with power have decided that the law is to protect that action
regardless of what is written.
Moral: there is no such thing as law. There is only context.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your take (and I always appreciate a Thomas More
reference). However, I think where there is a widespread agreement amongst the population
that the law is just and that it is generally applied fairly to all--in that society you
empower leading voices to defend the law against would-be attackers (from either top or
bottom). But today we do not have that consensus in popular opinion, not all of us believe
the law is fair or evenly applied, and voices shouting for it to be abrogated are loud and
growing bolder.
Now, your moral is properly situated in its historical context.
Isn't the ICIG another swamp careerist?
These swamp creatures are of one ilk (NOT a big deer):
They live in the same neighborhoods, their kids go to the same schools, they go to the same
Delaware beaches.
They will NEVER seriously investigate, much less bring down, a fellow swamp creature.
I am now convinced that laws, justice, truth and honor don't amount to a hill of beans in The
Swamp. It's all wanton and vicious politics and power plays all the time. Then mountains of
BS, shoveled out by an allied scurrilous media machine to try to keep the public buying into
the Machiavellian machinations of the Swamp dwellers.
Members of the "in crowd" can do whatever they want without repercussion. If any of them
ever faces consequences it's because they fell from favor for secret reasons as opposed to
the publicly announced reason, or they got sleepy and were gunned down by a newer more
ambitious usurper.
The deep state exists to perpetuate itself. When 95% of all 2016 political contributions from
the deep state went to Clinton, trump's election created and existential crisis.
Trump promised he would expose and cleag out the deep state - look at his major2016
campaign video speech. Those were his very first words.
Deep state was put on notice even before the was elected. Apoplectic can be their only
response. Frog brains were engaged and we have these three long awful years of deep state
inflicted chaos.
Deep state = Democrats = big public sector unions How can you have $800 billion tax
dollars going to teachers union members nationwide without the teachers union deep state
doing all they can to bring Trump down. Including using K-12 students as front line storm
troopers.
You don't get it. IMO the present impeachment inquiry is illegal because the
whistleblower's complaint should not have bben allowed under the statute. If an impeachment
arrives in the senate it can be thrown out on that basis.
I do get your point, and agree, however the the legislation is deficient in that while the
whistle-blower can, and should, highlight questionable behaviour in his/her department it
does not seem to offer adequate cover against retribution from said department.
viz.
"ICWPA doesn't prohibit employment-related retaliation and it provides no mechanism, such as
access to a court or administrative body, for challenging retaliation that may occur as a
result of having made a disclosure"
In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act.
If your, or my, government is breaking its own laws I would like to see a clear route for
those in the know to report same to some body with the authority to act. They should be
independent of the department, have the power to investigate and protect the source. Better
that then dump it on Wikileaks and hope to stay anonymous.
On a separate point, is or should there be any restrictions on IGIC's authority to change the
scope of evidence to include hearsay, given the evidently limited intent of the whistleblower
legislation / directives?
You are referring to the change in the complaint form where the prior form required the
whistleblower to have direct knowledge of the issue complained about while the latest version
allows the whistleblower to blow the whistle using information obtained from someone else
(hearsay). The statute itself neither allowed not disallowed hearsay information. I believe
that the prior form should not have excluded hearsay. For example, if a foreign agent said
"I'm a foreign agent and taking photos of this top secret information" to a DNI employee,
that is a hearsay statement and could not be reported to the IG using the prior form. To me,
that's wrong.
Exactly right. Here is a link to the statute, 50 USC section 3033. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3033
The statute allows for the appointment of an Inspector General who reports to and has the
authority to investigate any activity that falls under the authority of the Director of
National Intelligence.
While I agree that Trump's phone call does not fall under the definition of an urgent
matter that can be reported to Congress, what's worse is that because the President's
activities cannot be investigated under this statute because the President is not under the
authority of nor supervised by the DNI. Thus, the intelligence Inspector General has no
authority to consider the complaint against Trump. Congress created the IG statute and placed
the IG under the supervision of the DNI because under the law the IG is to investigate only
problems that the DNI has the ability to rectify.
As the President of the United States is not supervised by the DNI, the IG has no
authority under this law to investigate the President's activities under this statute. The
complaint and the involvement of the IG in this matter was illegal from the start.
Never forget this particular "whistleblower" statute was changed at the 11th hour to suddenly
allow 2nd hand reports instead of the prior first hand report requirement.
It stunk from day one. Throw the book at the whole pack because they did not take out the
penalty part of the statute for filing false reports. Go get 'em FBI.
Right. The entire purpose of the phony and improper IG complaint was to manufacture an excuse
to have the matter reported to Congress where it would then be leaked to the public. It never
was a proper IG complaint, but the bell cannot be unrung.
Only way out is to call for the impeachment, have a vote and either lick their wounds if
they lose (mainly Schiff and Nadler get sacrificed - Fancy Nancy has been dancing on a tight
rope so she gets a pass); or vote to pass articles of impeachment and finally send this
turkey on to the senate.
Wild card, how many Democrats not engaged in this blatant publicity stunt also want no
part in it. What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella - there are penalties for filing
false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the
whistle-blower law.
Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint. Only
if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant.
Otherwise, all you have are the opening opinion statements in tonights DNC debate, sneered
out by Rachael Maddow, picked up with even more sneers by Kamala Harris and echoed by every
single DNC candidate as already a fait accompli.
The unocntested party line tonight is this "whistle blower" busted Trump wide open as a
crook and a self-confessed crook at that.
That political message flowing from this "irrelevant complaint "is hard to overcome as the
DNC debate crowd cheered, unless the perpetrator is brought to justice under the relevance of
this law. We shall wait patiently for that moment. As the Democrats all stated tonight - 2020
election is all about JUSTICE AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
I do, which is what I meant by
"In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act."
The point I was making is that, as drafted, there is in adequate redress/protection for
those who witness acts which are clearly covered. This is not conducive to keeping government
on the straight and narrow. The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been
massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and
saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job
isn't it?
The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal destruction.
While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint of irony)
to be the one candidate who can "bring the country together again" after Trump alone has torn
it asunder.
Exactly right. If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower
complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence
activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires.
Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating complaints
about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect luggage at the
airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint; an
intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information of
a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also
the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901)
originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of
the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes
Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the
DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA
court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI
contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations
as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter
of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
O/T but there doesn't seem any other live thread where it can be put.
Israel is heading for a third election and is becoming politically more and more
incoherent.
Avigdor Liberman, leader of Israael's far right secular party Yisrael Beytenu has failed
in his attempts to form a government of national unity and is now denouncing the ultra
orthodox parties as "anti-semitic!"
Netanyahu continues to wobble over the void of jail.
Gantz's Blue and White party has, like Netanyahu and Liberman, failed in attempts to lead
a government of national unity.
I know there continues to be fighting in NE Syria and Yemen, and air attacks on Damascus,
riots in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon, but I suspect that a lot of M.E. leaders are using this
relative calm - due to the eclipse of Bibi - to do some serious talking.
Neo-conservatives in the US continue with his policies even if he is there no longer.
It seems to me that if Trump is serious about taking on the swamp, now might be a good time
to strike. Surely in this whole mess, there has to be one clear cut case that he could use an
excuse for strong action. Something so egregious, so requiring, dare I say, a righteous
response- one involving a highly public perp walk or something similar.
It is time to put the fear of a jury finding followed by a certain and just punishment,
perhaps a stay at Epstein's prison as a starter while awaiting a no bail trial.
I believe we are talking about the "Fruit of the poisonous tree" objection. That evidence
obtained illegally cannot be used and anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as
well.
Two questions: Was the whistle blower action illegal or just "improper"?
And if illegal, does the "attenuation doctrine" apply here?
"For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent
intervening factor to sufficiently "attenuate" the connection between the government's
illegal discovery of the witness and the witness's voluntary testimony itself. (United States
v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))"
Most likely, if this case were being heard in a court of law, it would be thrown out as fruit
of the poisoned tree doctrine. However, the problem here is there are no judges with the
authority to issue a ruling ordering Congress to stop these hearings.
However, it is certain that if Congress votes for impeachment, the Senate, same as the
House, can also do what it wants and the GOP majority may vote to throw the case out on the
grounds of fruit of the poisoned tree. However, I believe a full trial with witnesses
favorable to the president testifying and focusing on Biden corruption would show the
American people the impeachment process was bogus from the beginning and thus be more
favorable to Trump. In any event, it is highly unlikely that the GOP majority Senate will
provide the 67 votes necessary for impeachment.. So, at then end of the day, this is one big
show trial where the end result will be Trump serving out his elected term or terms.
I tend to agree and suspect Team Trump is keeping its powder dry for a potential/inevitable
Senate trial. The patent illegality of the original complaint, as accurately described here,
will be just one of many bombshells dropped I expect. Trump is a master at giving his enemies
enough rope to hang themselves and the Pelosi-Schiff show appears to me to be a classic
example. My hope is the fire is lit while the witch hunters are still busying themselves atop
the fagot pile.
While the Impeachment circus act was in gear, the Democrats were quietly reauthorizing The
Patriot Act in the funding resolution keeping the government afloat for another 3
months.
I am a bit puzzled with what the Democrats are doing.
In reading the Constitution, there's nothing that I can see that enumerates a specific
procedure on impeachment in the House. It also appears that there is no definition of what
High Crimes & Misdemeanors are and it would be whatever the House says it is. It appears
the House can impeach by bringing the Articles of Impeachment to the floor for a vote. Nancy
Pelosi has enough votes in her caucus to pass that with just her own party votes.
What is prompting the current process they are following? An inquiry by the Intelligence
Committee, where the majority decides which witnesses can be called and there's no
opportunity for the accused to cross-examine and provide rebuttal evidence and testimony.
They have controlled the media news cycle for most of the last few weeks. They are also
deploying and testing soundbites. Given the news from FB, Twitter and Google to limit the
ability of "political ads" to target audiences with unique adds. That's all coordinated
against Trump. The fact these hearings showed the career bureaucracy is not only out of touch
with America but contemptuous of most Americans.
The last two were prime examples. The "good immigrant" - and a woman; check a couple of
boxes for democratic party declared support groups being victimized by Trump's Tweets
(now labeled attacks, kind of like the hate speech label). Then there is wonderboy Mr.
Holmes. Do you think either know what's going on in Tupelo or Topeka, or give a damn? Mr.
Holmes was upset that two Ukrainians recently died in combat. That was last night in Detroit.
And Baltimore. And Chicago. Of course the Dynamic Duo was working to end corruption: in
Kiev.
Of course those aren't the lives that matter to the Council on Foreign Relations crowd or
those who went to that fine proletarian school: St. Andrews - in Scotland. A fine school all
middle class Americans aspire too. Yep, just regular ole American's. You are concerned about
due process and evidence faked by police? Just ask some inner city black Americans if that
happens in their neighborhood.
Once Trump RIFs 90 percent of these people they can go put their skills in corruption
fighting to good use in a country they all love. I'm sure these two fine examples of white
privelege integrity and honest governance will have no trouble getting hired in a place
like Baltimore. They hired DeRay McKesson; these well credentialed experts will have no
problems at all fixing that city. It's full of honest Americans.
Witches are devious and the nature of their witchcraft may only be apparent to the accusers.
See how at each session the Witchfinder General takes plenty of time to explain to onlookers
the nature of the witchcraft lest they mistake it for, say, a regular phone call.
Democrats reluctance to go on record impeaching a popular opposition party President is what
is driving this Democrat-led inquiry process - almost impeachment but not quite impeachment.
The intent is to wound, smear, damage, distract and distort. Typical Democrat politics of
personal destruction that we have seen in play now for three long painful years.
I live in California, so we see a lot of this 24/7/365. It has been a very effective and
intimidating tactic since now most Democrat central committee chosen candidates run u
unopposed - no one wants to face the Democrat mean machine meat grinder.
The only wild card is how tough Trump has been facing this onslaught down. He is our
favorite schmoo doll who simply cannot be knocked down. Thank you President Trump.
Winning.
blue peacock,
I am also puzzled by the Democrats - soviet style show trial like, a campaign whose
„face" now is Adam Schiff. I have asked the SST commenters, in different article, why
would DT be so viciously attacked by the very same supporters of Israel, who should be very
grateful to him for his many actions in favor of Israel. One commenter replied that DT is not
going to wage war on Iran and therefore he is not useful anymore. I disagree with that
assessment, and am still puzzled by the whole theater. Adam Schiff and his show trial is
playing in the hands of republicans, and the democrats will bitterly regret that they did not
follow once more the mantra of Nancy Pelosi - in different context - „impeachment is
off the table".
"... Billionaire investor/activist George Soros has a giant footprint in Ukraine. Similar to his operations in dozens of other nations, he has, over the past couple of decades, poured tens of millions of dollars into Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs), ostensibly to assist them in transforming their country into a more "open" and "democratic" society. ..."
Billionaire
investor/activist George Soros has a giant footprint in Ukraine. Similar to his operations in
dozens of other nations, he has, over the past couple of decades, poured tens of millions of
dollars into Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs), ostensibly to assist them in
transforming their country into a more "open" and "democratic" society.
Many of the participants in Kiev's "EuroMaidan" demonstrations were members of Soros-funded
NGOs and/or were trained by the same NGOs in the many workshops and conferences sponsored by
Soros' International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), and his various Open Society institutes and
foundations. The IRF, founded and funded by Soros, boasts that it has given "more than any
other donor organization" to "democratic transformation" of Ukraine.
The International Renaissance Foundation's Annual Report for 2012, the latest available,
states that, "IRF provided UAH 63 million in funding to civil society organizations -- more
than any other donor organization working in this field in Ukraine." The "UAH" reference used
above refers to the Ukraine Hryvnia, Ukraine's currency, which is worth about 0.11 $US, or 11
cents in U.S. currency. That translates into roughly $6.7 million that IRF provided to
Ukrainian groups in 2012; not a huge sum, by comparison to many other political and social
campaigns, but more than merely "significant." In the cash-starved Ukraine, Soros's dollars go
a long way toward seducing and co-opting all legitimate political opposition into the
Soros-approved "progressive" camp.
Over the period from 1990 to 2010 the International Renaissance Foundation provided more
than $100 million in support to numerous Ukrainian non-government organizations (NGOs),
community groups, academic and cultural institutions, publishing houses, etc.
The IRF website and annual reports make clear that the Soros funds are targeted at promoting
Ukrainian "partnership" with, and "integration" into, the EU. Soros has provided many millions
more through his other "philanthropic" spigots. However, Soros' influence in Ukraine extends
far beyond the traceable funding he provides to activist Ukrainian NGOs, academics and think
tanks. Equally, if not more, important is the influence he exerts on global opinion through his
massive propaganda network (including Project Syndicate and other Soros megaphones) and his
direct personal contacts with presidents, prime ministers, parliamentarians, central bankers,
media executives, and Wall Street titans.
In a February 26 column he penned for Project Syndicate that was carried by hundreds of
newspapers and websites, Soros argued that the EU and the IMF must initiate a new Marshall Plan
for Ukraine, meaning, of course, transfers of money from EU and U.S. taxpayers to the
politicians, organizations, and institutions approved by the globalist/socialist/corporatist
operatives running the EU and IMF. Perhaps the key point in Soros' essay, entitled, "Sustaining
Ukraine's Breakthrough," is this: "Ukraine will need outside assistance that only the EU can
provide: management expertise."
George Soros is all about management by "experts," i.e., central planning, the hallmark of
every socialist, fascist, or communist regime. In fact, he is one of the planet's premier
advocates of global central planning and control. Hence, he is a longtime fervent supporter of
the United Nations, the IMF/World Bank, the WTO, global population control through the WHO and
UNFPA, and virtually every other internationalist endeavor to subvert national sovereignty and
advance the building of an omnipotent world government.
His fetish with internationalism includes, especially, further enlarging and empowering the
EU, which has been the prime subject of concern in books and essays by Soros, as well as many
of his speeches and media interviews. Soros is a full-blown proponent of total political and
economic "integration" of the EU, meaning a complete annihilation of any residual independence
of the EU member states and the transfer of all substantive legislative, executive, and
judicial powers to EU politicians and administrators in Brussels.
Over the past several years Soros has been particularly emphatic in pushing for a central EU
Treasury, or European Fiscal Authority (EFA), which he
says is "the missing ingredient that is needed to make the euro a full-fledged currency
with a genuine lender of last resort." The European Central Bank (ECB), says Soros, has
insufficient powers to do what is needed, even though he admits it has illegally usurped powers
-- which he applauds.
When European Central Bank President Mario Draghi (a former Goldman Sachs vice chairman and
managing director) announced on August 1, 2012 that the ECB would "do whatever it takes to
preserve the euro as a stable currency," German Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann objected,
pointing out that the ECB's powers are limited by statute. Nevertheless, Draghi forged ahead,
promising that the ECB would make unlimited purchases of government bonds of indebted EU
members -- provided they put their countries under the control of executors from "the Troika"
-- the EU Commission, ECB and IMF. This is the same Troika that devastated the citizens of
Cyprus last year,
raiding their bank accounts to pay off the bonds that socialist politicians and Goldman
Sachs had saddled them with. But Soros, whose many "human rights" fronts extol the "rule of
law," "accountability," and "transparency," says that the lawless and unaccountable Troika does
not have enough power! It must be complemented by an EFA, says he, which should exercise power
over all fiscal matters.
The IMF's Managing Director Christine Lagarde and EU Commission President José Manuel
Barroso (a "former" Maoist Communist) have already lined up a multi-billion package for
Ukraine. However, many Ukrainians, all across the political spectrum, are leery of coming under
the Troika's control, and rightfully so. They do not want to trade the corruption and
oppression of Yanukovych's pro-Kremlin regime for another dictated by the EU and IMF. As we
pointed out recently , even the poll commissioned by the U.S. State Department found that
only 37 percent of Ukrainians favored joining the EU.
Economist Michael Roberts describes himself on his blogsite as "a Marxist economist."
Nevertheless, Roberts is on the mark in his February 27 column in stating: "The people of
Ukraine are left with Hobson's choice: either go with KGB-led crony capitalism from Russia or
go with equally corrupt pro-European 'democrats'." He is also correct in asserting that
Ukraine's foreign debt will soon double, if it takes IMF loans, and that the Ukrainian people
will burdened with crushing debt for a generation. He writes:
Ukraine could still stage a financial meltdown and a banking collapse. More likely, the new
government will be helped over the next few months with bridging loans until the IMF deal is
struck. Then the hardship for the people will really begin in earnest. Ukraine's foreign debt
is about to double as it takes on new debt from the IMF and the cost of existing dollar and
euro debt jumps as the hyrvnia is devalued. This burden will be on shoulders of Ukrainians for
a generation.
Only it could double several times over, and it could burden Ukrainians for much longer than
a generation; it could fasten them with debt bondage in perpetuity . Bosnian writer
Andrej Nikolaidis warns Ukrainians that massive debt and grinding poverty under Troika-managed
regime are to be expected. "It hardly comes as a surprise to us in former Yugoslavia,"
writes
Nikolaidis. "At the beginning of its dissolution, the Yugoslav foreign debt was
£9.5bn; today, after all the 'help' we got from the troika, it's more than £107bn."
He continues:
Bosnia today is a poor and divided country, even more so than it was back in 1992. Former
soldiers, hungry and sick, are gathering and protesting. "While we were bleeding, they were
stealing," says one Some Bosnians saw their future under the Bosnian and EU flag, others under
the Croatian and EU flag, and others still under the flag of The Great Serbia. Lots of flags,
but only one poverty for all.
But why must Ukraine formally join either the EU or the Kremlin-sponsored Customs Union? Are
those the only options? Is it not possible for Ukraine to adopt a neutral position of
independence and peaceful trade with both sides? Would not such a position be best for all
concerned? From the available polling, it seems that may be the view of a plurality, if not a
majority, of Ukrainians.
Ukraine's huge network of natural gas pipelines not only supplies much-needed
Russian-produced gas to EU countries, but also is the source of vital revenues to Russia from
that energy delivery system. The peoples of Russia, Ukraine, and the EU benefit from a stable,
peaceful, neutral Ukraine; forcing Ukrainians into choosing one or the other camp benefits no
one -- except the power-mad rulers of Russia and the EU, and their globalist confreres.
Why then, should Americans take direction from George Soros, Barack Obama, John Kerry,
Hillary Clinton, the New York Times , Washington Pos t, CNN, John McCain and
other internationalist voices who insist it is Ukraine that must "choose" but the only choice
considered acceptable and legitimate to the globalist choir is for Ukraine to join the EU?
Soros and his huge stable of "public intellectuals" at Project Syndicate have been flooding the
global media with propaganda to that purpose. As we've reported previously, Project Syndicate
is a project of George Soros' Open Society Foundation that has sprouted into a network of
nearly 500 newspapers in more than 150 countries with worldwide circulation of over 70 million
copies. According to the syndicate's web site, it is the largest syndication of independent
commentators in the world.
However, his great wealth, foundations, media presence, and network of activist NGOs
notwithstanding, George Soros' power and influence -- in Ukraine and elsewhere -- stem not so
much from these oft-cited trappings of power, but from the fact that he is a player, an
Insider, in the top rank of globalists who are pushing and shoving "global governance" upon the
entire planet. This was formally recognized in November 2010 when Soros received the
"Globalist of the Year Award" from the Canadian International Council (CIC).
Soros' real heft derives from the fact that he is a member of the globalist power elite.
First and foremost, he is a member of (and leader in and major financial supporter of) the
Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR) , the premier globalist brain trust that has become the de facto
governing force within the executive branch of the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve
System, as well as Democrat and Republican parties, for most of the past century. His Soros
Fund Management is a President's Circle Corporate Member of the CFR and Soros himself served as
a director of the CFR for a decade (1995-2004). In addition, he has been a key participant in
many CFR events, including serving as presider at the CFR's 2000 conference, "Latin America:
Sustaining Economic & Political Reform," a major sendoff promoting the Free Trade Area of
the Americas (FTAA).
Further, he has been an activist participant with, and sometime funder of, important
globalist organizations such as the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, the World Policy Conference, the World Economic Forum, the International
Crisis Group, the Clinton Global Initiative, the Bilderberg Group, the U.S. State Department,
the Gorbachev Foundation, the United Nations, and The Good
Club (an exclusive billionaire club -- whose members include Bill Gates, Warren Buffett,
David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Michael Bloomberg, and Oprah Winfrey -- with the singular
purpose of pushing global population control). Per the UN, Soros has served on a number of
boards and advisory groups promoting a global "Tobin Tax" on financial transactions, global
controls on CO 2 to stop "Climate Change," dramatically expanding the powers and
funding of the International Monetary Fund, and massive global wealth redistribution through
the UN's Millennium Development Goals.
Many of Soros' critics on both the Left and the Right ignore these facts and treat Soros as
if he is a singular earthshaking force all on his own. Focusing solely on his grant
distributions, political donations, NGO networks, etc., they greatly exaggerate his importance,
which can act as a diversion to distract liberty-minded advocates from focusing on the bigger
picture. Taken in isolation, without his tie-ins to the CFR-globalist network of power, Soros'
global impact would be, not insignificant, but marginal. It is precisely because he is one of
many super-wealthy globalists (albeit, he is far more visible and vocal than most) acting in
concert that his impact is so remarkable.
Especially noteworthy in relation to Ukraine is his key involvement in the
American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee (AUAC). The Ukrainian Weekly of December 10, 1995,
reported :
The American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee met in New York on November 17-18 [1995] and
reiterated its strong conviction that a resilient Ukraine is in the interest of European
stability and thus also American security.
Among other things, the AUAC called upon the U.S. Congress, USAID, the IMF, the World Bank,
and the EU to shower the Ukrainian government (then run by "former" Communist Leonid Kuchma).
It also encouraged the Ukrainian government to hasten "privatization" by selling "blocks of
equity to private investors."
Kuchma followed their advice and, as in the former Soviet Union,
his false "privatization" scheme transferred enormous state assets into the hands of select
Communist Party members, creating instant billionaire oligarchs, who have dominated Ukraine
ever since. Sitting on the UAUC with Soros were one-world CFR heavyweights Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Henry Kissinger, Frank Carlucci, and Richard Burt. The same one-worlders are pushing the same
agenda today, two decades later.
Oligarchs R Us
One of the billionaire oligarchs who benefitted from the Ukraine's crony privatization
program is Victor Pinchuk, with whom Soros has been very active. Soros's foundations and The
Victor Pinchuk Foundation collaborate on funding many NGOs and projects, in Ukraine and
elsewhere. And Soros is a participant in Pinchuk's Yalta European Strategy (YES) conferences,
annual extravaganzas held in the Crimea at Livadia Palace, a summer retreat of Russian czars on
the Black Sea. The YES confabs feature current and former presidents, prime ministers,
potentates, financiers, corporate execs and celebrities.
Besides Soros, U.S. participants have included Bill Clinton, William Daley (Obama's White
House chief of staff), Robert Zoellick (Bush's trade representative, then president of the
World Bank), Newt Gingrich, and Condoleezza Rice, to name a few -- Democrats and Republicans,
CFR globalists all.
Pinchuk, a pal and funder of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, not only has generously
supported Bill's Clinton Global Initiative, but also has poured more than $13 million into the
Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Another close tie is Douglas E. Schoen (CFR), a
longtime Clinton operative and political consultant, whom, according to the New York
Times , Mr. Pinchuk hired as an adviser in 2000 -- and to whom the oligarch has been paying
a tidy retainer of $40,000 per month ever since.
One of the important ventures that Soros and Pinchuk are financing is the Ukrainian Crisis
Media Center (CMC), a collaboration of Ukrainian public relations corporations and journalists
that is headquartered in Kiev's Hotel Ukraine. Ostensibly, it was created to counter the
propaganda onslaught of Putin's Russian media cartel. Much of the "independent news" we receive
from Ukraine is produced by the CMC and stamped with the Pinchuk/Soros-approved brand of
propaganda. That includes cheering on or papering over the fact that the "new" government in
Kiev is simply the latest rotation of musical chairs, and it has ended with Pinchuk's fellow
oligarchs (virtually all of which are "former" communists) and their parliamentary blocs and
political parties occupying the most important chairs (as we
reported here ).
Pinchuk is a member of the Board of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and
sits on the International Advisory Council of the Brookings Institution, both of which Soros
has long been associated with. Another very important Soros-Pinchuk tie is their mutual
connection to the famous (or infamous, as you prefer) Rothschild banking dynasty.
In 2011, George C. Karlweis, adviser to Baron Edmond de Rothschild and his Banque Privee,
revealed that it was Rothschild who provided Soros with the startup money -- and,
undoubtedly much (illegal) insider trading intelligence -- for Soros' fabulously successful
Quantum Fund.
The full extent of Pinchuk's connections to the Rothschild's global private empire would
require a similar revelation from an insider. That could be Jean-Pierre Saltiel, who sits on
the board of Pinchuk's Yalta European Strategy, as well as the oligarch's global steel and
metallurgy conglomerate, Interpipe, Inc. He is also a longtime adviser to the Rothschilds and
the past president of Rothschild Conseil International, one of the fabled family's major bank
holding companies. Interestingly (but not so surprising), Rothschild agent Saltiel also sits on
the board of PIK Group, Russia's largest residential real estate developer, founded by Russian
oligarchs Yuri Zhukov and Kirill Pisarev (and still run by Pisarev).
Like Soros and the Rothschilds, Ukrainian oligarch Pinchuk works with and partners with a
number of Russian oligarchs. And his YES summits regularly feature Putin-allied Russian
oligarchs, as well as Putin-appointed Russian politicians and apparatchiks. Alfa Bank, Russia's
largest private bank, for example, is a YES sponsor. And Alfa Bank chairman, Mikhail Fridman, a
Putin ally and one of Russia's richest billionaires, sits on the CFR's International Advisory
Board and provided the funds to create the CFR's "Russia and Russian-American Relations
Lecture" program.
Similarly, Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest oligarch, a former
Putin-Yanukovych supporter and ally, is now a member of the new government. He is also, along
with Fridman and Soros, a YES sponsor and a business partner with Russian, EU and U.S.
Insiders. What these and dozens of other similar examples indicate is that there is much more
to all of the Sturm und Drang over the Ukraine-Russia-EU "crisis" than meets the
eye.
Soros gave a strong clue as to what the scripted outcome of the scenario would likely be.
His solution would see Russia as a "partner," and Angela Merkel (the "former" Communist from
East Germany who now runs the unified Germany) would be the broker.
"Germany should take the lead," Soros said, in his February 26 Project Syndicate column
cited above. "Chancellor Angela Merkel must reach out to President Vladimir Putin to ensure
that Russia is a partner, not an opponent, in the Ukrainian renaissance."
Instructions on the WB info says your disclosure must involve Classified Information, but not
about differences of opinions, and "please identify the agency wrongdoing".
Then you are faced with who-knows lawyer warnings by numbers/letters like "Section 2302
(a)(2)(A) of Title 5" and "threat prohibited under subsection (g)(3)(B)" .
But here's their HotLine number in case you want to Ask Them any Questions:
ICIG Hotline 855-731-3260 (Intelligence Community Inspector General)
"... Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway. ..."
Folks, this "Ukraine Whistleblower" event was a
pre-planned event. As we begin to understand the general outline of how the Schiff Dossier was
assembled, we are now starting to get into the specifics. First discovered by researcher Stephen
McIntyr e, there is now evidence surfacing showing the ICIG recently created an entirely
new 'whistleblower complaint form' that specifically allowed for the filing of complaints "
heard from others ".
... ... ...
The timing here is far too coincidental. This was a set-up .
Sean Davis from the Federalist
is also hot on the trail.
Sean Davis – Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly
eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged
wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community's behavior regarding the
August submission of a
whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no
longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to
Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are
reporting.
The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until
after the transcript of Trump's July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr
Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand
knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have
zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only "heard about [wrongdoing] from
others."
The internal properties of the
newly revised "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form , which the intelligence community
inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community
Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24,
2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released
to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no
specific date of revision is disclosed. (
read more )
President Trump announced Joseph Macguire as the Acting ODNI on August 8th, 2019 . (
link ) The CIA operative "whistle-blower" letter to Adam Schiff and Richard Burr was on
August 12th ( link
). Immediately following this letter, the ICIG rules and requirements for "whistle-blowers" was
modified, allowing hearsay complaints. On August 28th Adam Schiff begins tweeting about the
construct of the complaint.
As Stephen McIntyre notes : "it
appears almost certain that, subsequent to the CIA operative "WB" complaint, the DNI introduced
a brand new Urgent Disclosure Form which offered a previously unavailable alternative to report
allegations with no personal knowledge."
The CIA whistleblower complaint is likely the VERY FIRST complaint allowed using the new
IGIC protocol and standard. Taken in combination with the timeline of the August 12th
notification letter to Schiff and Burr and the Schiff tweet of August 28th, there's little room
for doubt this Ukraine whistleblower impeachment effort was pre-planned.
Additionally, this coordinated effort ties back-in Intelligence Community Inspector General,
Michael K Atkinson .
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also the
DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901) originated.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson . ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay ' whistle-blower '
complaint; an intelligence whistleblower who was " blowing-the-whistle " based on
second hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie '
hearsay '.
Michael K Atkinson
was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National
Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior
legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016
when the stop Trump operation was underway.
... ... ...
Within a heavy
propaganda report from the New York Times there are also details about the Intelligence
Community Inspector General that show the tell-tale fingerprints of the ICIG supportive intent
(emphasis mine):
[ ] Mr. Atkinson, a Trump appointee, nevertheless concluded that the allegations appeared
to be credible and identified two layers of concern.
The first involved a possible violation of criminal law. Mr. Trump's comments to Mr.
Zelensky " could be viewed as soliciting a foreign campaign contribution in violation of the
campaign-finance laws, " Mr. Atkinson wrote , according to the Justice Department memo. (
read
more )
Does the " foreign campaign contribution " angle sound familiar? It should, because
that argument was used in the narrative around the Trump Tower meeting with the Russian
Lobbyist Natalia Veselnitskaya. More specifically, just like FARA violations the overused
"campaign contribution" narrative belongs to a specific network of characters, Lawfare.
The "Schiff Dossier", aka "whistle-blower" complaint was a constructed effort of allied
members within congress and the intelligence apparatus to renew the impeachment effort. The
intelligence team, including the ICIG, changed the whistleblower form to allow the CIA to
insert the Schiff Dossier, written by Lawfare.
And the irony is the jstreet/lawfare group along with congress are taking two weeks off for
Rosh Hashanah/Yom Kippur, day of repentance and day of atonement. What do you wanna make a
bet they're not atoning or repenting of their evil hearts.
The Bongino video (1076 IIRC) did a nice job of showing that Shiff had it before it was
formally filed Schiff references things in the complaint in a tweet prior to the complaint
being filed
"
The Duran's Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss more news
breaking in the Ukrainegate hoax, where "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella appears to have been
acting on behalf of former CIA director John Brennan as a essentially a spy within the Trump
White House.
In April of 2019, Dan Bongino's had figured out that disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok and
his lover Lisa Page, were messaging one another about developing sources to spy within the
White House talking about sending a "CI" guy, and worried about outing "Charlie."
Bongino believes that Strzok and Page were referencing Ciaramella as being a "Confidential
Informant" (CI), or spy. Bongino notes that Paul Sperry may have dropped a hint in the way he
included a "pronunciation note" regarding the whistleblower's name (pronounced char -a-MEL-ah)
may have referred to "Charlie" in the Strzok/Page texts.
October 4, 2019 by sundance The inspector
general for the Intelligence Community is Michael Atkinson . He is very sketchy. Atkinson was
previously legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD during the 'stop-Trump' tenure of John Carlin and Mary
McCord. As a result, Atkinson was a participant in the weaponizing of the DOJ-NSD via FISA
abuse, along with NSA database exploitation and tenuous FARA legal theories used to target
political opposition.
In short, Atkinson seems dirty. At the very least he hangs around dirty characters.
Today, according to Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge , ICIG
Michael Atkinson testified the anti-Trump CIA ' whistle-blower' , likely to be Michael
Barry, did not inform Atkinson that Barry and his legal team already contacted staff working
for HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff when he submitted his complaint. More sketchy .
After he took the complaint, ICIG Michael Atkinson then changed the rules for the ICIG
office allowing a second-hand hearsay complaint to be processed. Again, sketchy .
According to New York Times reporting
earlier this week, the 'whistle-blower' (likely CIA operative Michael Barry) first tried to
push the hearsay claims to CIA management through a colleague. Fearing CIA management would not
take the gossip seriously "the officer then approached a democrat House Intelligence Committee
aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump." Chairman Schiff never told anyone.
Buckets of sketchy .
Mr. Sketchy –
ICIG Michael Atkinson
What is occurring is becoming clear
After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the House "impeachment" strategy, House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler
hired Lawfare Group members to become committee staff.
Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (
link ), and Chairman Nadler hired Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal
defense attorney Barry Berke (
link ), all are within the Lawfare network. [You probably saw Berke questioning former
Trump campaign chairman Corey Lewandowski.]
It now looks like the Lawfare network constructed the 'whistle-blower' complaint aka
a Schiff Dossier, and handed it to allied CIA operative
Michael Barry to file as a formal IC complaint. This process is almost identical to the
Fusion-GPS/Lawfare network handing the Steele Dossier to the FBI to use as the evidence for the
2016/2017 Russia conspiracy.
This series of events is exactly what former CIA Analyst Fred Fleiz said last week . Fleitz has extensive knowledge of the
whistleblower process. Fleitz said last week the Ukraine call whistleblower is likely driven by
political motives, and his sources indicate he had help from Congress members while writing
it.
Additionally, prior to the "whistleblower complaint" the Intelligence Community Inspector
General did not accept whistle-blower claims without first hand knowledge. However, the ICIG
revised the protocol to allow this specific complaint to be registered by the CIA
whistle-blower .
Now it surfaces that the ICIG Michael Atkinson didn't even review the Trump-Zelenskyy phone
call transcript before forwarding the complaint to congress [
SEE HERE ]
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson . ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay ' whistle-blower '
complaint; an intelligence whistleblower who was " blowing-the-whistle " based on second
hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie ' hearsay
'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also the
DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901) originated.
Michael K Atkinson
was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National
Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior
legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016
when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court
( Judge Rosemary Collyer )
about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA
application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political
surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter
of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD
FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, current ICIG Atkinson -as the lawyer for the
process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.
Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate
with the Pelosi-Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective. Sketchy!
The possibility of CrowdStrike central role in creation of Russiagate might be one reason that Congressional Democrats (and
Republicans) were trying to swipe under the carpet the part of Trump conversation where he asked Zelenski to help to recover
server images CrowdStrike shipped to Ukraine.
Another question is that now it is possible that one of CrowdStrike employees or Alperovich himself played the role of Gussifer
2.0
Notable quotes:
"... There is strong reason to doubt Mueller's suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange. ..."
"... Mueller's decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions. ..."
"... the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking. ..."
"... John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller's investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump. ..."
Most of the material in this article will be familiar to regular readers of SST because I
wrote about it first. Here are the key conclusions:
The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that
Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence
officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to
WikiLeaks.
The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative,
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not
only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that
provided them.
There is strong reason to doubt Mueller's suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout
called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
Mueller's decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims
Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of
evidence on fundamental questions.
U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the
Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers
themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for
the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as "Russian dossier" compiler Christopher Steele,
also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors
squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller
ignores.
Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel
to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be
revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
Mueller's report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out
the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a
private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was
sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the
collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked
hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all
facets of what became Mueller's investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial
collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment
that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate.
Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral
party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.
I encourage you to read the piece. It is well written and provides an excellent overview of
critical events in the flawed investigation.
The report comes one day after Republicans on the House Intel committee released their own "
prebuttal " claiming Trump committed "no quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, or abuse of
power. The Democrats' report will be combined with the 'prebuttal' and sent to the House
Judiciary Committee, which will draft articles of impeachment following their own inquiry.
They claim there is "nothing inherently wrong" with the Trump administration's actions
toward Ukraine and justify each of them in detail, including Rudy Giuliani's direct
involvement in U.S. diplomacy.
They say any references to a quid pro quo are conjecture and hearsay -- including EU
Ambassador and Trump donor Gordon Sondland's testimony.
They question the origins of the impeachment inquiry and Democrats' motives, and they
allege that Democrats have wanted to undo the 2016 election since Trump won.
They mock Democrats for calling the impeachment inquiry a serious process, and they
characterize the speedy nature of the inquiry as proof that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is
motivated by politics rather than substance.
They use Trump's well-known skepticism about U.S. spending on foreign aid as
justification for his hesitation to give money to Ukraine.
They say there was "nothing wrong" with asking questions about Hunter Biden's role on the
board of Burisma, a Ukrainian company, or renewing unfounded allegations about who interfered
in the 2016 elections.
Neoliberal Soros is an enemy of the western civilization... He is yet another "great vampire
squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything
that smells like money." His tentacles spread to Ukraine and his money and NGO was instrumental
in EuroMaydan coup d'état. Of course, the USA agencies such as the State Delatment and CIA
played the primary role, but Soros role also should not be underestimated.
"First on Ukraine, one of the things that many people recognized about you was that you
during the revolutions of 1989 funded a lot of dissident activities, civil society groups in
eastern Europe and Poland, the Czech Republic. Are you doing similar things in Ukraine?"
Zakaria
asked Soros .
"Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the
foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now," Soros
responded.
It is well-known, although forbidden for the establishment media to mention, that Soros
worked closely with USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy (now doing work formerly
assigned to the CIA), the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute
for International Affairs, the Freedom House, and the Albert Einstein Institute to initiate a
series of color revolutions in Eastern Europe and Central Asia following the engineered
collapse of the Soviet Union.
"Many of the participants in Kiev's 'EuroMaidan' demonstrations were members of Soros-funded
NGOs and/or were trained by the same NGOs in the many workshops and conferences sponsored by
Soros' International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), and his various Open Society institutes and
foundations. The IRF, founded and funded by Soros, boasts that it has given 'more than any
other donor organization' to 'democratic transformation' of Ukraine," writes
William F. Jasper .
This transformation led to fascist ultra-nationalists controlling Ukraine's security
services. In April it was announced Andriy
Parubiy and other coup leaders were working with the FBI and CIA to defeat and murder
separatists opposed to the junta government installed by Victoria Nuland and the State
Department. Parubiy is the founder of a national socialist party in Ukraine and currently the
boss of the country's National Security and Defense Council.
Now that the billionaire "chocolate king" Petro Poroshenko is president of Ukraine, the
effort to wipe out all opposition in eastern Ukraine will pick up steam. Poroshenko is a near
perfect choice for the globalists and EU apparatchiks. He sat on the Council of the National
Bank of Ukraine and collaborated with the IMF, Wall Street and the European Commission.
Poroshenko and the February coup leaders are now
killing civilians in Donetsk as the effort continues to dislodge and eradicate "pro-Russian
militants" and "terrorists," i.e., armed resistance fighters going up against Right Sector
enforcers possibly accompanied by American mercenaries with the help of the CIA. Civilians are
also victims in "rebel"-held Slovyansk and neighboring Kramatorsk as retaliation against
resistance to the junta in Kyiv intensifies.
The military response with its overly fascist character, including the
terrorist torching of a trade union building in Odessa by "pro-regime rioters" (i.e., Right
Sector paramilitaries), can be directly attributed to the activism of George Soros and the
hands-on approach of the U.S. State Department, various NGOs (which are, in fact, government
and Wall Street fronts), and USAID, NED, and the malattributed "Freedom House," etc.
Following the murder and expulsion of those opposed to the IMF lording over the government
and the people of Ukraine, Russia can expect further provocation, especially now that it has
stepped away from supporting the resistance. The financial elite and their EU collaborators are
determined to diminish and ultimately eliminate any challenge by Russia and the BRICS as these
countries move to counter the neoliberal financial agenda.
"The buildup of NATO air and ground forces along the borders of Russia in eastern Europe and
President Barack Obama's American power-influencing trip to Asia have a single purpose,"
Wayne Madsen wrote earlier this month. "The seen and unseen forces who dictate policy to
their political puppets in Washington, London, Paris, Brussels, Berlin, and other vassal
capital cities have decided to smash BRICS – the emergent financial power bloc
encompassing Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa."
In his foreign policy Trump looks like a Republican Obama, save Nobel Peace Price. If Obama was/is a CIA-democrat, this guy
is a Deep State controlled republican. Why is the Deep State is attacking him is completely unclear. May be they just do not like unpredictable,
inpulsive politicians
Despite his surrender "Neocon crazies from the basement" still attack his exactly the same way as they attacked him for pretty
mundane meeting with Putin and other fake "misdeeds" like Ukrainegate
And that means that he lost a considerable part of his electorate: the anti-war republicans and former Sanders supporters, who voted
for him in 2016 to block Hillary election.
And in no way he is an economic nationalist. He is "national neoliberal" which rejects parts of neoliberal globalization based on
treaties and prefer to bully nations to compliance that favor the US interests instead of treaties. And his "fight" with the Deep state
resemble so closely to complete and unconditional surrender, that you might have difficulties to distinguish between the two. Most of
his appointees are rabid neocons. Just look at Pompeo, Bolton, Fiona Hill. That that extends far beyond those obvious crazies.
Washington Post stating that he "has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details" of his discussions with Russian President
Vladimir Putin - telling Fox News host Jeanine Pirro in a phone interview that he would be willing to release the details of a private
conversation in Helsinki last summer.
"I would. I don't care," Trump told Pirro, adding: "I'm not keeping anything under wraps. I couldn't care less."
"I mean, it's so ridiculous, these people making up," Trump said of the WaPo report.
The president referred to his roughly two-hour dialogue with Putin in Helsinki -- at which only the leaders and their translators
were present -- as "a great conversation" that included discussions about "securing Israel and lots of other things."
"I had a conversation like every president does," Trump said Saturday. "You sit with the president of various countries. I
do it with all countries." -
Politico
In July an attempt by House Democrats to subpoena Trump's Helsinki interpreter was quashed by Republicans. "The Washington Post
is almost as bad, or probably as bad, as the New York Times," Trump said. When Pirro asked Trump about a Friday night New York
Times report that the FBI had opened an inquiry into whether he was working for Putin, Pirro asked Trump "Are you now or have you
ever worked for Russia, Mr. President?" "I think it's the most insulting thing I've ever been asked," Trump responded. "I think
it's the most insulting article I've ever had written."
Trump went on an
epic tweetstorm Saturday following the Times article, defending his 2017 firing of former FBI Director James Comey, and tweeting
that he has been "FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President. At the same time, &
as I have often said, getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday we will have good relations
with Russia again!"
The early winter holidays are notorious for giving people the blues, but as the last
Thanksgiving leftovers slide into the stockpot, the Democratic Party was put on suicide watch .
Is the ghost of Jeffrey Epstein in charge? It's a little late to call an exorcist.
The gun pointed at the Democrats' head now is a stubby little low-caliber weapon in the
person of Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who has only grazed the
party's skull in two previous misfirings. The third time, the old saying goes, may be the
charm.
When Mr. Nadler entertained Special Counsel Robert Mueller in July, he succeeded
spectacularly in discrediting Mr. Mueller, and the inquisition he rode in on . It was the worst
public demonstration of aphasia since William Jennings Bryan had a stroke at the Scopes Trial
in 1925. Mr. Mueller's pitiful performance put to rest the last sticky tendril of hope that his
tortured report might avail to cast out the arch-demon in the White House. Even the Republicans
on the dais seemed to feel sorry for him. True to his character as a schoolyard sap wearing a
"kick me" sign on his back, Mr. Nadler just waddled away in a fog of bamboozlement, hitching
his pants up to his sternum, to plot his next foolish move .
Which was to haul former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski into the committee in
September. Mr. Lewandowski's performance was the equivalent of watching poor Mr. Nadler get
hitched to the rear bumper of a Lincoln Navigator and dragged over several miles of broken Coke
bottles. And yet, ever-sturdy, like one of those plastic punching dummies with all its weight
on the bottom, Mr. Nadler just popped back up, adjusted his "kick me" sign, and moved on to his
next folly: the current comedy of errors around impeachment.
Really, the only question now is what new way will Mr. Nadler find to humiliate himself and
mortify his party? Opening testimony this week will be supplied by a panel of Woke
constitutional law professors who will attempt to tease out some hermeneutic legal basis for an
impeachment other than actual misdeeds. They'll surely settle on thought-crime, since there is
nothing else. Whose idea was it to hit the snooze button just as the curtain goes up on the
show?
Next will come a mighty hassle over whether the minority can call witnesses of its own
choosing. Ranking member Doug Collins (R-GA) has already asked for an appearance by Adam
Schiff, chair of the House Intel Committee, whose procedural shenanigans last month embarrassed
anyone with a vestigial memory of Anglo-American due process. Some folks think that Mr. Schiff
has got some 'splainin' to do about the predicating circumstances of his star chamber
spectacle. He is, in fact, a fact-witness to all that, on top of being the issuer today of his
own committee's report on all that, and therefore susceptible to public examination --
especially in a train of proceedings as grave as impeachment. If Mr. Nadler enables Mr. Schiff
to slither out of testifying, there will be hell to pay, and in the not-so-likely prospect of
an actual impeachment trial in the senate, it would be paid there as an unleashed defense goes
for Mr. Schiff with pithing needles and thumbscrews of genuine interrogation.
NEVER MISS
THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
Then there is the "Whistleblower," this would-be pimpernel of perfidy hiding behind Adam
Schiff's apron under the false assertion that he is entitled to everlasting anonymity. What an
idea under our system of jurisprudence! In fact, contrary to Mr. Schiff's public
pronouncements, there is no law that states what he claims -- one of several things Mr. Schiff
can be called to account for. And that is even if you accept the dishonest proposition that the
fugitive who started this fiasco even was a whistleblower, rather than a rogue CIA officer
acting on explicitly illegal political motives to interfere in the 2020 election . The CIA, you
must know, is forbidden by charter and statute from operating against American citizens,
including the president of the United States. Under the circumstances, the so-called
"Whistleblower" might fairly be accused of treason.
Has anyone failed to notice that one of the "Whistleblower's" attorneys, Mark Zaid, tweeted
notoriously on January 30, 2017 that " Coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion.
#impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers ." Mr. Zaid later explained, "I was referring to
a completely lawful process." Yeah, sure. I think he meant a completely Lawfare process . Of
course, the engineered "Whistleblower" escapade was only the latest (perhaps the last) chapter
in the annals of nefarious events and actions carried out far-and-wide by several government
agencies for three years, and by many officials working within them, and not a few freelance
rogues in their service. There is no more accurate way to describe all that except as a coup.
The authorities looking into all that have not been heard from yet. The portentous silence is
making a lot of people in Washington edgy.
If the various House committees have put the Democratic Party on suicide watch, then
something even more deadly is lurking just offstage. Hillary Clinton is making noises about
jumping into the 2020 election. She senses opportunity as Joe Biden goes pitifully through the
motions of running for office to avoid prosecution for his international grifting operations as
Veep. Think of Hillary as the cyanide capsule that the party might actually choose to bite down
on as the year ominously turns.
Not really a death wish,just ignorance.Walter Hooper told CS Lewis about the epitaph of a
notable atheist'All dressed up and no place to go'To which Lewis replied,'I'll bet he wishes
that were so...'
People who believe that the democrats are doomed are ignoring a very important and large
part of the equation---the democrat base is the most ignorant, brainwashed and insane group
of people the world has ever seen.
Sure, the DNC is a clown show and tragedy of errors. But it doesn't matter when a
significant % of the population is incapable of perceiving anything close to reality.
It is not going to work any longer. Talk of "Democrats" or "Republicans". The world is
rapidly getting wise. It is the Zionists who own and run both parties...
Republicans instead want to mire Democrats in a sloppy fight, making the hearings into such
a confusing mishmash of competing information that even Republicans troubled by Mr. Trump's
actions see no upside in breaking with him. They plan to take advantage of early impeachment
advocacy by Mr. Nadler and Democrats on the panel to portray the Ukraine matter as simply
another attempt by Mr. Trump's critics to take him down.
"Any article to come out of this? There is no world in which a Republican, especially on the
Judiciary Committee, will accept this," Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the panel's top
Republican, said in an interview. "We have seen this sideshow up close all year."
Joining Mr. Collins on Republicans' side of the dais are some of the most ardent culture
warriors and defenders of Mr. Trump: Louie Gohmert of Texas, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Andy Biggs
of Arizona and Jim Jordan of Ohio, who led
the president's defense in the Intelligence Committee . They have already shown a flair for
the dramatic, organizing conservative lawmakers to
storm the Intelligence Committee's secure chambers in a stunt to stall the proceedings,
which they called a "kangaroo court."
Mr. Collins, a Georgia lawyer with an auctioneer's cadence and a lawyer's knack for tripping
up committee business with time-consuming parliamentary tactics, is ready to make the
proceedings as painful as possible for Democrats. He warned that if Mr. Nadler intended to jam
articles of impeachment through the committee, he would go down in history as "a giant rubber
stamp" for Ms. Pelosi and Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the Intelligence
Committee chairman.
Trump called the Democrats bluff when he released the transcript. That changed their
narrative and destroyed their strategy. Now they can impeach and take it to the Senate. They
won't. They know that is where their continuous charade will be exposed for what it really
is. Nothing more than the slander that was Stormy, Mueller, obstruction, Blasey-Ford, racism,
homophobia, misogyny, collusion, et. al.
I'm beginning to see this impeachment circus as it was practiced in the Soviet Union; present
an obvious political accusations to rub out an opponent and have the rest of the minions pile
on to approve an beforehand agreed upon verdict. Yes this is and will be a circus made for
MSNBC.
So, "this spring", Representative Nadler was asking his (Democratic) colleagues on the
Judiciary panel whether "given the facts before us", they were "heading toward" impeaching
the President. This question was put, of course, weeks if not months before the presidential
conversation with the Ukrainian President that now has them all in a partisan froth. This
proves that for the Democrats, impeachment has always been more a political cause looking for
a reason, than a response to high crimes. That makes this the equivalent to the Clinton
impeachment, generally now acknowledged to have been a political mistake for the Republicans.
That's why the Speaker has been reluctant to allow this process to go forward, and should be
something to keep in mind for Representative Nadler as well.
The GOP line of defense - that the deep state is out to get him - is both nonsense and true.
There is the old saying that it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. In that
context Trump and his minions do have a point. We really are out to get him. From the
beginning of his bizarre, crude, confabulating campaign, a majority of Americans have opposed
him. That's called democracy, not a deep state conspiracy. Trump's lack of fitness,
temperament and preparation are self-evident. Robert Mueller's report cited broad cooperation
with a foreign power in election tampering and highlighted at least 10 instances of
obstruction of justice that might be prosecuted if not for the Justice Department memo
suggesting that a sitting president may not be indicted. It is not a stretch to compare this
bizzaro world to a story of organized crime figures whining that the cops are just out to get
them and those darned reporters just keep printing photos of the bodies and blood. It's just
so unfair!
Here's an an interesting idea for Democrats to ponder: Suppose Trump is impeached and then
Pelosi did NOT immediately send the case to the Senate, but instead declared it would be
wrong to hold a trial in a hot election year, but that it could be picked up later. Of
course, Trump would yell bloody murder about his "right" to a speedy trial but no such right
exists, and besides, didn't McConnell invoke the same in the Merrick Garland case? This would
leave Trump twisting in the wind while the Dems pursued their winning kitchen table agenda.
Of course, a Democratic victory would make the case moot while a Democratic defeat would
still leave the option open to try and remove him. Your thoughts?
How can the White House put up a defense when it's unclear what the charges are? While
witnesses who testified during the impeachment inquiry presented many reasons why they think
Americans should not vote for Trump in 2020, none of them alleged the president committed
treason, bribery or a high crime or misdemeanor. (People who disagree should cite testimony.)
Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified that he put "two and two together" and "presumed" that
the president would refuse to meet with President Zelensky at the White House unless Zelensky
publicly announced he was investigating Burisma and the Bidens. The two presidents met at the
United Nations instead of the White House. The expectation that the Senate will remove the
president from office for meeting Zelensky at the UN instead of the White House is
delusional. Committee Chairman Adam Schiff coaxed witness Fiona Hill into recounting a
childhood incident in which her classmates set her pigtails ablaze, but it's unclear whether
the articles of impeachment will alleged Trump had anything to do with the incident.
"When all is said and done, given the facts before us, are we heading toward impeaching this
president?" You tell lies: The Democratic Party, and its supporters, have called for
impeachment since the day after Trump's election. It's not based on "facts." The premise of
this article is that the Democrats were struggling with a decision about whether to impeach
or not. The premise is false and insincere because the decision to impeach the president was
made before he ever took office. In addition, "The Blue Wave" Democrats ran on impeaching the
president. It was a campaign promise. So there was no struggle to decide. The only "struggle"
was how to present it so it would succeed.
With a Senate acquittal guaranteed, and McConnell skilled at putting on a circus, it's crazy
to impeach Trump and hand the torch to the GOP. The smarter path would be to broadcast to the
public that we know the game is rigged and we're not playing. Pass a strong censure and get
back to campaigning on the kitchen table issues that won the House in 2018. We have both a
winning and a losing formula. Choose to win!
"... No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian antipathy to Russia. ..."
Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the
point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest.
That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.
phenomenal cat @64
So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give
a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed
in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that
Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of
Russians do.
Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them.
Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to
restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic
states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)
"So
democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them?"
No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on
U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported
Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll
note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi
Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way
of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic
forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian
antipathy to Russia.
"I'd give a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections."
Yeah, it'd be interesting to see what the U.S. looked like with those dynamics in place.
"Those have been slowly crushed in Russia. The results for transparency have not been
great."
If you say so. For now I'll leave any decisions or actions taken on these outcomes to Russian
citizens. I would, however, kindly tell Victoria Nuland and her ilk to fuck off with their senile
Cold War fantasies, morally bankrupt, third-rate Great Game machinations, and total spectrum dominance
sociopathy.
"Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot
down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do."
There's definitely some of 'em hanging about, but yeah it mostly seems to be a motley assortment
of oligarchs, gangsters, and grifters tied into international neoliberal capital and money flows.
No doubt Russian believe a lot things. I find Americans tend to believe a lot things as well.
"... Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect it, everybody else be damned. ..."
"... Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class". ..."
"... Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch". ..."
Some paranoid claptrap to go along with your usual anti intellectualism.
Interestingly, with your completely unrelated non sequitur, you've actually illustrated something that does relate to Krugmans
post. Namely that there are wingnuts among us. They've taken over the Republican Party, but the left has some too. Fortunately
though the Democratic Party hasn't been taken over by them yet, and is still mostly run by grown ups.
"I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations."
Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially
people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect
it, everybody else be damned.
Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class".
Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch".
"... The creation of a think tank dedicated to "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombing" is very welcome news. Other than the Cato Institute, there has been nothing like this in Washington, and this tank's focus will be entirely on foreign policy. ..."
"... I am quite amazed that Soros and Koch bro are involved. We will wait to see how this plays out. ..."
Stephen Kinzer
comments on the creation of a new think tank, The Quincy Institute, committed to promoting a foreign policy of restraint and
non-interventionism:
Since peaceful foreign policy was a founding principle of the United States, it's appropriate that the name of this think tank
harken back to history. It will be called the Quincy Institute, an homage to John Quincy Adams, who in a seminal speech on Independence
Day in 1821 declared that the United States "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom
and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." The Quincy Institute will promote a foreign policy
based on that live-and-let-live principle.
The creation of a think tank dedicated to "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats,
sanctions, and bombing" is very welcome news. Other than the Cato Institute, there has been nothing like this in Washington, and
this tank's focus will be entirely on foreign policy. The lack of institutional support has put advocates of peace and restraint
at a disadvantage for a very long time, so it is encouraging to see that there is an effort underway to change that. The Quincy Institute
represents another example of how antiwar progressives and conservatives can and should work together to change U.S. foreign policy
for the better. The coalition opposed to the war on Yemen showed what Americans opposed to illegal and unnecessary war can do when
they work towards a shared goal of peace and non-intervention, and this institute promises to be an important part of such efforts
in the future. Considering how long the U.S. has been
waging war without end
, there couldn't be a better time for this.
TAC readers and especially readers of this blog will be familiar with the people involved in creating the think tank:
The institute plans to open its doors in September and hold an official inauguration later in the autumn. Its founding donors
-- Soros's Open Society Foundation and the Charles Koch Foundation -- have each contributed half a million dollars to fund its
takeoff. A handful of individual donors have joined to add another $800,000. By next year the institute hopes to have a $3.5 million
budget and a staff of policy experts who will churn out material for use in Congress and in public debates. Hiring is underway.
Among Parsi's co-founders are several well-known critics of American foreign policy, including Suzanne DiMaggio, who has spent
decades promoting negotiated alternatives to conflict with China, Iran and North Korea; the historian and essayist Stephen Wertheim;
and the anti-militarist author and retired Army colonel Andrew Bacevich.
"The Quincy Institute will invite both progressives and anti-interventionist conservatives to consider a new, less militarized
approach to policy," Bacevich said, when asked why he signed up. "We oppose endless, counterproductive war. We want to restore
the pursuit of peace to the nation's foreign policy agenda."
Trita Parsi and Andrew Bacevich are both TAC contributors and have participated in our foreign policy conferences in recent
years. Parsi and I were on the same panel last fall at our most recent conference. I have also cited and learned from arguments made
by Suzanne DiMaggio and Stephen Wertheim in my
posts here . Their involvement is a
very good sign, and it shows both the political breadth and intellectual depth of this new institution. I look forward to seeing
what they do, and I wish them luck.
Good luck. I hope you will be invited on cable shows. I am tired of seeing the beard from the Foundation of the Defense of Democracies
and his clones.
Once in a while the hosts mess up and they interview someone who doesn't give the correct answer about the M.E., or somewhere
else and I see the blank look on their face as they thank the guess as since it is obvious they cannot process the information.
I generally do not see those guests ever again.
The guidelines are, the world is divided into those who crave U.S. leadership and the evildoers who are constantly testing
our leadership. We must always be vigilant against the latter. It is inconceivable that anyone merely act in their own interest.
It is all about us.
I also am looking forward to reading their thoughts and ideas about a foreign policy that doesn't include the US invading yet
another country under the ridiculous notion that we are somehow being threatened by them. We have the largest military on earth.
It's also telling that we pick on and invade countries that can't actually hurt us. That makes us all the more the bully on the
block. It's to our shame that we even consider these shameful actions.
Exciting news. An early endeavor , if not already accomplished, should be consideration of relevant theoretical models for understanding
competition and cooperation. Since the Cold War and to the present day, variants of the Prisoners Dilemma serve this function.
Prior to that, misconceptions of survival of the fittest led to the disasters of eugenics and WW2. Maybe the new think tank will
outline or draw inspiration from a new theory.
Re: "I look forward to seeing what they do, and I wish them luck."
So do I. Very much so. However, the most prominent realist Washington Think Tank is the Cato Institute. It has well spoken
advocates of realism and restraint including Christopher Preble, Doug Bandow and Ted Galen Carpenter. Unfortunately, the thoughtful
Cato scribes get very little exposure on the MSM compared to the atrocious Heritage, AEI and Brookings nests of go along to get
along Neocon / Neoliberal lackeys. It's not clear to me how and why the Quincy Institute will generate any more leverage.
I've argued many times before that the linchpin of the busted U.S. Global Cop foreign policy model is the Pentagon. As long
as the Pentagon hacks are considered the paragons of Olympian insight and wisdom by the political class and the MSM, nothing will
change.
Related to that though, there actually was a hopeful article in the Atlantic about the newest Pentagon Big Mouth, CENTCOM Commander
General General Kenneth McKenzie:
Hopefully, that is a crack in the wall of Military Exceptionalism. The sooner others start taking a 2x4 to the sanctified occupants
of the 5-Sided Pleasure Palace, knocking them off of their pedestals, the better.
BTW, the new Acting Defense Secretary and MIC Parasite Mark Esper is no friend of the taxpayers. Expect that failed Pentagon
audit that was deep-sixed by Mad Dog Mattis to stay deep-sixed with Esper in the Big Seat.
I am quite amazed that Soros and Koch bro are involved. We will wait to see how this plays out.
Jeez, who can believe this amongst the "think" tanks: "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than
threats, sanctions, and bombing"
"... No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian antipathy to Russia. ..."
Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the
point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest.
That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.
phenomenal cat @64
So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give
a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed
in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that
Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of
Russians do.
Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them.
Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to
restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic
states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)
"So
democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them?"
No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on
U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported
Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll
note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi
Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way
of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic
forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian
antipathy to Russia.
"I'd give a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections."
Yeah, it'd be interesting to see what the U.S. looked like with those dynamics in place.
"Those have been slowly crushed in Russia. The results for transparency have not been
great."
If you say so. For now I'll leave any decisions or actions taken on these outcomes to Russian
citizens. I would, however, kindly tell Victoria Nuland and her ilk to fuck off with their senile
Cold War fantasies, morally bankrupt, third-rate Great Game machinations, and total spectrum dominance
sociopathy.
"Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot
down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do."
There's definitely some of 'em hanging about, but yeah it mostly seems to be a motley assortment
of oligarchs, gangsters, and grifters tied into international neoliberal capital and money flows.
No doubt Russian believe a lot things. I find Americans tend to believe a lot things as well.
"... Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect it, everybody else be damned. ..."
"... Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class". ..."
"... Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch". ..."
Some paranoid claptrap to go along with your usual anti intellectualism.
Interestingly, with your completely unrelated non sequitur, you've actually illustrated something that does relate to Krugmans
post. Namely that there are wingnuts among us. They've taken over the Republican Party, but the left has some too. Fortunately
though the Democratic Party hasn't been taken over by them yet, and is still mostly run by grown ups.
"I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations."
Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially
people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect
it, everybody else be damned.
Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class".
Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch".
"... Authored by Peter Hitchens via The Mail On Sunday blog, ..."
"... I stood outside the safe house, in a road I cannot name, in a major European city I cannot identify, not sure what I might find inside. I had no way of being sure. ..."
"... In decades of journalism I have received quite a few leaks ..."
"... But I've never seen one like this. It scared me. ..."
"... If bodies such as the OPCW cannot be trusted, then World War Three could one day be started by a falsehood. ..."
I stood outside the safe house, in a road I cannot name, in a major European city I cannot
identify, not sure what I might find inside. I had no way of being sure.
I had travelled a long distance by train to an address I had been given over an encrypted email.
I was nervous that the meeting might be some sort of trap.
Leaks from inside arms
verification organisations are very sensitive matters. Powerful people mind about them.
I wasn't sure whether to be afraid of being followed, or to be worried about who might be waiting behind
the anonymous door on a dark afternoon, far from home. I took all the amateurish precautions that I could
think of.
As it happened, it was not a trap. Now, on carefully selected neutral ground, I was to meet a person
who would confirm suspicions that had been growing in my mind over several years – that there is something
rotten in the way that chemical weapons inspections are being conducted and reported. And that the world
could be hurried into war on the basis of such inspections.
Inside the safe house, I was greeted by a serious, patient expert, a non-political scientist
whose priority had until now always been to do the hard, gritty work of verification
– travelling
to the scenes of alleged horrors, sifting and searching for hard evidence of what had really happened.
But this entirely honourable occupation had slowly turned sour.
The whiff of political interference had begun as a faint unpleasant smell in the air and grown
until it was an intolerable stench.
Formerly easy-going superiors had turned into tricky bureaucrats.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had become so important that it could
no longer be allowed to do its job properly.
Too many of the big powers that sponsor and finance it were breathing down its neck, wanting certain
results, whether the facts justified them or not.
My source calmly showed me various pieces of evidence that they were who they said they were,
and knew what they claimed to know, making it clear that they worked for the OPCW and knew its inner workings.
They then revealed a document to me.
This was the email of protest, sent to senior OPCW officials, saying that a report on the alleged Syrian
poison gas attack in Douma, in April 2018, had been savagely censored so as to alter its meaning.
In decades of journalism I have received quite a few leaks
:
leaks
over luxurious, expensive lunches with Cabinet Ministers, anonymous leaks that just turned up in envelopes,
leaks from union officials and employers, diplomats and academics.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read
stories.
Please enter a valid email
Thank you for subscribing!
Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again.
But I've never seen one like this. It scared me.
If it was true, then
something hugely dishonest and dangerous was going on, in a place where absolute integrity was vital.
If bodies such as the OPCW cannot be trusted, then World War Three could one day be
started by a falsehood.
Last week I reported on the first episode in this story. Within days the OPCW had confirmed that the
email I leaked was authentic.
Nobody followed me home or threatened me. A few silly people on social media told blatant lies about
me, insinuating that I was somehow a Russian patsy or a defender of the disgusting Syrian regime that
I have been attacking in print for nearly 20 years. That was what I had expected.
But there is much more to come.
And, as it grows harder for everyone to ignore this
enormous, dangerous story,
I suspect I shall be looking over my shoulder rather more than usual.
A con man of the first order. Fewer and fewer are seeing him as a decent man. Just another
neoliberal. When he was in his in first term and said to a bunch of reporters in a hamburger stand that
he was the same as a 1960's moderate Republican, I couldn't believe that people gave him a
pass.
It was so obvious. I never made the mistake of voting for him again. I'm glad it's finally
getting through to people what a phony, greedy person he is.
He and his neoliberal ilk are why this country is declining rapidly into economic and social
disaster and why South America and Europe are now on fire with right-wing coups and massive
demonstrations.
With the power structures combining to purposely decimate the world population, I see
nothing but historic calamity facing all of us. I just hope the 1% have to pay the piper as
well.
Take a mild-mannered Constitutional Law professor, wave a magic wand and utter "Abracadabra!"
and you get a full-blown apologist for US Imperialism! "We are the Indispensable Nation We
are the Indispensable Nation We are the Indispensable Nation " Stop the world, I want to get
off!
Who's for starting a pool to guess the month and week Barack Obama announces – with
reluctance – that for "the good of the Nation and Party" he would accept the
nomination, were it to be offered?
Barack vs Hillary, Round 2: Better than "The Thrilla in Manilla" or "The Rumble in the
Jungle."
Follow-up: Will the Democratic Party survive the campaign and convention?
"... Furthermore, on November 17th, the same day when riots broke out in Iran against Iran's Government, Abdullah Muradoğlu headlined in Turkey's newspaper Yeni Safak , "Bolivia's Morales was overthrown by a Western coup just like Iran's Mosaddeg" , and he presented strong circumstantial evidence that that coup, too -- which had occurred on November 10th -- had been a U.S. operation. How could Trump criticize Obama for the coup against Ukraine when Trump's own coup against Bolivia is in the news? America is now a two-Party fascist dictatorship. One criminal U.S. President won't publicly expose the crimes of another criminal U.S. President who was his predecessor. ..."
"... The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and was therefore extremely hostile toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on the front line of America's war to conquer Russia . Trump might be too stupid to understand anything about ideology or geostrategy, but only if a person accepts neoconservatism is the anger that these subordinates of his express toward him for his being viewed by them as placing other concerns (whether his own, or else America's for withdrawing America from Obama's war against Russia) suitable reason for Congress to force Trump out of office. ..."
"... a policy of Obama's that Trump should instead firmly have abandoned and denounced as soon as he became President. Testimony from his own enemies, whom Trump had been stupid enough to have appointed, when he hadn't simply extended Obama's neoconservative policies and personnel regarding Ukraine, falls far short of impeachable. ..."
"... But right and wrong won't determine the outcome here anyway, because America has become a two-party, one-ideology, dictatorship. ..."
And you know, I'll say this to President Trump. You want to investigate Joe Biden? You
want to investigate Hunter Biden? Go at it. Do it. Do it hard. Do it dirty. Do it the way you
do, do it. Just don't do it by asking a foreign leader to help you in your campaign. That's
your job, it's not his.
My goal in these hearings is two things. One is to get an answer to Colonel Vindman's
question ["Is it improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign
government investigate a United States citizen and political opponent?"] . And the second
coming out of this is for us as a Congress to return to the Ukraine policy that Nancy Pelosi
and Kevin McCarthy both support, it's not investigations, it's the restoration of democracy
in Ukraine and the resistance of Russian aggression.
He wants a return to Obama's anti-Russian Ukraine-policy. Though Zelensky had won Ukraine's
Presidency by a record-shattering 73% because he had promised to end the war (which the U.S.
had started), America's Deep State are refusing to allow that -- they want to force him to
accept more U.S.-made weapons and more U.S. training of Ukraine's troops in how to use them
against its next-door neighbor Russia.
Furthermore, in some respects, Trump is even more neoconservative than Obama was. Trump
single-handedly nullified Obama's only effective and good achievement, the Iran nuclear deal.
Against Iran, Trump is considerably more of a neocon than was Obama. Trump has squeezed
Iranians so hard with his sanctions as to block other countries from buying from and selling to
Iran; and this blockade has greatly impoverished Iranians, who now are rioting against their
Government. Trump wants them to overthrow their Government. His plan might succeed. Trump's
biggest donor, Sheldon
Adelson , hates Iranians, and Trump is his man. On Iran, Trump remains a super-neocon.
Perhaps Adelson doesn't require him to hate Russians too.
Furthermore, on November 17th, the same day when riots broke out in Iran against Iran's
Government, Abdullah Muradoğlu headlined in Turkey's newspaper Yeni Safak ,
"Bolivia's Morales was overthrown by a Western coup just like Iran's Mosaddeg" , and he
presented strong circumstantial evidence that that coup, too -- which had occurred on November
10th -- had been a U.S. operation. How could Trump criticize Obama for the coup against Ukraine
when Trump's own coup against Bolivia is in the news? America is now a two-Party fascist
dictatorship. One criminal U.S. President won't publicly expose the crimes of another criminal
U.S. President who was his predecessor.
The next much-discussed witness that the Democrats brought forth to testify against Trump
was America's Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, on November 20th. Sondland was a hotels
and real-estate tycoon like Trump. Prior to Trump's becoming President, Sondland had had no
experience in diplomacy. At the start of 2017, "four companies registered to Sondland
donated $1 million to the Donald Trump inaugural committee" ; and, then, a year later,
Trump appointed him to this Ambassadorial post. Sondland evasively responded to the aggressive
questioning by Senate Democrats trying to get him to say that Trump had been trying to "bribe"
Zelensky. Then, the Lawfare Blog of the staunchly neoconservative Brookings Institution's
Benjamin Wittes headlined "Gordon Sondland
Accuses the President of Bribery" and Wittes asserted that "today, Amb. Gordon Sondland,
testifying before the House in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, offered a crystal clear account
of how President Trump engaged in bribery." But Sondland provided no evidence except his
opinion, which can be seen online at "Opening Statement before
the United States House of Representatives" , when he said:
Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for
arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make
a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr.
Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that
these investigations were important to the President.
I asked the President, what do you want from Ukraine? The President responded, nothing.
There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro. No quid pro quo multiple times.
This was a very short call. And I recall that the President was really in a bad mood. I tried
hard to address Ambassador Taylor's concerns because he is valuable and [an] effective
diplomat, and I took very seriously the issues he raised. I did not want Ambassador Taylor to
leave his post and generate even more turnover in the Ukraine Mission."
The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and
was therefore extremely hostile toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on
the front line of America's war to conquer
Russia . Trump might be too stupid to understand anything about ideology or geostrategy,
but only if a person accepts neoconservatism is the anger that these subordinates of his
express toward him for his being viewed by them as placing other concerns (whether his own, or
else America's for withdrawing America from Obama's war against Russia) suitable reason for
Congress to force Trump out of office.
Given that Trump, even in Sondland's account, did say
"The President responded, nothing. There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro.
No quid pro quo multiple times," there is nothing that's even close to a "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standard which is provided by their personal feelings that Trump had a quid-pro-quo
about anything regarding Ukraine -- a policy of Obama's that Trump should instead firmly
have abandoned and denounced as soon as he became President. Testimony from his own enemies,
whom Trump had been stupid enough to have appointed, when he hadn't simply extended Obama's
neoconservative policies and personnel regarding Ukraine, falls far short of impeachable.
But
right and wrong won't determine the outcome here anyway, because America has become a
two-party, one-ideology, dictatorship.
This is what happens when billionaires control a
country . It produces the type of foreign policies the country's billionaires want, rather
than what the public actually need. This is America's Government, today. It's drastically
different than what America's Founders had hoped. Instead of its representing the states
equally with two Senators for each, and instead of representing the citizens equally, with
proportional per-capita representation in the U.S. House, and instead of yet a third system of
the Electoral College for choosing the Government's Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief, it
has become thoroughly corrupted to being, in effect, just one-dollar-one-vote -- an aristocracy
of wealth controlling the entire Government -- exactly what the Founders had waged the
Revolution in order to overthrow and prevent from ever recurring: a dictatorial aristocracy, as
constituting our Government, today.
US Empire's Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell gets irked that more nations are joining the INSTEX mechanism for commerce with Iran as
shown by his Tweet:
"cc: @TreasurySpox @USTreasury sounds to me like all these people and groups should be added
to the US Sanctions list. We should ensure that they don't get to work in the US market.
Iran or the US -- they decide. But not both ." [My Emphasis]
The nations saying we're not with you are Finland, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway,
and Sweden--what might be termed the more enlightened Europeans.
And here we have Germany's CDU acting in a manner reflecting the Bush Doctrine as it debated
Germany's 5G
rollout :
"The moderates, represented by Merkel, believe that Germany should not rule out any company
over political issues, but focus more on objective factors such as whether its technological
security and standards meet German requirements. However, some hard-liners make it an
ideological issue and believe Huawei should be excluded. The reason they provided is ' no
Chinese company is an independent company,' adding that Huawei's involvement is principally "an
imminent question of national security .
"After decades of following the US, Germany has somewhat lost the ability to independently
decide its development and destiny. But in recent years, the US has been pursuing
unilateralism. The export-oriented German economy is affected by not only China-US trade
conflicts, but also US threat of imposing tariffs on German products. Thus, it is time for
Berlin to stop its fear of threats from Washington and make choices that are in line with its
own interests." [My Emphasis]
Every Evil Outlaw US Empire chartered corporation in the tech realm is not an "independent
company" since they work hand in glove with CIA, NSA, FBI, other government organizations, and
are also funded by the government. The same is likely true of every Western tech company. A
double standard excuse in service of continuing the Bush Doctrine.
To paraphrase Grenell, Now is most certainly the time to declare your independence and
reclaim your sovereignty and cease acting in the service of another nation.
Trump can easily turn the table on his impeachment assuers calling Ukranian "Revolution of
Dignity" what it was: the smashing of constitutional order and installing far right junta. But he
will never do that.
New
York Times is reporting that Trump was aware of the whistleblower memo when he decided to
resume military aid to Ukraine. But after hearing the testimonies of William B. Taylor,
Alexander Vindman, and Fiona Hill, it appears few, if any, Americans changed their mind about
the conclusions they had already reached. Support and opposition to impeachment is the same as
it was before two weeks of public testimony about Ukraine and Trump. According to CNN , nine
in every ten Americans polled say they feel "very strongly" about their opinion.
Trump has been making several moves to try and insulate himself from the inquiry. For one
thing, he is seeking to distance himself from his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, telling Bill
O'Reilly in an interview that he was not aware of his activities in Ukraine: "No, I didn't
direct him. But he's a warrior. Rudy's a warrior. Rudy went. He possibly saw something." He
added, "Rudy has other clients, other than me." The Justice Department has also asked for a
stay on the ruling that former White House counsel Don McGahn must appear before Congress.
Most importantly, the Republican base shows no signs of abandoning Trump. "They're pushing
that impeachment witch hunt. A lot of bad things are happening to them. You see what's
happening in the polls? Everybody said, 'That's really bullshit!'" Trump
said at a campaign rally last night in Sunrise, Florida. The crowd cheered and responded
with chants of "Bullshit! Bullshit!"
Since the beginning of October, polls show no less than 80
percent of Democrats have supported impeachment, no more than 48 percent of independents have,
and no more than 10 percent of Republicans have. Absent a major revelation expect these numbers
to stay right where they are. The presidential election, not impeachment, is what's likely to
determine Trump's fate in 2020.
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter at the National Interest .
Will Democrats actually impeach a president of the US without cause/crime? DC's unholy
trinity, (Democrats, media, and the Deep State) don't want their coup to look like a
coup, so they gin up plausible offenses that fall short of treason, bribery, or other
high crimes and misdemeanors. The problem? The left's media narrative relies on nothing
but opening statements from their hearings -- and leaks from Democrats themselves. The
self-described goal of Mr. Schiff's hearings is to impeach and remove from office a
President elected by 63 million Americans. This requires more transparency and public
scrutiny than Mr. Schiff's unprecedented process of secret testimony, followed by
selective leaks to the friendly media to put everything in the most anti-Trump light, in
order to sway public opinion. But a process that denies the president his rights and
pushes through impeachment without a crime, to exert control over the president, will
effectively subjugate the Executive Branch to the Legislative Branch. Once Congress can
remove a president from office without cause, they will call the shots. Any future
president will govern under the threat of losing the Oval Office unless he goes along
with congressional oversight. Presidents will be commander in chief in name only, because
military/ foreign policy decisions will be subject to congressional review and approval,
Judicial appointments will not be limited to Senate approval, and presidential vetoes
will be a thing of the past. Impeachment without just cause would be a precedent for
Congress to overturn presidential elections at will, revoking the separation of powers,
checks and balances, and will have achieved tyranny.
The minority Republicans are not allowed to speak, call witnesses, or issue subpoenas.
They're powerless, have no legal options, and aren't part of this impeachment effort.
Stand up and walk out of the hearings. Expose the show trial for what it is, a Democrat
plot against the president, and a move to dismantle our Republic. As long as Republicans
allow themselves to be sidelined in these hearings, they make it appear a bipartisan
process, giving an air of legitimacy to this kangaroo court.
I am sick to death of our country, our freedom, and our Republic being used as political
capital. Walk out as an American to uphold your oath to "support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. "Liberty,
once lost, is lost forever." -- John Adams
Speak now, Republicans, or forever hold your peace.
Impeachment with flop like a boneless fish, just like Russiagate did. Of course, the
die-hard liberast progressive lunatics infesting the DNC won't admit to this, but then
why should they start embracing reality now?
Looking forward to another round of autistic screeching when Trump takes it again in
2020. I wonder who the demo-rats (and the Deep State) will choose to blame next time?
Maybe the Chinese? Maybe the "Proud Boys" and other so-called "White Extremists"? Maybe
anyone who doesn't "celebrate" LGBT degeneracy?
An Australian professor has been charged with implementing a bogus harassment campaign
against herself following the controversial cancellation of a degree program.
Dianne Jolley, a professor of environmental chemistry and toxicology at the University of
Technology Sydney, allegedly sent threatening letters to herself between May and September as a
protest against abolition of the degree in traditional Chinese medicine, university officials
believe.
According to Stuff.com, Jolley, who's also the school's Dean of Science, claimed that in
addition to the letters, various articles of clothing had been sent to her ... had clothes
stolen from her backyard.
As a result, "significant security measures" were put in place to protect the professor. But
after an investigation by Sydney Police, officials ended up charging Jolley with "obtaining a
financial advantage by deception, giving false information about a person or property in
danger, and making false representations resulting in a police investigation."
Jolley attorney Aaron Kerneghan said his client would plead "not guilty" to all charges.
"... Vindman appears to believe the national security bureaucracy's account of America's national interests should be immune from civilian challenge. ..."
"... After all, the idea that the United States has a "national security" interest in preventing Russian hegemony in the Donbass region is not obvious, to say the least. American media paints Russia as the unambiguous aggressor in the Ukraine conflict. But as the Cato Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter has written , the truth of the matter is far more complicated: ..."
"... Washington's roster of provocations is long and damaging . With strong U.S. encouragement, NATO's membership has crept inexorably eastward, reaching the western border of the Russian Federation and even incorporating the three Baltic republics, which had been constituent parts of both Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union. Beginning with George W. Bush's administration, Washington has pressed NATO to expand still farther and offer membership to both Georgia and Ukraine. The United States and its allies have greatly increased the number and scope of their military deployments and war games in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea. Barack Obama's administration interfered blatantly in Ukraine's internal political affairs to unseat a democratically elected, pro-Russian government and replace it with a pro-Western regime in 2014. Since then, Washington has made Ukraine a de facto military ally , training and conducting joint military exercises with Ukrainian forces and concluding two significant arms sales to Kiev. ..."
"... John Mearsheimer argues that Putin's annexation of Crimea is best understood as a defensive maneuver: ..."
"... Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a "coup" -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West. ..."
"... In his statement, Vindman suggests that he does not want Americans to have that argument. He posits a Western-aligned Ukraine as self-evidently critical to our national security, and the maintenance of bipartisan support for that premise a duty of a uniformed officer. ..."
"... And Democrats have tacitly affirmed his analysis. From the very beginning of its impeachment inquiry, Nancy Pelosi's caucus has framed Trump's malfeasance in Ukraine as, above all, an affront to America's "national security." ..."
"... Democrats should not let their witnesses (or vestigial attachment to Cold War politics) lead them astray. The notion that America has a clear national security interest in arming Ukraine is dubious on the merits. ..."
...conservatives mustered something approaching a point: that Vindman appears to believe
the national security bureaucracy's account of America's national interests should be immune
from civilian challenge. Or, in the hysterical (and fundamentally
misleading) phrasing of Daily Caller deputy editor J. Arthur Bloom, "This impeachment stuff
is textbook imperial liberalism: the president is accused of thwarting U.S. foreign policy,
because they think foreign policy should not be subject to political control."
Now, there are a few problems with the claim, "Donald Trump is being impeached for nothing
more than challenging the national security Establishment's policy preferences." The biggest,
perhaps, being that Trump has actually done very little to challenge those preferences.
...In explaining why he found Trump's requests of Zelensky alarming enough to merit
reporting, Vindman said:
It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government
investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent. It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued
an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as
a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support,
undermine U.S. national security, and advance Russia's strategic objectives in the region.
[my emphasis]
Vindman's analysis here is tendentious in several respects. For one, his assertion that an
investigation of Biden would "undoubtedly" result in the Democratic Party adopting a dovish
posture toward Russia is mere punditry (and given
the many partisan reasons Democrats have for adopting a hawkish policy toward Vladimir
Putin's regime, it's not even very good punditry). More critically, Vindman's statement
suggests that one of his objectives, as an active military officer, was to safeguard
"bipartisan support" for existing U.S. policy in Ukraine. Which is to say: He felt an
obligation to prevent partisan conflict from producing a change in the orders he received from
civilian leadership. That sentiment is genuinely anti-democratic. It's a forthright assertion
that U.S. policy in the region should not be subject to democratic dispute.
This is a contemptible notion in the abstract. And it's even more so in this particular
context. After all, the idea that the United States has a "national security" interest in
preventing Russian hegemony in the Donbass region is not obvious, to say the least. American
media paints Russia as the unambiguous aggressor in the Ukraine conflict. But as the Cato
Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter has
written , the truth of the matter is far more complicated:
Washington's roster of provocations is long
and damaging . With strong U.S. encouragement, NATO's membership has crept inexorably
eastward, reaching the western border of the Russian Federation and even incorporating the
three Baltic republics, which had been constituent parts of both Czarist Russia and the
Soviet Union. Beginning with George W. Bush's administration, Washington has pressed NATO to
expand still farther and offer membership to both Georgia and Ukraine. The United States and
its allies have greatly increased the number and scope of their military deployments and war
games in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea. Barack Obama's administration interfered
blatantly in Ukraine's internal political affairs to unseat a democratically elected,
pro-Russian government and replace it with a pro-Western regime in 2014. Since then,
Washington has made Ukraine
a de facto military ally , training and conducting joint military exercises with
Ukrainian forces and concluding two significant arms sales to Kiev.
In this context of persistent Western interference in its border regions, John Mearsheimer
argues that Putin's annexation of Crimea is best understood as a defensive maneuver:
Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in
recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically
important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of
Ukraine's democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a
"coup" -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would
host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to
join the West.
... one can also argue that America has no significant security or economic interests in who
governs a relatively small, poor country on Russia's border. Or that intervening against Russia
in Ukraine's civil war -- when our country will never be willing to invest as much blood and
treasure into that conflict as Moscow will -- is only going to prolong the fighting and get
more innocent people killed. Or that the U.S. government's finite resources would be better
spent on more classrooms for American children than anti-tank missiles for Ukrainian
soldiers.
In his statement, Vindman suggests that he does not want Americans to have that
argument. He posits a Western-aligned Ukraine as self-evidently critical to our national
security, and the maintenance of bipartisan support for that premise a duty of a uniformed
officer.
And Democrats have tacitly affirmed his analysis. From the very beginning of its
impeachment inquiry, Nancy Pelosi's caucus has framed Trump's malfeasance in Ukraine as, above
all, an
affront to America's "national security." This emphasis is likely dictated by
Democrats' desire to attach impeachment to a maximally nonpartisan cause. For the bulk of
elected Democrats' lifetimes, countering Russian aggression has been the transpartisan national
purpose par excellence. Further, the national security officials willing to blow the whistle on
Trump tend to be more comfortable denouncing the president's activities on Ukraine's behalf
than on Joe Biden's. Like Vindman, acting Ukraine ambassador
Bill Taylor framed his objections to Trump's "quid pro quo" around the needs of the
Ukrainian military, rather than the constitutional authorities of the U.S. Congress.
But Democrats should not let their witnesses (or vestigial attachment to Cold War politics)
lead them astray. The notion that America has a clear national security interest in arming
Ukraine is dubious on the merits. And premising the case for Trump's impeachment on that notion
is politically misguided.
Warren Wealth Tax Has Wide Support, Except
Among One Group https://nyti.ms/37OZEEH
NYT - Ben Casselman and Jim Tankersley
Nov. 29, 2019, 5:00 a.m. ET
(graphs at the link)
Senator Elizabeth Warren's plan to tax the assets of America's wealthiest individuals
continues to draw broad support from voters, across party, gender and educational lines. Only
one slice of the electorate opposes it staunchly: Republican men with college degrees.
Not surprisingly, that is also the profile of many who'd be hit by Ms. Warren's so-called
wealth tax, which has emerged as the breakout economic proposal in the Democratic
presidential primary race.
Nearly a year after Ms. Warren proposed it, the wealth tax has the support of six in 10
Americans, according to a new nationwide poll conducted by the online research firm
SurveyMonkey for The New York Times. That support has dipped slightly since July, but Ms.
Warren's plan remains more popular than most proposed tax increases, and its appeal across
coalitions is unusual among high-profile campaign proposals.
(The link provided to the 'new poll' is non-functional.)
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has also proposed a wealth tax, which would hit more
taxpayers than Ms. Warren's version, and several other candidates have announced their own
plans to raise taxes on the rich, with varying degrees of detail.
The other policy plan dominating the primary debate so far -- the conversion to a
government-financed health care system known as "Medicare for all" -- enjoys narrower support
that breaks much more cleanly along party lines. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose it.
Independents favor it two to one, and Democrats support it by an even higher ratio.
As the Democratic contest barrels toward the first caucuses in Iowa and beyond, the
polling continues to show a racial fissure on the subject of the economy, with nonwhite
Democrats expressing more concern about their economic situations than white Democrats. Those
more anxious voters are less likely to support Ms. Warren, or her wealth tax, a dynamic that
could prove consequential as Democrats winnow their field.
Here are three takeaways on Democratic voters, policy proposals and the role of the
economy in the campaign.
College-educated Republican men take exception to a wealth tax.
The wealth tax has lost a few points of support since the last time The Times asked about
the issue, in July. But it remains broadly popular, even more so than it was in February.
Three-quarters of Democrats and more than half of Republicans say they approve of the idea of
a 2 percent tax on wealth above $50 million.
Support for a wealth tax cuts across many of the demographic dividing lines in American
politics. Men and women like it. So do the young and the old. The proposal receives majority
support among every major racial, educational and income group.
College-educated Republican men, though, disapprove of it by a 15-point margin -- though a
vast majority of Republican men with college degrees would have a net worth below the tax
threshold. (College-educated Republican women approve of the policy by an even wider margin
than their male counterparts oppose it.)
One note that might give Republicans pause: The wealth tax is much more popular than the
tax-cut package that President Trump signed in 2017, which only 45 percent of Americans in
this Times survey said was a good move. That's a decline from April, when the law was drawing
slightly more approval than disapproval.
The movement against the Trump tax cuts since then has been powered, oddly enough, by
Republicans. They largely still back the law -- by 76 percent over all, compared with 20
percent of Democrats -- but that support has dropped six percentage points since April.
The shift appears most pronounced among high-earning Republicans, and it contributes to a
striking contrast in tax-plan approval: Americans earning more than $150,000 a year are far
more likely to favor a tax increase on the very wealthy than a package of tax cuts that
delivered the bulk of its benefits to the rich.
Education and race divide Democrats on economic policy.
Among Democrats, education has emerged as a key dividing line on economic policy. Ms.
Warren's tax is overwhelmingly popular (86 percent support) with Democratic voters who have
graduate degrees. Among voters with a high school diploma or less, the policy is still
popular, but meaningfully less so, drawing 75 percent support.
Accordingly, less-educated voters are also less likely to say they favor Ms. Warren on the
economy. That fits with other polling that has found the Massachusetts senator struggling to
win over voters without a college degree.
Strikingly for a candidate who has put so much emphasis on the economy, Ms. Warren is
viewed with caution by voters who care the most about the economy, and by those who are most
worried about it. Among Democrats who say they are "very concerned" about losing their job,
for example, 15 percent say they would trust Ms. Warren most on the economy out of all the
Democratic candidates, compared with 23 percent of other Democratic voters.
Those struggles for Ms. Warren may partly reflect another important divide in the
Democratic electorate: race. Black and Hispanic voters tend to rate the economy more highly
as an issue than their white counterparts. They are also less likely to trust Ms. Warren on
the economy.
Black and Hispanic voters are more likely to choose former Vice President Joseph R. Biden
Jr. as the candidate they would trust on the economy. So are voters who say they are
concerned about their jobs or their economic prospects. But voters' preferences don't fall
neatly along ideological lines: Those same groups also tend to give high ratings to Mr.
Sanders, who is closer to Ms. Warren than to Mr. Biden on most policy matters.
The survey suggests that the newest member of the Democratic field, former Mayor Michael
R. Bloomberg of New York, may have at least a narrow opening with voters on economic issues.
About 6 percent of Democrats said they trusted Mr. Bloomberg most on the economy, putting him
outside the four-person top tier (Mr. Biden, Ms. Warren, Mr. Sanders and Mayor Pete Buttigieg
of South Bend, Ind.) but ahead of the rest of the field.
Mr. Bloomberg drew less support on his handling of health care and international affairs,
however. The other late entrant to the race, former Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, was
well outside the top tier of candidates on all three issues. The findings on that question
came after Mr. Patrick entered the race and after Mr. Bloomberg filed paperwork for a
presidential bid; he formally announced his candidacy later in the month.
Health care remains a partisan issue.
Apart from taxes, health care policy has been perhaps the most significant point of
disagreement among the Democratic candidates. Among the top tier of candidates, Mr. Sanders
and Ms. Warren have emphasized their support for a government-run insurance system that they
call Medicare for all, while Mr. Biden and Mr. Buttigieg have argued for less significant
changes to the existing system.
Compared with the wealth tax, Medicare for all is a much more partisan issue. Republicans
strongly oppose the idea; Democrats even more strongly support it. (Independents support it,
too, but by a narrower margin.)
And Medicare for all doesn't divide Democrats the way the wealth tax does. Democrats of
all ages, races and education and levels support the policy by similar margins.
Warren Wealth Tax Could Slow Economy,
Early Analysis Finds https://nyti.ms/379cpJZ
NYT - Jim Tankersley - Nov. 14, 2019
WASHINGTON -- Senator Elizabeth Warren's proposed wealth tax would slow the United States
economy, reducing growth by nearly 0.2 percentage points a year over the course of a decade,
an outside analysis of the plan estimates.
The preliminary projection from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, which was unveiled on
Thursday in Philadelphia, is the first attempt by an independent budget group to forecast the
economic effects of the tax that has become a centerpiece of Ms. Warren's campaign for the
Democratic presidential nomination.
The assessment found that if the tax raised as much new federal revenue as Ms. Warren
intends, and if the proceeds went toward reducing the federal debt, annual economic growth
would slow from an average of 1.5 percent to an average of just over 1.3 percent over a
decade.
The model did not assess growth effects from Ms. Warren's spending plans, which critics
said undercut its findings. Economists who favor Ms. Warren's plan said the analysis did not
accurately account for the economic boost from programs she would fund with the tax revenue,
including universal child care, increased education funding and student loan forgiveness.
Instead, it assumed that the tax revenue would be used to reduce the national debt, a move
that encourages growth in the Penn Wharton simulation. Had the Penn Wharton model factored in
the money's going into programs rather than paying down debt, it most likely would have
produced an even larger drag on growth from the wealth tax.
The model builds on the one that Penn Wharton used to evaluate the tax cuts that President
Trump signed in 2017. That model estimated that the tax cuts would increase economic growth
by roughly 0.06 percentage points per year over a decade, an effect that was much smaller
than White House officials predicted.
Its estimate of Ms. Warren's policy implies the wealth tax would have an effect that is
three times as large as the Trump tax cuts -- but in the opposite direction.
Ms. Warren's plan would impose an annual tax of 2 percent on assets held by Americans,
including stocks and real estate, that total more than $50 million. It would add an
additional 1 percent tax on assets of more than $1 billion. Ms. Warren has said her plan
would raise nearly $3 trillion over a decade.
The proposal has drawn fierce criticism from wealthy Americans, including several titans
of Wall Street. Ms. Warren has delighted in those complaints, splicing some of them into a
campaign commercial that she is set to air on the financial news network CNBC this week.
"I've heard that there are some billionaires that don't support this plan," Ms. Warren
says in the ad, which proceeds to deride several of the plan's critics for financial ties to
Republicans. "All we're saying," she says in conclusion, "is when you make it big, pitch in
two cents so everybody else gets a chance to make it."
Ms. Warren's campaign worked with Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two economists at the
University of California, Berkeley, who support a wealth tax, to estimate how much money it
could raise over a decade. But they did not produce what economists call a dynamic analysis,
which estimates how the proposal would ripple through the economy and affect growth. ...
'Nearly a year after Ms. Warren proposed it,
the wealth tax has the support of six in 10
Americans, according to a new nationwide poll
conducted by the online research firm SurveyMonkey
for The New York Times.'
'Nearly a year after Ms. Warren proposed it,
the wealth tax has the support of six in 10
Americans, according to a new nationwide poll
conducted by the online research firm SurveyMonkey
for The New York Times.'
Stephen Cohen (one of the few pundits who actually knows something about Russia:)
"Almost daily for three years, Democrats and their media have told us very bad things
about Donald Trump's life, character, and presidency. Some of them are true. But in the
process, we have also learned some lamentable, even alarming, things about the Democratic
Party establishment, including self-professed liberals. Consider the following:
The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic
attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia
attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an
"attack" so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. But there was no "attack"
in 2016, only, as I have previously explained, ritualistic "meddling" of the kind that both
Russia and America have undertaken in the other's elections for decades. Little can be more
phobic than the allegation or belief that one has been "attacked by a hostile" entity. And
yet this myth and its false narrative persist in the Democratic Party's discourse,
campaigning, and fund-raising.
We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies under President
Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of National
Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential candidacy
and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. Early on, I termed this operation
"Intelgate," and it has since been well documented by other writers, including Lee Smith in
his new book. Intel officials did so in tacit alliance with certain leading, and equally
Russophobic, members of the Democratic Party, which had once opposed such transgressions.
This may be the most alarming revelation of the Trump years: Trump will leave power, but
these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will remain.
We also learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be
fully trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. Indeed, what the mainstream media --
leading national newspapers and two cable news networks, in particular -- chose to cover and
report, and chose not to cover and report, made the abuses and consequences of Russiagate
allegations possible. Even now, exceedingly influential publications such as The New York
Times seem eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William Barr and his
appointed special investigator John Durham into the origins of Russiagate. Barr's critics
accuse him of fabricating a "conspiracy theory" on behalf of Trump. But the real, or
grandest, conspiracy theory was the Russiagate allegation of "collusion" between Trump and
the Kremlin, an accusation that was -- or should have been -- discredited by the Robert
Mueller report.
And we have learned, or should have learned, that for all the talk by Democrats about
Trump as a danger to US national security, it is their Russiagate allegations that truly
endanger it. Consider two examples. Russia's new "hyper-sonic" missiles, which can elude US
missile-defense systems, make new nuclear arms negotiations with Moscow imperative and
urgent. If only for the sake of his legacy, Trump is likely to want to do so. But even if he
is able to, will Trump be entrusted enough to conduct negotiations as successfully as did his
predecessors in the White House, given the "Putin puppet" and "Kremlin stooge" accusations
still being directed at him?"
The Russia thingie/falsehoods are part of corrupt demrats assault on the US constitution.
They are even now predicting their loss in 2020 due to "interference" and people wanting to
know how corrupt the DNC [front running] select has been!
Demrat allies in the shadow revolving door government of neocon humbug factories are
denouncing Trump for his ignoring their war mongering imperial objects.
[Adding assault to injury? The US Constitution was damning enough on its own. What are
they thinking inside the deep state apparatus? Don't they know that power and privilege is
reserved for holders of wealth by the US Constitution? Who do they think that they are really
working for?]
Friend ilsm may be less nuts than it appears, but friend ilsm is not less incomprehensible
than it appears. Would it be out of place to thank you for ilsm's sake?
Our two-party system was largely useless after FDR, but our two-party system has been
largely destructive since 1968. Let me know if anything really changes.
not that I would be ordinarily predisposed to defend her. The problem with delusions is that
they can easily become self-perpetuating, even easier with the right hand on the tiller.
I have just come back from the land beyond the mountain
This is not a story I was told
When all the people are made out of wood
They build their houses of bones
Sail away, Oh sail away
The edge of the world is near
Sail away, Oh sail away from here
I have just come back from the land beyond the mountain
All the cigarettes are hand rolled
Nothing is bought and nobody is sold
And everything's made of gold
I have just come back from the land beyond the mountain
There a man with wounds I did see
Said: I do not want to escape from reality
I want reality to escape from me
"... If you look at Manafort's history, he seems to work for sleazy dictators.who were either put into power by the CIA or taken out of power by the CIA. I would suggest that his ultimate employer was the CIA. ..."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has finally released his conclusions of the investigation into
Russia's role in the US Presidential Election 2016. The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump
campaign conspired or coordinated with Russians, the press reported.
But there is a curious detail: most people charged have no connection to Russia, as in Manafort's case. The former
Trump campaign manager has been accused of money laundry and illegal foreign lobbying for Ukraine.
Thus, the Mueller investigation findings are leading to Kiev, not Russia. Moreover, Ukraine did admit to
interfering in the 2016 US election helping the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.
In this regard, there are fair questions to raise: why American citizens are indicted and sentenced with less
charges while the evidence of a foreign conspiracy is omitted? Where are fair debates over the issue? Why there were
no special committee hearings to determine the truth?
It is clear: a new investigation is coming. The US prosecutors need to interrogate Ukrainian politicians and
members of the Clinton campaign as well as to probe the activity of Ukrainian lobbyists in Washington.
Thus, the audio recording made public in the Ukrainian media was one piece of evidence of Ukraine's interference.
According to it, a person with a voice similar to the voice of the head of Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau
(NABU), Artem Sytnyk, admitted that he had supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US election.
His office was responsible for publicly disclosing the contents of the Ukrainian "black ledger", which implicated
Paul Manafort, to the media. The document contained a list of secret payments made by Ukraine's Party of Regions to
Manafort.
Earlier, the county administrative court of Kyiv had pledged the director of the NABU Artem Sytnyk, and a member
of the Ukrainian Parliament Sergey Leshchenko guilty of publicizing the pre-trial investigation materials concerning
Paul Manafort and election interference. The information was spread illegally and inflicted damage on the foreign
policy of Ukraine.
Translation:
Admit unlawful acts of the director of the NABU A. Sytnyk and the Ukrainian MP S. Leshchenko concerning the
disclosure and distribution of the information about D. Trump's campaign chairman P. Manafort and the presence of
P.Manafort's name and signatures in the lists of "The Party of Regions' black ledgers" in the materials of the
pre-trial investigation, which was the result of interference in the electoral processes of the United States of
America in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine.
Eventually, a slew of incriminating information forced Paul Manafort to resign as Donald Trump's campaign chairman
in August 2016, just in the middle of election campaign. Serhiy Leshchenko, the Ukrainian MP, intended to share his
gloat with his Facebook followers by posting a message stressing that "after such a blow Trump would not recover".
Translation:
"The Party of Regions' black ledgers" saved the world. Manafort, who was fed from Yanukovich's hands,
leaves with dishonor. Guess, after such a blow Trump will not recover.
P.S. We can clearly see the reaction of the Ukrainian politicians involved in "Yanukovich's black ledgers".
Political culture – you've either got it or you haven't".
Another confirmation of the Ukrainian officials' overt support of Hillary Clinton was the anti-Trump publications
on social media. However, as soon as the Republican had won, the Ukrainian politicians, in particular, the Minister
of Internal Affairs of Ukraine Arsen Avakov and Ukrainian MP Oleg Lyashko began to remove massively their anti-Trump
narratives from their social media pages.
Certainly, the US President did not forgive the Ukrainian leadership actions. On his Twitter page, Donald Trump
criticized the Ukrainian efforts to "sabotage" his campaign.
Moreover, in August 2017, it became clear that on the election day Petro Poroshenko sent Hillary Clinton a
telegram, in which he congratulated her on the victory in the elections even before the announcement of the voting
results. The then Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Pavel Klimkin personally delivered it. The president
himself did not comment on this at all. His assistants strongly rejected all the suspicions of illegal actions during
the election campaign. However, all these facts speak for themselves.
Despite this, Washington does not refuse financial assistance and cooperation with Ukraine. The intervention in
the US Presidential Campaign 2016 and the leverages issues undoubtedly overshadow the current position of Petro
Poroshenko. Moreover, the growing scandal related to accusations against our diplomat gives us reason to doubt the
trustworthiness of the head of state and his future plans as a presidential candidate for the second term.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not
funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest
amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Gmason
,
Why is ok to expose Manafort's corruption to take down Trump, but not ok to expose Hunter Biden's?
That is inconsistent and hypocritical.
Robbobbobin
,
Perhaps loads of nation states, as well as busy international bodies like the UN, more or less
continually interfere in the affairs of other states and some of the time those ongoing programs of
continual interference are congruent with elections being held in the interfered-with states and on
some of those occasions those elections provide an exceptional opportunity that's just too good to
pass up?
summitflyer
,
I should send this information to Chrystia Freeland, our illustrious foreign affairs minister for
casual reading .Would love to see her reaction upon reading it .
Paul
,
There was one man – backed by a very powerful organisation who worked tirelessly to prevent Trump
becoming President. That was Christopher Steele ...
Jen
,
Paul Manafort was working as Donald Trump's campaign manager until he had to resign halfway through
the campaign when Ukrainians and Ukrainian Americans linked to the Democratic National Committee
and Hillary Rodham Clinton's election campaign released information that Manafort had done work for
former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and his party The Party of Regions, whose main support
base was in the Russian-speaking eastern part of Ukraine.
The MSM has played up the notion that
Yanukovych was supported by or was drawing close to Vladimir Putin and Russia, and that he rejected
the EU / Ukraine Association Agreement in late 2013. So by bringing up Manafort's past connection
with Yanukovych, the Democrats were trying to tie the Trump campaign to Moscow.
Ben Trovata
,
It's no mystery;the Russians made a better offer! One that included continuing to supply Ukraine
gas ( even they were woefully behind in their payments)! As far as I can tell, this was almost
totally ignored in corporate medIa.( I learned it from David Pear in a BTL comment.)
summitflyer
,
Yes that is what I heard and read also at the time .That was before the coup .
Mistaron
,
Russia had also arranged a $3 billion loan to Yanukovych govt.
Jen
,
The issue I was alluding to is not whether the Yanukovych government really was drawing
closer to the Russian government and its offer to Ukraine of joining a competing Eurasian
Customs Union – the issue was that the Yanukovych government was made out by Western media
to be subservient to Russia by supposedly rejecting the EU / Ukraine association
agreement.
The Yanukovych government had actually asked for more time to study the EU /
Ukraine AA and its fine print. Moscow had apparently tipped off Yanukovych's government
that complying with the AA would have meant (among other things) a complete overhaul of
Ukraine's entire railway-line network to conform with EU railway gauge standards. This in
spite of the fact that some EU member nations like Finland and Spain don't have
EU-compliant railway track gauges themselves (Finland uses Russian gauge as Ukraine does)
– but then, they joined the EU over 20 years ago. Imagine the billions of euros required
to replace the entire railway-line network and railway carriage stock to conform to EU
standards!
There was also no guarantee in the EU / Ukraine AA that full EU membership and its
attendant benefits would accrue to Ukraine if the country complied with the agreement.
It was probably never Yanukovych's intention not to join the EU but instead to be a
member of both the EU and the Eurasian Customs Union. How that would have worked out, I
don't wish to guess – I can only imagine a lot of juggling would be involved if that had
transpired the way I think Yanukovych might have wished.
Ben Trovata
,
Thanx,for above .btw,it was Ukraine that refused that two-direction trade action.It's
presumed( by me ) that the War Party in Washington D.C. would not have this.Oddly,the
R.F. was okay with it,and,as mentioned above,Ukraine owed the R.F. a lot of money for
what had been keeping them warm all winter!
Savorywill
,
I think the gist is that Ukrainian support for Hillary was behind the disclosure of Manafort's
financial misdealing in Ukraine, to embarrass the Trump campaign as Manafort was the Trump campaign
manager at that time. In addition, Hillary was far more pugnacious to Russia than Trump, and her
assistant, Victoria Nuland seems to have more or less orchestrated the coup against the sitting
president, who wanted to accept Russian help, rather getting funds from the IMF (or something like
that). So, it makes sense the the Ukraine powers that be wanted Hillary to win.
Bob In Portland
,
If you look at Manafort's history, he seems to work for sleazy dictators.who were either put into
power by the CIA or taken out of power by the CIA. I would suggest that his ultimate employer was
the CIA.
After Yanukovich was ousted in a US-backed coup in Ukraine Manafort stuck around there and
helped the people who ousted. Just to refresh anyone's memory William Barr worked for the CIA in
the seventies until he got his JD. He was named Attorney General by President Bush (the first)
during congressional and court investigations of Iran-contra, which was a CIA operation to
illegally support the contras attempt to overthrow the Nicaraguan government while illegally arming
both Iraq and Iran, allegedly in exchange for releasing hostages in Beruit .
The interagency team
investigating the kidnappings in Beruit was on Pan Am 103 and perished returning to the US.
Robert Swan Mueller III has never himself been specifically identified as being a CIA employee.
However, his uncle, Richard Bissell, was an officer high in the CIA. His wife, Ann Cabell Standish,
was the granddaughter of Charles Cabell, Deputy Director of the CIA at the time of the Bay of Pigs
fiasco, who was fired by JFK along with the above-mentioned Bissell and Allen Dulles. Ann Mueller's
granduncle, Earle Cabell, the mayor of Dallas at the time of President Kennedy's assassination
there, was revealed to have been a CIA asset.
Curiously, Mueller's career has been marked with prosecuting cases that touch on CIA covert
activities. He prosecuted John Gotti, who was on trial for distribution of cocaine which has been
identified as having arrived in Mena, Arkansas. He prosecuted Noriega, who was the CIA's point man
in Panama, where the CIA laundered money, moved cocaine and moved weapons for the contras. Mueller
prosecuted BCCI (the international bank which laundered mob and intelligence money). Mueller became
the Director of the FBI a week before 9/11.
Clone
,
Australia gave something like $50 million to the Clinton racket prior to the election. There was no
choice. The next president of the most exceptionally useless nation was scooping up money from
everywhere Hillary and Bill are rotten to the core but heck slipping them $50M under the table was
seen as a nice way to stay on their good side.
Petro 'the pig' Poroshenko and his mate Manafort
lavished cash and black ops media favours on Hillary to buy her support.
The crimes are (1) Hillary selling her prospective presidency, and (2) Petro 'the pig' Poroshenko
conspiring with the Clinton's to assault the democratic process.
They will end up dragging 'the pig' around the streets of Kiev behind a truck with his guts hanging
out. Filthy stinking creature he is.
Graham Hooper
,
John Key the Then PM of NZ Gave them a Big Donation to the Clinton Foundation Pre Elections an
Investment in Future Favours of Meetings ,Trade,5 Eyes,Military Sharing and Service to Protect Each
Other.
bevin
,
The Italian government, defeated in the last elections, also made an enormous 'donation' to the
Clinton Foundation.
Chris Williams
,
Clone – and of course these crimes are ones that need to be listed against the Donbass bloodshed
and the downing of MH17, which the all the governments with victims including Australia have now
gone silent on, knowing that it was a Ukrainian operation.
Michael Cromer
,
Hillary Clinton has actually been 'Bad Mouthing' Assange this week – Beggars belief.
Let us not forget Tony Blair – Teflon Tony aka T B. Liar – How is he able to walk free amongst law
abiding citizens?
Michael McNulty
,
He is free but he can't walk amongst law-abiding citizens. The last time I heard of somebody saying
he was making a citizens arrest of Blair it was a young waiter, serving Blair's family in the
closed-off upstairs of a restaurant with his bodyguards around. That was maybe seven years ago but
I forget where. So he won't even sit amongst diners on a family night out. I suspect others do tell
him he should be in prison.
Actions connected with Kiev may well have influenced US voters, as a key part of the anti-Russian
disinfo networks was "Stop Fake" based in Kiev. That was only the latest in a whole campaign of
propaganda to distort the views of Americans about Russia, and about anyone who wanted to improve
relations with Russia. You can only say it didn't influence voters because Trump won – but if Russia's
knowledge about Clinton had gained more attention he'd probably have won even more convincingly!
As the photo for the article nicely indicates war criminals help each other out.
By hook or by crook
as they say.
By the way did Poroshenko ever sell Roshen chocolate as he promised in his last election campaign?
OK. How did Ukraine interfere with the election? We see another string of allegations that show what?
How did anything done by Ukraine have an impact on the 2016 election outcome? (I would have expected
some focus on the role of the Clintons' business interests in Ukraine on the anti-Russian allegations,
in view of conflicts between Russia and Ukraine.) As for whatever happened in Ukrainian social media,
it had no influence on US voting choices. There was no surge of voters switching parties. We weren't
inundated with foreign propaganda. Americans just can't concede that when their candidate of choice
loses, it might not be due to some "outside factor."
Go back to the election results. Both candidates were opposed by much of their own voting bases,
for some of the same reasons. Roughly half of all registered voters rejected both Clinton and Trump.
They either voted third party or withheld their votes.In the end, Clinton did get more votes, but
Trump got the most electoral votes. All we can say for certain is that a good chunk of the population
forgot what they learned in school about the electoral college process.
Alfred (Cairns)
,
You are saying that Ukraine's so-called government – which was the outcome of a US-orchestrated
putsch – did not succeed in influencing the voting in the USA. I am quite happy with that. However,
they did try to influence the US election and that is another matter entirely.
It's probably money, US and IMF money for which Manafort got a kickback.
He must have operated like that in the Philippines and the Congo to be so sure that he did not
have to register. Even though Manafort was always helping the Republicans only in election
campaigns, the Ukrainians would have been anxious to keep at the $$$teet; so for them Clinton – no
change – was more attractive.
Francis Lee
,
For the purpose of analysis it might be useful to start with US interference in Ukraine rather than
the other way around. The role of US NGOs was one of the key factors in this process. The National
Endowment for Democracy (NED) which was operating quite openly in Ukraine prior to the coup, is
funded by the US government, so strictly speaking it is a GO not an NGO. Also involved was Human
Rights Watch another American NGO.
On the ground in Kiev during the run up and during the Maidan
events, Geoffrey Pyatt, US Ambassador to Ukraine and his neo-con sidekick Victoria Nuland,
Assistant Secretary of State for East European and Eurasian Affairs, strolled around Independence
Square in Kiev offering solace, cookies and support to the insurrectionists. Subsequent to this
Victoria 'f*** the EU' Nuland gave a talk at the press club in Washington openly stating that the
US had funded the whole Ukrainian imbroglio – $5 million was apparently the going rate for this
particular 'colour revolution'. There is also talk that Soros was involved.
The fact that Poroshenko, owed the US and the EU, in the overturning of a democratically elected
government Ukraine is not in dispute. And the fact that Porky made this perfectly clear with his
support for Hilary confirms this.
The degree to which the Ukrainian government meddled in the US election is difficult to gauge,
but what seems clear is that such meddling had no immediate or long term effect on the outcome as
Trump was duly elected.
Jen
,
Victoria Nuland is married to Robert Kagan.
I'll let Wikipedia tell folks all they need to
know about Kagan; I'm too busy holding my nose to stop breathing in the toxic fumes the
couple emits.
The Ukrainians released information about Donald Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort having done
work for past Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych (perceived by the West to have been close to
Moscow while he was leader) with the implication that Trump was being supported by the Russian
government. The information was released in mid-2016. Had it been released closer to the November
elections, it could have had a greater impact on Trump's chances of becoming President and the
Electoral College could have decided differently.
Savorywill
,
Wouldn't have made any difference. So much so-called 'news' is anything but, most people
probably don't know what to believe. I think Trump's election was more a protest vote as much as
anything, People were just sick of the status quo, seeing the world deteriorating around them.
And then, there were voters like me, who detested what Hillary had done in Libya, most
particularly. Destroyed a functioning country with all of the socialist benefits Bernie Sanders
could only dream about, turning the country into a raging hell-hole with constant civil wars 8
years later. Unforgivable, her role in that disaster. I was so relieved that she got defeated,
actually, and Trump did campaign on not militarily interfering with other countries and so far,
touch wood, he hasn't started any new wars.
"... Only a computer illiterate would think that CrowdStrike needed to take the physical DNC server to Ukraine in order to analyze it. Any computer can be cloned and its digital image can be sent within minutes anywhere on the planet in the form of ones and zeroes. It can also exist in multiple digital copies, carrying not just confidential archives, but also history logs and other content that can reveal to an expert whether the hacking occurred, and if so, by whom. ..."
"... The copies of the DNC server on CrowdStrike computers are likely to hold the key to understanding what really happened during the 2016 election, the origin of the anti-Trump witch hunt, and the toxic cloud of lies that had been hanging over the world and poisoning minds during the last three years. ..."
"... And now the new Ukrainian government might subpoena these copies from CrowdStrike and finally pass them to FBI experts, which should've been done three years ago. The danger of this happening is a much greater incentive for the Democrats to preemptively destroy Trump than all the dirt Joe Biden had been rolling in as Obama's vice president. ..."
"... I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. ..."
"... The fraudulent "CrowdStrike conspiracy" deflection is not a show of the Democrats' strength. Instead, It betrays their desperation and panic, which tells us that Trump is squarely over the target. ..."
"... Yet DOJ Mueller conclusively signed off on the unsubtaniated fact the Russians had hacked the DNC computers in his final Weissman Report. Just one more part of the curious Mueller report that was far more a CYA hit piece against future claims of Obama crimes, than an investigation of past Trump ones. ..."
The conspiracy theory that exposes the Democrats' desperation and panic.
Fri Nov 29, 2019
Oleg Atbashian
133 In the last few days, media talking heads have been saying the word "CrowdStrike" a
lot, defining it as a wild conspiracy theory originating in Moscow. They were joined by Chris
Wallace at Fox News, who informed us that president Trump and his ill-informed fans believe in
a crazy idea that the DNC wasn't hacked by the Russians but by some Ukrainian group named
CrowdStrike that stole the DNC server and brought it to Ukraine , and that it was Ukraine that
meddled in our 2016 election and not Russia.
A crazy idea indeed. Except that neither Trump nor his fans had ever heard of it until the
Democrat-media complex condescendingly informed them that these are their beliefs.
Let's look at the facts:
Fact 1. In 2016 the DNC hired the Ukrainian-owned firm CrowdStrike to analyze their server
and investigate a data breach.
Fact 2. CrowdStrike experts determined that the culprit was Russia.
Fact 3. The FBI never received access to the DNC server, so the Russian connection was never
officially confirmed and continues to be an allegation coming from the DNC and its
Ukrainian-owned contractor.
Fact 4. Absent the official verdict, other theories continue to circulate, including the
possibility that the theft was an inside job by a DNC employee, who simply copied the files to
a USB drive and sent it to WikiLeaks.
None of these facts was ever disputed by anyone. The media largely ignored them except for
the part about the Russian hackers, which boosted their own, now debunked, wild conspiracy
theory that Trump was a Russian agent.
Now that Trump had asked the newly elected Ukrainian president Zelensky to look into
CrowdStrike during that fateful July phone call, the media all at once started telling us that
"CrowdStrike" is a code word for a conspiracy theory so insane that only Trump could believe in
it, which is just more proof of how insane he is.
But if Trump had really said what Mr. Wallace and the media claim, Ukrainians would be the
first to call him on it and the impeachment would've been over by now. Instead, Ukrainians back
Trump every step of the way.
So where did this pretzel-shaped fake news come from, and why is it being peddled
now ?
Note this is a classic case study of propaganda and media manipulation:
Take an idea or a story that you wish to go away and make up an obviously bogus story
with the same names and details as the real one.
Start planting it simultaneously on media channels until the fake story supplants the
real one, while claiming this is what your opponents really believe.
Have various fact-checking outlets debunk your fake story as an absurd conspiracy theory.
Ridicule those who allegedly believe in it. Better yet, have late night comedians do it for
you.
Once your opponent is brought down, mercilessly plant your boot on his face and never let
up.
This mass manipulation technology had been tested and perfected by the Soviet propaganda
machine, both domestically and overseas, where it was successfully deployed by the KGB. The
Kremlin still uses it, although it can no longer afford it on the same grandiose scale. In this
sense, the Democratic think tanks are the true successors of the KGB in deviousness, scope, and
worldwide reach of fake narratives. How they inherited these methods from the KGB is a story
for another day.
For a long time this technology was allowing the Democrats to delegitimize opposition by
convincing large numbers of Americans that Republicans are
Haters
Racists
Fascists
Deniers of science
Destroyers of the environment
Heartless sellouts to corporate interests
And so on - the list is endless.
The Soviet communists had aptly named it "disinformation," which a cut above the English
word "misinformation." It includes a variety of methods for a variety of needs, from bringing
down an opponent to revising history to creating a new historical reality altogether. In this
sense, most Hollywood movies on historical subjects today disinform us about history,
supplanting it with a bogus "progressive" narrative. The Soviet term for such art was
"socialist realism."
Long story short, the Democrat-media complex has successfully convinced one half of the
world that Trump is a Russian agent. Now they're acting as if they'd spent the last three years
in a coma, unaware of any bombshell stories about collusion. And bombshell stories without any
continuation are a telltale sign of fake narratives. The only consequence of these bombshells
is mass amnesia among the foot soldiers.
The Trump-Russian outrage is dead, long live the Trump-Ukraine outrage. And when that
outrage is dead, the next outrage that will be just outrageous.
The current impeachment narrative alleges that Trump used military aid as leverage in asking
Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden (which implies the Democrats know Biden is dirty, otherwise
why bother?). What's not in this picture is CrowdStrike. Even though Trump mentioned it in the
phone call, it has nothing to do with the Bidens nor the Javelin missiles. CrowdStrike has
nothing to do with impeachment. We're told it's just a silly conspiracy theory in Trump's head,
that it's a nonissue.
But then why fabricate fake news about it and plant blatant lies simultaneously in all media
outlets from Mother Jones to Fox News? Why risk being exposed over such a nonissue? Perhaps
because it's more important than the story suggests.
Only a computer illiterate would think that CrowdStrike needed to take the physical DNC
server to Ukraine in order to analyze it. Any computer can be cloned and its digital image can
be sent within minutes anywhere on the planet in the form of ones and zeroes. It can also exist
in multiple digital copies, carrying not just confidential archives, but also history logs and
other content that can reveal to an expert whether the hacking occurred, and if so, by
whom.
The copies of the DNC server on CrowdStrike computers are likely to hold the key to
understanding what really happened during the 2016 election, the origin of the anti-Trump witch
hunt, and the toxic cloud of lies that had been hanging over the world and poisoning minds
during the last three years.
And now the new Ukrainian government might subpoena these copies from CrowdStrike and
finally pass them to FBI experts, which should've been done three years ago. The danger of this
happening is a much greater incentive for the Democrats to preemptively destroy Trump than all
the dirt Joe Biden had been rolling in as Obama's vice president.
This gives the supposedly innocuous reference to CrowdStrike during Trump's call a lot more
gravity and the previously incoherent part of the transcript begins to make sense.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been
through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened
with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike... I guess you have one of your
wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went
on, the whole situation.
If you read the transcript on the day it was released, you probably didn't understand what
Trump was even talking about, let alone what had caused such a disproportionate outrage,
complete with whistle blowing and calls for impeachment. What in that mild conversation could
possibly terrify the Democrats so much? They were terrified because, unlike most Americans, the
Democrats knew exactly what Trump was talking about. And now you know, too.
The fraudulent "CrowdStrike conspiracy" deflection is not a show of the Democrats'
strength. Instead, It betrays their desperation and panic, which tells us that Trump is
squarely over the target.
It also helps us to see who at Fox News can be trusted to tell us the truth. And it ain't
Chris Wallace.
Fine dissection of the CrowdStrike story. Of course if the DNC was serious about
finding out who breached their security they would have allowed the FBI to investigate.
They didn't - which means they're covering something up.
And who doesn't have at least one backup system running constantly, I have two and am
just a home user and the DNC would not have been dumb enough not to have one on the
premises and one off site for safety and preservation and the FBI could have gotten to
either one if they wanted to. DWS was involved in something very similar and the FBI
backed off again. I thought the DNC and the FBI were on the same page and would have
liked to find out how the "transfer" happened?
Yet DOJ Mueller conclusively signed off on the unsubtaniated fact the Russians had
hacked the DNC computers in his final Weissman Report. Just one more part of the curious Mueller report that was far more a CYA hit piece
against future claims of Obama crimes, than an investigation of past Trump ones.
Seth Rich - paper trail to Wikilinks needs to come out in any Senate impeachment trail
since Democrats claim the Ukraine phone call was Trump's alleged downfall. CROWDSTRIKE
was the only favor Trumps asked for.
There are two important facts to glean from this article:
1) Crowdstrike, the DNC contractor, is Ukrainian
2) that the famous server may have been backed up in Ukraine and not tampered with.
From the MSM we were given the 'interpretation' that Trump is an idiot who believes
that the DNC shipped the server with no changes to the Ukraine. No folks. He 'gets'
technology and security. He actual ran a business! (imagine).
I'd love to hear that in Hillary's own voice. :) You know, cleaned with a cloth?
That pretty much sums it up. MSM in total cahoots on this too since they put the
entire topic of the CROWDSTRIKE part of the phone call into the cone of silence.
The Left and media (One and the same within the "Deep State") have been playing "Three
Card Monte" with America for a while; it stops now!
The "Impeachment" media show being run by the Lefty tool cretins in the House has
NOTHING to do with wrong doing by President Trump. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fear
that President Trump will expose the depth of the swamp and bring the criminals on the
Left down to Justice!
We are s close to getting to the bottom of the conspiracies that threaten our nation.
Time to make the America haters pay for the harm they have done to our nation!
We need open and in depth prosecution of the criminal activities of the Left. There
needs to be LONG prison sentences and, yes, even executions for those that seek to
undermine our nation.
People need to know that there our GRAVE penalties for betraying our nation!
In fact, when I first heard this story - that is: very recently - I was puzzled: why
should a major party in the Country that invented IT and is still at its leading edge,
ask an obscure firm of a crumbling, remote foreign State to do their IT security
research? I'm not saying that Ukraine is a s++thole Country, but... you get me.
Either they have very much to hide, or they fear some closeted rightwing geek that works
in any of the many leftist US technofirms. Or, CrowdStrike were involved from the
beginning of the story, from the Steele dossier perhaps?
The whole Crowdstrike fiasco has been around for years - plus became a solid CYA part
of the Mueller report too - just in case the Democrats needed to bury it later.
don't you get it? The DNC is completely infiltrated by Ukrainian graft. Even Joe Biden
was on the take. Why won't they run their IT? (there is no Research in IT here, just
office software)
If you want to sell and deliver State Secrets and Intel to our enemies, then you
(Obama, the Clintons, the DNC) simply make it easier for THEM to access. They have done
this for years, and this is why they had to fill the DOJ, the FBI and the State
Department with traitors and haters of America and American principles. Barack Hussein
Obama, the Clintons, their evil administrations and even two-faced RINOS like McCain,
Romney, and Jeff Sessions were actively involved. This is treason pure and simple, and
all of the above could be legitimately and justifiably hung or shot without recourse, and
rightly so!
I have known about "Crowdstrike" since Dec. 2017. Pres. Trump is just subtlety
introducing background on what will be the biggest story of treachery, subversion,
treason and corruption ever. QAnon that the fakenews tries to vilify as a LARP has been
dropping crumbs about "Crowdstrike", Perkins Coir, Fusion GPS, FVEY and so much more!
Crowdstrike mentioned 7x in the last 2 years. I can't urge people enough to actually
investigate the Q posts for themselves! You will be stunned at what you have been
missing. Q which says "future proves past" and "news will unlock" what I see in the media
now is old news to those of us following Q. Q told us that "Senate was the prize" "Senate
meant more" that the investigations started in the House would now move to the Senate and
all this that the Dems and Rinos have been trying to hide is going to be exposed.
Fakenews corporate media has litterally written hundreds of hit pieces against Q - me
knows "they doth protest to much" - Recent Q post told "Chairman Graham its time. Senate
was the target"
Keep up with the Q posts and Pres. Trump's tweets in once place:
https://qmap.pub/ - And if you are still having a hard time believing this is legit
Pres. Trump himself has confirmed Q posts by "Zero Delta" drops - if you think this is
fake - try and tweet within 1 minute of when Pres. Trump does BUT your tweet has to
anticipate his! YOU have to tweet first and HE has to follow you within 1 minute.
MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY UNLESS you are in the same immediate space or communicating at
the time of the tweets! To all you doubters that think Q is just a by chance scam - NO
WAY. There have been MANY, MANY of these ZERO DELTA PROOFS over the last 2 years. The
most recent was Nov. 20th.
Crowdstrike in the dog who did not bark. The Democrat cone of silence they put on even
the mention of the word has been the most damning clue this is where the real action
is.
The assertion that a digital image of the computer can be transmitted quickly all
around the world is not necessarily correct in my experience as a cyber security analyst.
I'm not an upper echelon type, but I am aware that it can take up to weeks to transmit
such images depending on the hard disk, where it is, and the connections/network to your
device creating the image. The FBI should have physically taken the device since there
was a suspicion of wrong doing by Hillary Clinton. Had it been Donald Trump's computer I
do not doubt the FBI would either have imaged it on the spot or taken the device.
Last night I completely removed Catalina-Safari on my older Mac Book Air and
re-installed Mohave-Safari from my backup to the day before I installed Catalina
including the data and system just like it was before. It took around 5 hours and was
cabled and not on Wi-Fi and it was perfect and reset the clock, my old e-mails and the
newer ones as well. I can't believe being hooked into real broadband or fiber couldn't do
the same in a relatively short period of time, but still significantly longer than a
thumb drive or external hard drive.
One variable is how big your hard drive is. If it is a big drive at a remote location,
say somewhere in California to the Midwest, it can take weeks for a forensic backup. I
only say that because . . . well, I'm not allowed to say. But you get it.
The assertion is a figure of speech. Today's IT infrastructure companies sell the
service of maintaining clones in real-time in two or more locations for safety purposes.
VMware and other off-the-shelf products makes this kind of setup easy to deploy. Did
Crowdstrike offer that service and did the DNC buy it, that is the question? And, if so,
did Crowdstrike keep the image on their backups in Ukraine?
(Note: it is not obvious that such a setup would preserve the forensic data the FBI would
be looking for, but its a start).
"... However, Morris contends that Clinton believes that she has to "wait until Biden drops out because he's obviously next in line for it, and if he goes away, there's an opening for her." According to Morris' scenario, Clinton would become the moderate candidate opposed to the leading progressive, Elizabeth Warren. ..."
In November, Barack Obama, who had avoided commenting on the Democratic presidential
primary, came out forcefully in opposition to the extreme positions taken by some leading
progressive contenders, positions that could cause the Democrats to be beaten by Trump in the
2020 election. Obama was a very popular president among Democrats, and what he has to say
carries considerable weight with them. While this may not be his intent, Obama's position could
open the field for Hillary Clinton to enter the fray and quite possibly become the Democrats'
nominee, given the lackluster performance of leading "moderate" Joe Biden, whose weaknesses
have been brought out by the mainstream media, despite their animosity toward Trump.
Now many in the Democratic Party leadership, as well as wealthy Democratic donors, have been
concerned for some time about the radical nature of some of the economic policies advocated by
the leading progressive Democratic contenders. They fear that instead of the 2020 election
revolving around Trump with his low approval ratings, and very likely his impeachment, which
would seem to be a slam-dunk victory for Democrats, it would focus on those radical economic
proposals. Many voters are skeptical about how free college for all, free health care for all,
high-paying jobs in "green energy" -- after greatly reducing the use of fossil fuels, free
childcare for all, just to name some of the "free" things that have been promised, would really
work. Instead of raising taxes on the middle class, most of these free things would purportedly
be paid for by the super-wealthy, which would exclude mere millionaires such as Bernie Sanders
(estimated wealth $2 million) and Elizabeth Warren (estimated wealth $12 million) who are the
leading progressive contenders.
Obama began stressing his concern about the danger of radicalism in an October speech at the
Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago. And he did this not by dealing with presidential candidates
but with youth who think they can immediately change society. "This
idea of purity and you're never compromised, and you're always politically woke and all
that stuff, you should get over that quickly," Obama lectured. "The world is messy. There are
ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws."
It was at a gathering of Democratic donors in Washington, D.C., in November that Obama
cautioned Democratic candidates not to go too far to the left since that would antagonize many
voters who would otherwise support the Democratic candidate. "Even as we push the envelope and
we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in
reality ," Obama asserted. "The average American doesn't think we have to completely tear
down the system and remake it." Although Obama did not specify particular Democratic
candidates, his warning was widely interpreted as being directed at Elizabeth Warren and Bernie
Sanders.
Currently, the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, according to national polls,
is Joe Biden, who is considered a moderate. But Biden has a number of problems. He continues to
make gaffes while speaking, and during his long career in the Senate took positions that are
antithetical to the Democratic Party of today. Moreover, he lacks the charisma to attract large
crowds to his events. Thus, it is questionable that he has the capability to attract large
numbers of Democratic voters to the polls in November 2020.
According to Politico Magazine , Obama was recently discussing election tactics with
an unnamed current candidate and "pointed out that during his own 2008 campaign, he had an
intimate bond with the electorate" and he is quoted as adding, "And you know who really
doesn't have it ? Joe Biden."
Biden's appeal already seems to be waning. For example, in November, a Marquette Law School
poll, which is considered the gold-standard survey in swing state Wisconsin, which the
Democrats need to win the 2020 election, shows
Trump leading Biden 47 percent to 44 percent. In October, Trump had trailed Biden by 6
points (44 percent to 50 percent), and in August, Trump trailed Biden by 9 points (42 percent
to 51 percent). In short, Biden is losing support. Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 by a slender
margin of 0.77 percent, with 47.22 percent of the total votes over the 46.45 percent for
Hillary Clinton.
Another problem Biden faces is the corrupt activities of his son Hunter and brother James,
who have taken advantage of their connection with him. The mainstream media has so far largely
kept this mostly under wraps, but this tactic won't be successful as the election approaches.
In fact, the progressive Democrats such as Bernie Sanders are likely to bring this up in a
desperate effort to be nominated. And already these issues are being mentioned by the
alternative media. For instance, there is an article in the non-partisan, anti-government
Intercept
titled, "Joe Biden's Family Has Been Cashing in on His Career for Decades. Democrats Need to
Acknowledge That," and comparable articles in the conservative Washington Examiner such
as, "Hunter Biden-linked company r
eceived $130M in special federal loans while Joe Biden was vice president," and "Hunter
Biden has
99 problems , and Burisma is only one."
David Axelrod, Democratic strategist and longtime aide to Barack Obama, said concerns about
Biden's electability clearly influenced multi-billionaire (estimated $53 billion) and
former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg's entrance into the contest for the Democratic
nominee for president. "There's no question that Bloomberg's calculus was that Biden was
occupying a space, and the fact that he's getting in is a clear indication that he's not
convinced Biden has the wherewithal to carry that torch," Axelrod said. "So yeah, I don't think
this is a positive development for Joe Biden."
Similarly, Democratic strategist Brad Bannon contended that "centrist Democrats and wealthy
donors have
lost confidence in Biden's ability to stop Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders from winning
the nomination." Bannon added that with Bloomberg entering the Democratic presidential race,
"Biden's fundraising will get even shakier than it already is. There's only room for one
moderate in this race and Bloomberg threatens Biden's status as the centrist
standard-bearer."
Bloomberg's "stop and frisk"
policy as mayor , which largely targeted blacks and Hispanics, should make it virtually
impossible that he could be the Democratic nominee, despite his recent apology. Unless he has
become senile in his late 70s, Bloomberg should well understand this since he did not make his
billions by being stupid. It could be that he intends to serve as a stalking horse to draw
Hillary Clinton into the contest by showing the weakness of Biden. Then like Superwoman,
Hillary can enter the fray, appearing not to act for her own sake but to save the country from
a likely second term for President Trump.
Similarly, Mark Penn, who was chief strategist for Clinton's unsuccessful 2008 presidential
campaign, said Bloomberg's entrance
could cause Clinton to consider to run and decide there's "still a political logic there for
her."
As Biden's support slips away, Clinton's should rise. Clinton has been recently promoting a
book she co-wrote with her daughter, Chelsea, in Britain. In an interview with BBC Radio 5
Live , Clinton said "many, many, many people" are
pressuring her to jump into the 2020 presidential race and that she thinks about this "all
the time." Clinton told the host that she is under "enormous pressure" but said it is not in
her plans, though she cryptically added that she would "never say never."
Dick Morris, who was once a close confidant of the Clintons during Bill Clinton's time as
Arkansas governor and U.S. president recently said in a radio interview that Hillary Clinton
likely wants to run for the presidency in 2020. "My feeling is that
she wants to ," Morris said. "She feels entitled to do it. She feels compelled to do it.
She feels that God put her on the Earth to do it. But she's hesitant because she realizes the
timing is bad."
However, Morris contends that Clinton believes that she has to "wait until Biden drops out
because he's obviously next in line for it, and if he goes away, there's an opening for her."
According to Morris' scenario, Clinton would become the moderate candidate opposed to the
leading progressive, Elizabeth Warren.
Morris has not been in touch with the Clintons for many years, and has become strongly
critical of them, so his claim might be questionable. Nonetheless, his portrayal of Hillary's
current thinking seems quite reasonable.
A Fox News poll included Clinton along with the active Democratic candidates in a
hypothetical election with Trump, and Hillary came out ahead of him by two percentage
points. While some actual candidates did somewhat better than Hillary, she did quite well for
someone who is not currently running for office.
Furthermore, a Harris Harvard poll in late October asked the question, "Suppose Hillary
Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, and John Kerry decides [sic] to enter the race, who would you
support as a candidate for President?" Joe Biden received the support of 19 percent of Democrat
respondents while Clinton was a
close second with 18 percent. Elizabeth Warren came in third at 13 percent, John Kerry was
at 8 percent, and Bloomberg was at 6. Again, Clinton does quite well for someone who is not
actually running for president.
One might think that if references to family members' corruption damaged Biden, then Clinton
would be subject to worse damage in that area, since she and her husband Bill were connected
with far more corrupt activities -- Whitewater, Travelgate, the Lewinsky affair, the Paula
Jones affair, t the death of Vince Foster, the Clinton Foundation, her private server, and so
on. But these issues are already known and are presumably already taken into account by the
voters, whereas the Biden family's corrupt activities are so far largely unknown.
It should be pointed out that Clinton has a number of positives as a presidential candidate.
Although losing in the Electoral College in 2016, Clinton had garnered 3 million more votes
more than Trump. The election was decided by a total of 80,000 votes in three states. It is
highly unlikely that such a fluke could be duplicated.
Clinton's staff had been overconfident assuming victory, which was based on their polling of
various states, and as a result began to focus on competing in states well beyond those Clinton
needed for victory.
Moreover, one key event outside the control of Clinton's staff was FBI Director James
Comey's investigation of Clinton's use of a personal email server during her tenure as
secretary of state. Most crucial were his July 2016 public statement terminating the
investigation, with a lengthy comment about what Clinton did wrong, and his October 28
reopening the inquiry into newly discovered emails and then closing it two days before the
election, stating that the emails had not provided any new information. The October 28 letter,
however, probably played a key role in the outcome of the election. As statistician Nate Silver
maintains: "Hillary Clinton would probably be president
if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 28. The letter, which
said the FBI had 'learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the
investigation into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, upended
the news cycle and soon halved Clinton's lead in the polls, imperiling her position in the
Electoral College.'"
[Silver's organization FiveThirtyEight had projected a much higher chance (29
percent) of Donald Trump winning the presidency than most other pollsters]
Clinton has also helped to convince many Democrats and members of the mainstream media that
the 2016 election was stolen from her by Russian agents If this were really true – which
is very doubtful – then Hillary should be the Democrats' candidate for 2020 since Russian
intervention should not be as successful as it allegedly was in 2016.
In endorsing Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, Obama stated. "I don't think that
there's ever been someone
so qualified to hold this office." He has yet to make such an endorsement for Biden and
privately, as mentioned earlier, said he is a poor choice for a nominee. He might ultimately
endorse Biden, but he certainly would not renege on what he said four years ago about Clinton
if she became the Democrats' standard-bearer.
Should Clinton opt to run, she would have no trouble raising money since she set a record in
2016 of $1.4 billion
and wealthy donors want a moderate to be the Democratic nominee. It would seem likely that she
would enter the contest if Biden has serious trouble. She would miss some state primaries since
it would be too late to register in them but given the crowded field of candidates, there is a
likelihood that there will be a brokered convention, that is, the convention will go past the
first ballot. Since the superdelegates would be allowed to vote in all rounds after the first,
they could determine the winner, which would probably mean the selection of a candidate who
would be seen to have the greatest chance of winning, and that would likely be Hillary Clinton,
if she has entered the fray.
I discussed the merits of Pete Buttigieg in a previous article in
Unz Review, and what I write here might seem to conflict with that. However, while Buttigieg is
doing quite well
in the polls, he still does not get much support
from blacks and Latinos, which is essential to become the Democrats nominee for president.
Buttigieg could, however, be nominated for vice president or, more likely, given an important
cabinet position since the vice-presidential slot would probably be reserved for a black or
Latino if a white person were picked as the presidential nominee, which currently seems
likely.
But because of Buttigieg's relatively hardline foreign policy
, which largely meshes with that of Clinton's, and his wide knowledge and language ability,
Buttigieg would fit well in the all-important position of secretary of state in a Clinton
administration. Moreover, Buttigieg, whose tenure as mayor of South Bend, Indiana, will end in
January 2020, would almost certainly be willing to take such a position, which could serve as a
jumping-off point for the presidency in the future.
"... Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies. ..."
"... No informed American can afford to not know the names Oded Yinon, AIPAC, The Clean Break, The NEOCONS. Knowledge is indeed power. > ..."
"... Hersh hoped that future historians would document the fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press. Stephen Sniegoski, in The Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved the takeover. ..."
"... The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group attempting to take over America. The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a detailed account of General Smedley Butler's testimony to Congress about a secret plot to overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket. ..."
"... In a recently written best-seller two political scientists at the University of Chicago and Harvard (John Meirsheimer and Stephen J. Walt _The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_) broke a long-standing taboo in the United States and risked charges of anti-Semitism by exposing the role of the powerful Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) in the United States and its push for war against Iraq and with its future sights on Iran. This book echoes many of the claims made by Meirsheimer and Walt and further shows the agenda of the small circle of neoconservatives in directing American foreign policy. The author maintains that the neoconservatives are a "transparent cabal", in that they have operated as a tight-knit secret group but their actions remain transparent. ..."
"... That old canard "anti-semitic" is heard again in one of the reviews of this book. Nonsense!!! If one is anti-semitic simply because he is critical of certain policies followed by Likud, then many Jews living in Israel are also Jew haters. ..."
"... Israeli politicians are, undertandably, looking out for the intestests of their nation state. However, many American pols are beholden to the Israeli lobby (of simply feaful of it) and often place American interests second to that of the lobby. ..."
Although it is generally understood that American neoconservatives pushed hard for the war
in Iraq, this book forcefully argues that the neocons' goal was not the spread of democracy,
but the protection of Israel's interests in the Middle East. Showing that the neocon movement
has always identified closely with the interests of Israel's Likudnik right wing, the
discussion contends that neocon advice on Iraq was the exact opposite of conventional United
States foreign policy, which has always sought to maintain stability in the region to promote
the flow of oil. Various players in the rush to war are assessed according to their motives,
including President Bush, Ariel Sharon, members of the foreign-policy establishment, and the
American people, who are seen not as having been dragged into war against their will, but as
ready after 9/11 for retaliation
Every American should read this superb book about the intimate connection between the
state of Israel and the Americans who planned and promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003
(and who still influence U.S. policy in the Middle East). This very well-researched and
well-argued book will enlighten Americans who want to understand how the Jewish State of
Israel powerfully shapes U.S. Middle East policy.
Stephen Sniegowski provides a detailed look at the network of die-hard pro-Israel
Neoconservatives who have worked in the U.S. government, in think tanks, and in the news
media to shape American foreign policy to serve the needs of Israel at the expense of the
U.S. From media baron Rupert Murdoch, whose 175 newspapers around the world ALL editorialized
in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, to
Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and later Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, to
Vice President Dick Cheney, to the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle, the
neoconservatives successfully persuaded President George W. Bush to invade Iraq to promote
Israel's foreign policy interests.
Sniegowski describes how the Neocons promoted lies about Saddam Hussein's supposed Weapons
of Mass Destruction and his supposed ties to al-Qaeda terrorists from a network of think
tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Middle East Media Research Institute,
Hudson Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Center for Security Policy, and the
Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
He also traces the influence of Israeli Zionist Oded Yinon on the American
Neoconservatives. Yinon wrote an article in 1982 entitled "A Strategy for Israel in the
1980s" that called for Israel to bring about the dissolution of many of the Arab states and
their fragmentation into a mosaic of ethnic and sectarian groupings. This is basically what
is happening to Iraq and Syria today. He also called for Israelis to accelerate the
emigration of Palestinians from Israel, whose border he believed should extend to the Jordan
River and beyond it.
Yinon's article influenced a paper written for the Israeli Likud government of Benjamin
Netanyahu in 1996 by American neoconservatives Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David
Wurmser entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". This paper stated
that Netanyahu should "make a clean break" with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel's
claim to the West Bank and Gaza. Like Yinon's article, it also called for the removal of
Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the weakening of Syria to promote Israel's interests. It was
written five years BEFORE the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. These same three
men - Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser - who advised Netanyahu's Israeli
government on issues of national security would later advise President George W. Bush to
pursue virtually the same policies regarding the Middle East.
If you want to understand how and why powerful pro-Israel neoconservatives in the U.S.
misled Americans and convinced President George W. Bush to order the U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003, and how they persuaded the U.S. Congress to give Bush the authority to order the
invasion, read this outstanding book.
Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper
entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think
tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to
foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies.
The policy was adopted by the Israeli pro-settler right wing and Jewish activists in and
around the Clinton and Bush administrations such as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David
Wurmser (who all helped produce the original document). They identified as targets Iraq,
Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia and were handed a golden opportunity after the 9/11 attack on
the World Trade Centre. Iraq was falsely presented as an Al Qaeda base and the media planted
with stories about an imminent attack on the United States using WMD. Despite the CIA knowing
all along that the WMD didn't exist, the US still invaded Iraq and the story was quietly and
unbelievably changed to "building democracy".
As Sniegoski points out, the war has exceeded the cost of Vietnam and the same activists,
now working through Hillary Clinton are looking for "incidents" in Iraq to trigger the next
phase of the plan which is a US attack on Iran.
UPDATE October 2014:
And it gets worse: The 911 story itself keeps morphing. Google "Building 7", YouTube "911
Missing Links" or check the article at http://911speakout.org/7TOCPJ.pdf. >
Important book for those trying understand the chaos that
is currently reigning in the Middle East. From the lies based NEOCON attack on Iraq trumpeted
by the mainstream USA media as a fight to save Western Civilization, to the rise of ISIL.
This books will make those connections clear. No informed American can afford to not know the
names Oded Yinon, AIPAC, The Clean Break, The NEOCONS. Knowledge is indeed power. >
On January 27, 2005, [...] posted the remarks of Seymour Hersh (The New Yorker
contributor) at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York that a neoconservative cult had
taken over the American government.
Hersh hoped that future historians would document the
fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to
overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press. Stephen Sniegoski, in The
Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved
the takeover.
Other books have stressed how the neoconservative ideology is contrary to traditional
American values: Reclaiming the American Right (Justin Raimondo), America the Virtuous (Claes
Ryn), Where the Right Went Wrong (Patrick Buchanan).
"Memoirs of a Trotskyist" in Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (Irving Kristol)
provided a neoconservative account of the origins of neo-conservatism. Sniegoski noted
correctly that the term neoconservative originated with leftists critical of their former
comrades for attempting to infiltrate the Democratic and Republican parties. Thanks to
leftists who call neoconservatives the ultra-right and to conservative dupes who think that
anyone using a conservative label is a conservative, the neoconservative cancer has spread
through the fragile American political body.
The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group
attempting to take over America. The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a
detailed account of General Smedley Butler's testimony to Congress about a secret plot to
overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket.
Unlike earlier secret plots to take over the American government, Sniegoski explained how it
was possible for the neoconservatives to operate as a relatively transparent cabal. However,
he observed that the neoconservatives used a Trojan horse technique to take over the American
conservative movement. The goal of the neoconservatives is to promote endless wars regardless
of whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power.
The neoconservatives do not represent a popular mass movement in America. Instead, the
neoconservatives rely upon the co-operation of other groups. Sniegoski provided extensive
documentation of which groups enabled the neoconservatives. For example, the Christian
Zionists duped their followers into sacrificing money and soldiers. Zionism originated with
the writings of Moses Hess (who helped Karl Marx write The Communist Manifesto, was nicknamed
the Communist Rabbi, and who is buried in Israel). In 1862, Moses Hess published Rome and
Jerusalem. Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism (Shlomo Avineri) provided a detailed
explanation of the relationship between Communism and Zionism.
The reason for the fragility of American democracy is the failure of many Americans to
understand the most basic aspects of the American political system and of their
religions.
The Transparent Cabal is an important starting point for understanding how a neoconservative
cult opposed to traditional American political and religious values is able to destroy
America with endless wars.
_The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, And the
National Interest of Israel_, published in 2008 by Enigma Editions of IHS Press, by scholar
Stephen J. Sniegoski is a thorough examination of the role of the neoconservatives in pushing
for war in the Middle East (beginning with the war in Iraq and pushing onwards towards Iran)
in order to protect the national interests of Israel. Sniegoski makes the claim that the
neoconservatives have been the fundamental force behind the war efforts of the United States
and have played a particularly prominent role in the Bush administration. While these claims
have now become common knowledge, Sniegoski makes an important contribution by tracing the
history of the neoconservative movement and its links to prominent pro-Jewish and pro-Israel
groups. In particular, Sniegoski claims that neoconservativism is a tool of Zionism and the
Likudniks of Israel. Sniegoski traces out how following the attacks of September 11, the
neoconservative war hawks had a profound influence on the thinking of President Bush and
offered him a ready made solution to his foreign policy agenda. In this book, Sniegoski also
considers and refutes other theories as to the root causes behind America's intervention in
Iraq (such as the role of oil and war profiteering) but explains how these theories lack the
validity of that which lays the blame on the neoconservatives and their goals for Israeli
dominance in the Middle East.
In a recently written best-seller two political scientists at
the University of Chicago and Harvard (John Meirsheimer and Stephen J. Walt _The Israeli
Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_) broke a long-standing taboo in the United States and risked
charges of anti-Semitism by exposing the role of the powerful Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) in the
United States and its push for war against Iraq and with its future sights on Iran. This book
echoes many of the claims made by Meirsheimer and Walt and further shows the agenda of the
small circle of neoconservatives in directing American foreign policy. The author maintains
that the neoconservatives are a "transparent cabal", in that they have operated as a
tight-knit secret group but their actions remain transparent.
This book begins with a Foreword by Congressman Paul Findley (famous author of _They Dare
to Speak Out_ and longtime opponent of the Israeli Lobby) in which he explains the importance
of Sniegoski's book and deflects the spurious charge of anti-Semitism. Following this,
appears an Introduction by noted paleoconservative Paul Gottfried who explains his admiration
for Sniegoski's book, offers some comparisons between Sniegoski's claims and those of other
individuals, and contrasts the old non-interventionist limited government form of
conservativism with that of the neoconservatives.
The first chapter of Sniegoski's book is entitled "The Transparent Cabal" and notes the
disastrous consequences that have followed upon the Iraq war spurred on by the
neoconservatives. The author explains what he means in calling the neoconservatives a
"transparent cabal" and notes the importance of their Middle East, pro-Israeli agenda. The
author explains how following the events of September 11, they came to take on a prominent
role in influencing the thinking of the president (who had previously shown little interest
in the Middle East).
The second chapter is entitled "The "Neocon-Israel" Claim: Bits and
Pieces" and exposes the role of Israel's Likudnik party behind the neoconservatives. The
author deflects claims of "anti-Semitism" which are frequently hurled at those who make these
charges by showing that even many prominent Jews agree with this. Following this appears a
chapter entitled "Who are the Neocons?" which shows how the neocons emigrated from their
original home in the Democratic party of the McGovernite left into the Republican party as
the New Left began to voice criticisms of Israel. The author shows that many of the neocons
are actually socialists and Trotskyites parading under the label of "conservative". Further,
the author shows the role of various intellectuals centering around New York City in creating
the neoconservative movement.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "The Israeli Origins of the
Middle East War Agenda" which shows how the goal of Middle East war to further the interests
of Israel has been supported extensively by hawkish groups in Israel. The author explains how
these groups came to have such a prominent role in influencing the policy of the United
States and in suppressing the native population of Palestinians in Israel. Following, appears
a chapter entitled "Stability and the Gulf War of 1991: Prefigurement and Prelude to the 2003
Iraq War" in which the author explains the importance of the first Gulf War of Bush I in
prefiguring the Iraq War of Bush II. After this, appears a chapter entitled "During the
Clinton Years" in which the author shows the continuing role of the neocons during the
Clinton years.
Following this, appears a chapter entitled "Serbian Interlude and the 2000
Elections" in which the author explains how the war in Yugoslavia paved the way for the
coming Iraq War of President Bush. This also explains the split that occurred among
conservatives between those traditional conservatives who opposed the war and the neocons who
firmly supported it. Following this appears a chapter entitled "George W. Bush
Administration: The Beginning" in which the author explains the role that the neocons came to
take in the Bush administration mentioning in particular the role of such figures as
Wolfowitz and Cheney and the role of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Following
this appears a chapter entitled "September 11", showing how the events of Sept. 11 allowed
the neocon agenda to gain prominence in the mind of President Bush.
Next, appears a chapter
entitled "Move to War" explaining how the neocons pushed for war against Sadaam Hussein
presenting their case to the American people by claiming that Hussein was in possession of
WMDs which could be used against America. Following this appears a chapter entitled "World
War IV" explaining how the conflict in the Middle East came to be dubbed World War IV by
certain intellectuals among the neocons.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "Democracy for the
Middle East" showing the role of the neocons in foisting "democracy" onto various nations and
their goal of global democratic revolution. The author also explains the role of the thinking
of political philosopher Leo Strauss behind many of the neocons and his profoundly
anti-democratic philosophy. Following this, appears a chapter entitled "Neocons'
Post-Invasion Difficulties" showing how the invasion of Iraq turned out to be more serious
and difficult than originally anticipated by the neocons. Next, appears a chapter entitled
"Beginning of the Second Administration" showing the continuing role of the neocons under the
second Bush administration.
Then, appears a chapter entitled "Israel, Lebanon, and the 2006
Election" showing the role of Lebanon and Syria in relationship to Israel and that of the
2006 election.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "2007: On to Iran" showing how the neocons
continued to press for further wars in particular against Iran by alleging among other things
that Ahmedinejad was a mad man with possible access to nuclear weapons. Following, appears a
chapter entitled "The Supporting Cast for War" noting the role of Christian Zionists (which
includes the beliefs of President Bush, although not his father), former Cold Warriors, and
even prominent establishment liberals in supporting the Iraq war. The author notes however
that the traditional foreign policy establishment elites and many in the intelligence
agencies did not support the war, but were disregarded to further the neocon agenda. The
author also contrasts the difference between the liberal elites who frequently were pro-war
and the popular anti-war movement which had very little power.
Following this, the author
turns to a chapter entitled "Oil and Other Arguments" in which the author considers the
claims that the war was fought to obtain access to oil or for the interests of war profiteers
and shows that while both groups certainly benefited they are not the real reason for the
war. The book ends with a "Conclusion" in which the author expounds upon the continuing role
of the neocons in influencing American foreign policy and a "Postscript" in which the author
notes that no matter who wins the 2008 election that the neocon agenda will likely continue
and is not likely to go away anytime soon.
This book offers a fascinating history and account of the role of the neoconservatives in
pushing the United States into war. The author makes clear the influence of the Israeli
Likudnik party behind the neocons and their goal of strengthening the position of Israel in
the Middle East. It is important to understand the fundamental nature of the foreign policy
elites who have been pushing us into war against Iraq and now with eyes towards Iran.
That old canard "anti-semitic" is heard again in one of the reviews of this book.
Nonsense!!! If one is anti-semitic simply because he is critical of certain policies followed
by Likud, then many Jews living in Israel are also Jew haters.
Let's put aside these negative and nasty characterizations and look at the facts.
Israeli politicians are, undertandably, looking out for the intestests of their nation state.
However, many American pols are beholden to the Israeli lobby (of simply feaful of it) and
often place American interests second to that of the lobby.
To suggest that there is such a
lobby and that it is powerful is hardly anti-semitic. Nor is the author. He is simply stating
verifible facts which any student of politics is free to do. He may be mistaken in his
conclusions but that hardly makes him anti-semitic. And he may not be mistaken at all. He is
not the first to suggest that our leaders are fearful of the Israeli lobby and do its bidding
and often to the detriment of American interests .
Stephen Sniegoski, a diplomatic historian, is uniquely qualified to write about the
neoconservatives' involvement in the prolonged Iraq War originating in 2003. He accurately
predicted their activities and allegiance in this entanglement in 1998, three years before
the acts of 9-11 and two additional years before a traumatized nation yielded to a nescient,
misdirected President, his Vice President/administration, and an ostensibly compliant
bi-partisan House and Senate.
The author presents a tight outline which he cogently expands in intelligible detail,
maintaining that the origins of the American war on Iraq revolve around the adoption of a war
agenda whose basic structure was conceived in Israel to advance Israel's interests. The
pro-Israel neoconservatives and a powerful Israel lobby in the United States fervently pushed
its agenda. Ironically, he extracts his most persuasive evidence from an extensive
neoconservative paper trail that's been clearly recognized by a discreet cadre of vigilant
Americans for years. Thus the title, "The Transparent Cabal."
Dr. Sniegoski asks the appropriate question: "Who are the neoconservatives?" He provides
insightful answers on their pertinent activities since 1972, those who shaped and mentored
them, their immediate family/interconnected family networks, their prominent periodical
publications, their past and present leadership, non-Jewish minority members, their
persistent rise to positions of political influence and authority, their embrace of Christian
Zionists, and their close ties to the extremely conservative Likud Party in Israel. He
reveals their tactical affiliations with key, heavily endowed influential think tanks, and a
vast number of powerful Israel-centric lobbying organizations that reactively finance and
nurture their continued success.
Many readers will recognize his references to writers of previous books, articles and
columns -- many of Jewish heritage -- who bravely fight against well financed, mainstream
media-dominant opponents and their psychological surrogates active on the Internet. These
opponents perniciously engage in personal attacks and retribution, indiscriminately applying
irrelevant anti-semitic labels. They persist at attempting to sway public discourse by
spreading misinformation, disinformation, and mostly NO RELEVANT INFORMATION to the
public.
In various places throughout the book, the author notes curious relationships with current
and former elected and appointed officials. He writes about the ongoing 2008 presidential
campaign in a postscript, citing past and existing direct influences on specific candidates
by the neoconservatives, the Israel Lobby and its supporters.
The book concludes with a summary of the paucity of benefits compared to the predictable
losses of the American people over recent years. These are the real consequences of the
Israel-inspired plan to "drain the swamp" (a euphemism for destabilizing perceived enemies
then establishing precarious nominal democracies) that began with our misadventure in Iraq
and was to proceed with subsequent U.S. military interventions in Iran and Syria. The few
meager benefits and the enormous losses to the United States are compared to the strategic
advantages that the State of Israel derives directly from our five-year induced military
involvement in Iraq and our concomitant departure from past, longstanding policies of
diplomacy and stability in the Middle East.
Sniegoski counsels, "it is hardly controversial to propose that elites, rather than the
people as a whole, determine government policies, even in democracies."
Yet this war has a supporting cast of middle Americans. Many of them were traumatized by
the events of 9-11 and reactively saw an act of patriotism in supporting retaliation against
a falsely perceived enemy in Iraq. It's time to reconsider false arguments preceding the Iraq
War that have only been cosmetically modified until the present day. It's time to dismiss
incongruous ideas formed in the cauldron of confusion after 9-11.
Given today's realities, it DOES take patriotism and courage to insist on formally
normalizing an entangled, unreciprocated military alliance with an Israeli government that
burdens the taxpayers of the United States, promotes angst among its people, and imperils its
military forces worldwide.
Know and embrace Thomas Jefferson's ideal of 'eternal vigilance' as citizens of the United
States.
.
.
Facts in this book are reinforced in adjacent paragraphs and referenced in nearly 50 pages of
notes. Readers are encouraged to read:
World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global
Instability by Amy Chua -- "Israeli Surveillance of the Future Hijackers and FBI Suspects
in the September 11 Attacks and Their Failure to Give Us Adequate Warning: The Need for a
Public Inquiry" **a 166 PAGE LEAKED REPORT** documenting foreign espionage activities
surrounding 9-11, available on the Internet (although rarely in COMPLETE UNEDITED FORM **WITH
5 EXHIBITS AND 4 MAPS**). .
Stephen J. Sniegoski has a doctorate from the University of Maryland and studied American
diplomatic history. My review here will refer to him as "S," for short.
This book is about the American neoconservative movement. S goes from its founding through
its influential role in getting the U.S. into the Iraq War, then he discusses the War's
aftermath. S's argument is that the neoconservative agenda regarding the Middle East is
designed to serve the interests of the state of Israel, as those interests are articulated by
the right-wing Likud party there. This agenda supports weakening Arab nations surrounding
Israel so that they cannot pose a threat to her. According to S, the neoconservatives
supported such an agenda since their beginning as a movement, but 9/11 created an opportunity
for this agenda to become the foreign policy of the United States during much of the
Presidency of George W. Bush.
Here are some thoughts:
A. Looking broadly at the book itself, it is a standard narration of the events
surrounding and including the Iraq War. Like a lot of people, I lived through that, so the
sweeping narrative of the book was not particularly new to me. The story is essentially that
the U.S. went into Iraq expecting to find weapons of mass destruction after 9/11, bombed the
country and found that were no WMDs, and traveled the difficult road of trying to rebuild the
country, amidst ethnic division, turmoil, and opposition from Iraqis.
B. That said, there were some things that I learned from this book. First, while
neoconservatism is said to believe in spreading democracy in the Middle East, it is not
necessarily committed to democracy, per se. Initially, it supported a new government of Iraq
that would be led by the traditional, pre-Saddam tribal authorities, who were not democratic.
Second, S seems to imply that even the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan was
unnecessary, since the Taliban initially appeared cooperative in offering to help the U.S. to
bring al-Qaeda to justice. Third, there are neoconservatives who have supported undermining
even America's allies in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia. The different groups in Saudi
Arabia was also interesting, for, as S notes, Shiites hold a significant amount of control
over Saudi oil, even though the political establishment is Sunni. Fourth, S argues rigorously
against the idea that the U.S. launched the Iraq War to get more oil. Saddam was offering
U.S. oil companies opportunities to drill in Iraq, plus oil companies did not want the oil
infrastructure of the country to be disrupted or shattered by war.
C. There were also things in the book that I was interested to learn more about, even
though I had a rudimentary understanding of them before. For one, S chronicles George W.
Bush's changing views on foreign policy, as he went from rejecting nation-building, while
retaining a tough stance, to embracing nation building. In the early days of the Bush II
Administration, long before the Iraq War, Condi Rice even explained on news shows why regime
change in Iraq would be a mistake at that point. Second, S discusses the coalition that
emerged to support the war in Iraq. The neocons wanted to protect Israel, but Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld embraced the Iraq War as a way to showcase the effectiveness of a
lean military. Meanwhile, many Americans, frightened after 9/11, supported the Iraq War as a
way to keep the U.S. safe. And Christian conservatives embraced the good vs. evil, pro-Israel
stance of neoconservative policy. Third, S strategically evaluates moves that the U.S. made;
for S, for example, the surge did not actually work, but more stability emerged in Iraq as
different ethnic factions became separated from each other.
D. According to S, the Iraq War was a disaster. It stretched America's military, taking
away resources that could have been used to find Osama bin-Laden. Yet, Israel got something
that it wanted as a result: disarray among her Arab neighbors. An argument that S did not
really engage, as far as I can recall, is that the Iraq War placed Israel even more in peril,
since it increased the power of Iran by allowing Iraq to serve as a proxy for Iranian
interests.
E. For S, neoconservatism is concerned about the security of Israel. Even its staunch Cold
War policy is rooted in that concern, since the U.S.S.R. tended to support Arabs over the
Israelis. S acknowledges, though, that there is more to neoconservatism that that.
Neoconservatives supported a strong U.S. military intervention in the former Yugoslavia
during the Clinton Administration, and neoconservatism also maintains stances on domestic
issues, such as welfare.
F. S is sensitive to any charges of anti-Semitism that may be launched against his book.
He emphatically denies that he is saying there was a Jewish conspiracy to get the U.S. into
Iraq, for he observes that many Jews opposed the Iraq War. Moreover, S does not exactly
present the U.S. government as a Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG), for the neoconservatives
were long on the margins prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush. Even under Bush II, the
traditional national security and intelligence apparatus was critical of the Iraq War,
preferring more multilateralism and a focus on stability in the Middle East. The Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR), long a bogeyman of right-wing conspiracy theorists, also had
reservations about the Iraq War.
G. S largely depicts the Likud party in Israel, and neoconservatives, as supporting
Israel's security as a nation, her protection, if you will. At the same time, S argues that
Israel in 2006 was acting aggressively rather than defensively in its invasion of Lebanon,
for Lebanon had coveted water-supplies.
H. Near the end of the Iraq War, S demonstrates, neoconservatives were calling on the U.S.
to take an aggressive stance against Iran, going so far as to bomb the country. That, of
course, is an issue that remains relevant today. S probably regards such a move as a mistake.
At the same time, he can understand why Israel would be apprehensive about a nuclear-armed
Iran. He thinks that Ahmadinejad has been incorrectly understood to say that Israel should be
wiped off the map, but S still acknowledges that a powerful Iran could provide more support
to the Palestinians, which would trouble Israel. Although S understands this, he seems to
scorn the idea that Israel should get everything she wants and have hegemony.
I. S is open to the possibility that neoconservatives believe that their support for
Israel is perfectly consistent with America's well-being. As S observes, the U.S. government
since its founding has had people who believe that partisanship towards a certain nation --
-Britain or France -- -is not only good for its own sake but serves the interests of the
United States. S disputes, however, that neoconservative policy is the only way to help the
U.S. Could not one argue, after all, that the U.S. would want to be on the Arabs' good side,
with all the oil the Arabs have? This analysis may be a little dated, since the U.S. now has
some alternative sources of energy (fracking), but S makes this point in evaluating the
historical stance of neoconservatism.
I was interested to see the reviews of this book. Usually if any book suggests that Israel
is less than perfect a group of Zionist fanatics surface with several reviews telling us that
there nothing wrong Israel or American support of it.
Remarkably there is only one negative review of this book which has to be seen to be
believed. This reviewer "yoda" from Israel charges in all seriousness that Sniegoski does not
provide evidence that the neoconservatives are "predominantly Jewish " and are " strongly
aligned with Israel". Asking the author to provide evidence for such
assertions is like asking him to give evidence that the sun will
rise in the east tomorrow .
This is I believe the real reason that that there are relatively few attacks on this book.The
author does not engage in shrill denunciations of Israel or of the neoconservatives . What he
does do is quote at length what neocoservstives say and provide careful documentation for any
factual claims. For the most part the reader is allowed to
draw his own conclusions. Should the US continue to finance
Israeli repression of Palestinians and perhaps go to war against Iran or anyone else who
might object to Israeli policie?
Instead of denouncing Sniegoski "Yoda" should consider
the sane Israelis in his own country . For example former
Mossad chief Meir Dagan who said that a war with Iran was
the "stupidest idea he had ever heard of." Also moviemaker
Emmanuel Dror who interviewed virtually all the former directors of the Shin Bett ( Israel's
internal security service )
who all called for disengaging from the occupied territories .
perhaps we all would be better off listening to these Isaelis rather than follow the
neoconservatives into another disastrous war on the other side of the world.
This is going to be a very strange review coming from me. You see, I wrote a novel called
"Other Nations" and well, people that liked it a lot, liked it, but then those that really
disliked it disliked it because my "aliens among humans" were nice people, likeable people,
even charismatic people, everyday suburban types even, living that kind of life. Among us.
Next door, in the next city over. They wanted instead to see the aliens among us portrayed as
well, pick your favorite genocidal maniac or mind-controlling dictator or creature so
dementedly alien that no sense can be made of it. Well!
There are many types of true horror. The kind that passes itself off as my aliens among us
are portrayed, well, I guess some people GET IT - and they liked it.
But I'm not here to push my book. I'm here to push THIS BOOK - because my god, this is
REAL, not fantasy, it's REAL, not science fiction. And yes, they are among us with well -
BUY THIS BOOK. If you are too broke to buy it, get it from the library - and by all means
- READ IT.
Just hope to whatever god you choose that neocons are removed from governmental influence
and that their Amen corner is ignored. Hope to god, because if they suceed in doing the
INSANITY they want to do - America will be FINISHED - if it's not finished already due to
what these Fifth Columnists have done during the 8 years of Twilight Zone (GWB Rule).
And for those Jewish critics on here that might want to compare these neocon FACTS and the
other FACTS openly available to all (which is WHY the book is called the TRANSPARENT cabal) -
compare it to the Protocols - they better think twice about that. Becauase, you see, what's
in here is real, real facts, provably real facts - and if Jews themselves compare this to the
Procols? Some folks might get the idea that maybe that is real too. Perhaps George Soros (who
is Jewish) needs to speak LOUDER against the neocons. They are, indeed, crazies, as Colin
Powell called them. Crazies.
If you want to have an eye opener then read and see who were those Jewish players working
and influencing everything in the Bush Admin.promoting war with Iraq, then this is your book
of truth. The cabal of Jewish players come out of the woodwork in Stephen Sniegoski's great
work. When step by step the plan was a clear war map laid out for the U.S. in detail and
after you realize just who was working for whom in this criminal cabal of the American
government.
When you have Jewish control of the main stream media and Jewish control in Washington, D.C.,
don't wonder why the facts were omitted to make all the right connections for the public to
see in this lead up to a war from lies.
"... November in Ukraine has been marked by the adoption of the so called 'land reform', in accordance of the demands made by the IMF amongst other international financial organizations. The reform opens the way for the mass privatization of Ukraine's agricultural lands. The IMF has been making these demands for many years but assorted Ukrainian presidents have tried to postpone such an unpopular decision. Recent polls show that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians of all political persuasions are opposed to land privatization, from far-right to far-left. ..."
"... After an intensive period of deindustrialization, which has taken place in recent years, agricultural land remain the only asset with any value in Ukraine but even so, it may be bought for very little. A remarkable fact is that one of the deputies from the ruling party 'Servant of the people,' Nikita Poturayev , while pressing his colleagues at the Parliament to vote for the bill on land reform, claimed [1] that this would be 'settling scores with maniac V. Lenin', i.e. the purpose of the bill was to abolish the land nationalization carried out following the October revolution. ..."
"... Ukrainian political expert Ruslan Bortnik says that the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and his team came to power under an obligation to sell out the agricultural land of Ukraine to foreign companies. Those who buy these lands, according to Bortnik, will only be thinking about making the quickest possible buck. "Foreign companies are already operating on Ukrainian soil [renting land]," said Bortnik, ..."
"... "But they are competing with large Ukrainian agricultural holdings. They do not dominate. If the adopted land market model is launched, then only large foreign companies will remain in our market Let's be honest – we are not a sovereign country. At least our government is under external control. And this is a part of the obligations of this government. This is the condition under which they came to power. They are paying the debts through privatization." [2] ..."
"... Ukrainian farmers who still are landowners, formally at least – they just can't sell it – are the same people who are unable to pay their gas and electricity bills, especially after the recent raising of energy prices – another IMF demand. ..."
"... For the most part, it was in the region of $7.4 billion of stolen Ukraine's public money, from which only a "small share" was used to bribe Western politicians, like Hunter Biden. The deputies have stressed that, according to the investigation of Ukraine's general prosecution, the withdrawn and laundered money was then invested back into Ukraine. In particular through the Franklin Templeton Investments, the money was used to buy domestic government bonds (DGB), issued by Kiev at high interest rate. ..."
"... Ukrainian prosecutor Konstantin Kulik recently stated [4] in an interview that Ukraine takes IMF loans to pay out on these debt obligations (DGB). As deputy Aleksandr Dubinsky stressed at the press conference, 40% of the current public budget goes towards the payment of the public debt of Ukraine, including the repayment of DGB at inflated interest rates. ..."
November in Ukraine has been marked by the adoption of the so called 'land reform', in accordance of the demands made by the
IMF amongst other international financial organizations. The reform opens the way for the mass privatization of Ukraine's agricultural
lands. The IMF has been making these demands for many years but assorted Ukrainian presidents have tried to postpone such an unpopular
decision. Recent polls show that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians of all political persuasions are opposed to land privatization,
from far-right to far-left.
After an intensive period of deindustrialization, which has taken place in recent years, agricultural land remain the only
asset with any value in Ukraine but even so, it may be bought for very little. A remarkable fact is that one of the deputies from
the ruling party 'Servant of the people,' Nikita Poturayev , while pressing his colleagues at the Parliament to vote for the bill
on land reform, claimed [1] that this would be 'settling scores with maniac V. Lenin', i.e. the purpose of the bill was to abolish
the land nationalization carried out following the October revolution.
Ukraine's fertile soil up for grabs
It has long been known that Ukraine's soil is very fertile. Indeed, during WW2 the invading Nazis made a point of appropriating
quantities of it; forcing POWs to collect the top soil and load it onto trains en route to Germany. Now these same lands could fall
into the hands of international agro-holdings.
Ukrainian political expert Ruslan Bortnik says that the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and his team came to power
under an obligation to sell out the agricultural land of Ukraine to foreign companies. Those who buy these lands, according to Bortnik,
will only be thinking about making the quickest possible buck. "Foreign companies are already operating on Ukrainian soil [renting
land]," said Bortnik,
"But they are competing with large Ukrainian agricultural holdings. They do not dominate. If the adopted land market model
is launched, then only large foreign companies will remain in our market Let's be honest – we are not a sovereign country. At
least our government is under external control. And this is a part of the obligations of this government. This is the condition
under which they came to power. They are paying the debts through privatization." [2]
Ukrainian farmers who still are landowners, formally at least – they just can't sell it – are the same people who are unable
to pay their gas and electricity bills, especially after the recent raising of energy prices – another IMF demand. Obviously,
their financial desperation will mean that many will have to sell their land at a low price, certainly well below the market value.
Meanwhile, Ukraine remains the poorest country on the continent of Europe and Ukrainian agricultural land remains the cheapest. Moreover,
the lands may be bought up as repaying large loans collected by the Kiev government following the Euromaidan coup in 2014.
This scheme of buying up Ukraine's land is connected with the ongoing corruption scandal in the US: the one related to Joe Biden
and the gas company 'Burisma'. At the end of November, Ukrainian MPs (non-factional people's deputy Andrey Derkach; a deputy from
the Batkivshchyna Party Aleksey Kucherenko; and a deputy from the ruling Servant of the People party, Aleksandr Dubinsky) revealed
it at the press-conference [3].
The point here is that the former Minister of Ecology of Ukraine Nikolay Zlochevsky , an owner of "Burisma" gas company, in 2014
introduced a number of Western politicians to the board of directors of his company, which helped him to avoid accusations of corruption.
Hunter Biden , son of former US Vice President Joe Biden , received monthly large payments for his "consultancy services". As a result
Ukraine's General prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the corruption schemes of the company, was forced – under
pressure – to resign by Joe Biden, who even boasted about it in the US media.
Ukrainian MPs have now claimed at a press-conference that the money used to bribe the son of the former Vice President of the
United States was in fact stolen. "Biden received money, the source of which is not the successful activity of Burisma, brilliant
business moves, or recommendations. It is the money of the citizens of Ukraine. It was obtained by criminal means," said the MP Andrey
Derkach. The ultimate goal of all this fraud, in which the Bidens were deeply involved, will be the bankruptcy of Ukraine in 2020-2021,
through the formation of a pyramid of public debt.
Laundering scheme to withdraw money from Ukraine
According to Ukrainian deputies, this was a part of a bigger laundering scheme to withdraw money from Ukraine via Latvian banks
and the fund 'Franklin Templeton Investments,' which is close to the United States Democratic Party. The founder of the foundation,
John Templeton Jr., was one of the main sponsors of the campaign of former US President Barack Obama.
For the most part, it was in the region of $7.4 billion of stolen Ukraine's public money, from which only a "small share"
was used to bribe Western politicians, like Hunter Biden. The deputies have stressed that, according to the investigation of Ukraine's
general prosecution, the withdrawn and laundered money was then invested back into Ukraine. In particular through the Franklin Templeton
Investments, the money was used to buy domestic government bonds (DGB), issued by Kiev at high interest rate.
The principle of this scheme is that with the assistance of American funds, the laundered money was legalised and invested in
government bonds at 6-8% in dollars and 15-17% in Ukrainian currency (hryvnia). This is leading to enormous growth in the Ukrainian
public debt and eventually the bankruptcy of the country's economy.
Eventual bankruptcy of the economy
Ukrainian prosecutor Konstantin Kulik recently stated [4] in an interview that Ukraine takes IMF loans to pay out on these
debt obligations (DGB). As deputy Aleksandr Dubinsky stressed at the press conference, 40% of the current public budget goes towards
the payment of the public debt of Ukraine, including the repayment of DGB at inflated interest rates.
According to him, bankruptcy on the debts could happen by the end of 2020 or 2021.
And this scheme is connected with land privatization, as adopted by Kiev in November in accordance with the IMF demand. "DGBs
are a financial instrument by which the state owes all its property when paying off the DGB. And if the land market is opened, the
state will have no other valuable property, with the exception of land," said Dubinsky, demanding the suspension of debt payments
to international creditors.
As a result of this unpopular land reform and the widespread violations of labour rights, Ukraine's trade-unions called a general
strike [5] for November 14 and began preparations. For the first time in the history of independent Ukraine, a strike committee was
formed at the all-national level. This committee was joined by trade unions, individual entrepreneurs, small businesses, agricultural
producers and farmers.
Management fires workers, pays themselves millions in bonuses
On November 14, Ukrainian railroad workers protested [6] in front of the Presidential office in Kiev against the announced plans
to fire some 50% of railroad personnel. The workers demanded the railroad management should resign instead. The deputy head of the
railroad trade-union, Alexander Mushenok, recently said [7] that currently "only 20 workers are employed where 60 workers are needed."
At the same time the workers claim that the top-level management of the company are paying themselves millions in bonuses. One of
the IMF demands requires that the Kiev authorities privatize the railroad system as well. In practice, this means that the few profitable
routes will be privatized by western companies, while the majority of non-profitable routes – to poorly developed provinces – will
remain state-owned, making the railway transport even less profitable.
The entire course of privatization, as promoted by the IMF, can be summarized by the principle 'privatization of profits, nationalization
of losses." And the new Kiev government is far too dependent to protest against the imposition of this policy; however, this will
effectively mean that this government will lose its credibility and trustworthiness among the people.
*
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.
Republicans are actually afraid to ask questions about Obama administration smashing constitutional order in Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... The Ukraine fiasco should be blown wide open for all to see I hope. I even started emailing my "lefty" NYT reading friends photos of Azov Battalion, Right Sector, and C14 militias and asking why Trump should be sending Javelin anti tank missiles to these folks. ..."
"... Ukraine seems a center for weapons trafficking, embezzlement, money laundering, and hacking. 3 billion in IMF loans with no strings, where did it go, USAID money where did it go? How many weapons purchased by Qatar & co. ended up in Syria via Ukraine? ..."
"... Friends! Bread and circus, all of this! The monsters who rule over us must be having quite a laugh, all the way to the bank. ..."
What was inescapable during the hearing was the absence of parliamentary courtesy or simply personal gracious
conduct on the part of Chair of the Committee who was consistently intrusive as he overstepped his role with
arbitrary, prejudicial
violations of Roberts Rules of
Order.
Schiff
routinely ruled Points of Order
to be out of
order with an inflated sense of magisterial presence. His demeanor proved to be classless and boorish as if he had
been granted special dispensation from the House of Representative's Code of Conduct to treat his colleagues with
disdain and contempt.
Schiff routinely
refused to 'recognize
' a Member,
liberally gavelled his authority to cut off debate and at times,
badgered Republican witnesses
and further treated
Republican Members, who are his peers, as second class citizens in what was once regarded as a collegial body.
Once the dust settles, the House Ethics Committee may ultimately weigh in on Schiff's character and the manner in
which he conducted the Committee's business.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not
funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount
of support is hugely appreciated.
ttshasta
,
The Ukraine fiasco should be blown wide open for all to see I hope. I even started emailing my "lefty"
NYT reading friends photos of Azov Battalion, Right Sector, and C14 militias and asking why Trump should
be sending Javelin anti tank missiles to these folks.
I also forwarded Eva Bartlett's October pice on her
Crimea visit describing 200 new kindergartens and new airports and bridges to my friends who think I'm
crazy for saying Crimea has been part of Russia since 1784 and voted 90+% to rejoin Russia. Max
Blumenthal's Grayzone reports 4 million have left Ukraine, an exodus like Venezuela's. Adam Schiff had a
$1000/$2500 per plate fundraiser at Ukrainian Igor Pasternaks home in D.C. Is Pasternak a weapons dealer,
I'm not sure? Who is involved in Ukraine: Manafort, Biden, Obama's Hochstein, CIA's Woolsey, US Favarov,
Crowdstrike, Firtash, John Kerry, and on and on.
Ukraine seems a center for weapons trafficking, embezzlement, money laundering, and hacking. 3 billion in
IMF loans with no strings, where did it go, USAID money where did it go? How many weapons purchased by
Qatar & co. ended up in Syria via Ukraine?
I do not like and did not vote for Orange Jesus, but it seems the Biden, Kerry, Obama, Clinton apparatus
has more to answer for regarding Ukraine. Adam Schiff drives me crazy with his misleading and witness
coaching; he did propose repealing Citizens United though, of which I approve if it is not a diversion
tactic.
Like anyone expects an Amerikastani to tell the truth about anything, ever, for any reason. Amerikastanis
are genetically incapable of it.
Ken
,
Friends! Bread and circus, all of this! The monsters who rule over us must be having quite a laugh, all
the way to the bank.
Berlin beerman
,
The fact that there are citizens who watch this and then believe that their President actually committed
an impeachable offense in the process is past comic. Its sad because it implies one of two things.
1. The masses who watch and believe are as evil as the woman they tried to elect to the White House.
and/or
2. The masses are complete idiots .
the fact that Mr.Trump may actually be trying to help their sorry asses – by trying to put the
American people ahead of corporate interests – is one thing these haters have no clue about. Instead they
prefer to sit, watch and partake in their elected fools waste time and money on infighting and stupidity
– ironically all the attributes they dislike in their President.
Its rather poetic.
Jack_Garbo
,
Not at all. Obama has impeccable (unimpeachable?) manners but he's a worse war criminal than Bush,
and he'll never be tried. As I said, look up impeachable offenses. Trump is (sadly) innocent, the
inquiry is a failed charade. Once out of office, he's eminently indictable, but that won't happen
either. His crimes are not relevant.
Guy
,
All this crap about impeachment , he said she said , and lets not forget it's all Russia's fault which
leads me to as ,what are they drawing our attention away from .Could it be the whole Epstein affair ,
nothing to see here folks .Move along ..all guilty as sin of course .
Vexarb
,
Seattle's multi-talented Amy Walker tried to do Trump and failed. I bet she cannot do Hilary either.
Their saurian corporate world of primal GREED & cold blooded FASCISM is too primitive for her. But she
can and did create Eunice. Here is Amy Walker's wickedly affectionate sketch, the most delicately
incisive probing of Yankee psyche since Gatsby -- and much more positive, in its well brought up, well
educated, well intentioned and naively earnest simplicity of mind.
PPPPS And finally, Eunice's simpleminded and muddleheaded search for authentic being is
absorbed and overlayed by the mawkish bloated U$ culture typified by this POTU$A election.
But Eunice is blithely unaware of all this; the machinations of Obomba, Killary and
Trumpety-trump are beneath her dignity and above her head.
There is an article of the Mawkish Culture of the U$A in today's Saker Vineyard; but the
creation of Eunice shows that mawkish culture has fine, sensitive, deep penetrating roots.
" Yanukovych when he refused to join the EU " Yanukovych did not refuse to join the European Union. The
Ukraine was not then, and is not now, in a position to join the European Union. What Yanukovych did was
decide to not proceed with an association agreement which the European Union and the Ukraine had been
negotiating.
Vexarb
,
Short list by Asdlkks above: "[Trump] The guy who sucked up to AIPAC and Zionists, who first day
in office goes to the CIA, then makes torture Queen director of the CIA, and former director of
the CIA his Secretary of State replacing Big Oil tycoon, who has stuffed every regulatory agency
with swamp creatures more swampy than Obama or any other President could manage, who INCREASED
military operations in the ME including making the rules of engagement such it is even easier to
slaughter civilians, who ran on a big military buildup including a buildup of nuclear weapons
far greater than Obama's "modernization" who has pledged now to greatly increase the
distribution of military equipment to police departments than has been occurring for decades
already, " plus Trump's association with 911 coverup Mayor Giuliani.
Admittedly not a heinous
crimesheet by POTU$A standards.
Listening to Elise Stefanik, was reminded of George Galloway's famous stoush with the U.S Senate back in
2005.
But as for Adam Schiff?
He is obviously a lettuce leaf short of a salad, a jam sandwich without the jam, and a person who quite
obviously needs to speak to someone wearing a white coat.
And with both being deluded Russophobes, I'm certain he and Fiona Hill would make a great team.
How much longer is This Crap going for??
Yarkob
,
as long as they need to constantly use the phrase "under the shadow of impeachment" throughout the
2020 election cycle
wardropper
,
I give it about 17 years before western civilization implodes under the sheer gravitational force of
the crap with which it has surrounded itself for many decades.
George Mc
,
And just think that, as the mass of population sinks deeper into poverty, how much money is being
thrown at this, as you say, Crap? And I am aware that This Crap is, if I may switch metaphors, only
the tip of the iceberg. How many gazillions are being thrown at destabilising various societies,
grinding out relentless propaganda, piling into bloated military juggernauts, glutinous showbiz,
sporting and royal festivals etc. (shepherd's crook approaches)
Martin Usher
,
My guess is that the committee will produce a report which won't be used to impeach the President but
will form a central plank of next year's election campaign. The Republicans are desperate to have
actual impeachment proceedings, they know that the Senate would not convict Satan himself if that
person was one of them and the resulting noise will draw attention away from some looming issues in
the economy and the world which may well break in Q1 next year.
I know there are a lot of people who
will support Trump no matter what and who are quick to point out the failings in other politicians.
There's plenty of crap to go round, however while Trump has been fiddling Rome has been burning --
remember, what might be good for industry lobbyists or could be construed as "God's Work" may not be
actually good policies and there signs that things might not be as wonderful as they'd like. Three
that spring to mind are the relentless money printing by the Fed, inflationary at best, the likelihood
that the heartland will experience significant job reductions in key industries that can't be papered
over and the fact that the tariffs and sanctions put on China don't seem to have had any significant
effect -- on the Chinese, that is (US companies, that's a different take). This isn't all Trump's
fault, the problems have been brewing up for a lot longer than his Presidency, but the complete lack
of action or even recognition that there are problems (China trade excepted) combined with a crass and
very ham-fisted approach to foreign policy is exacerbating things.
US of A twinned with Ukraine a marriage made in heaven. I'm at a loss to say who has the finest
democracy.
As Rhys said below "I can fuck your wife anytime I want, but you fuck my wife and you're fucked,
dude." . No wonder Victoria Nuland's name has been passed over in this shit show.
I was asked by a Russian today, "Which country has the best democracy?". To which I replied "First you
have to define what exactly a democracy is." And they said, "It's what you have in the West."
To which I could only remark, "I wish I had your innocence."
George Mc
,
"Which country has the best democracy? .It's what you have in the West."
Kind of answered his own question there. Wrongly of course.
George Cornell
,
Thanks for the summary. I did not watch, preferring to gaze at the peacock feathers in my duster. The
Dems are making Trump look less odious, no small feat.
"... Ciaramella invited Chalupa to meetings and events at the Obama White House. She also visits the Obama White House with Ukrainian lobbyists seeking aid from Obama. Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in 2017, " ..."
"... According to Fox News, the complaint alleges that the DNC specifically "tasked Chalupa with obtaining incriminating or derogatory information about Donald Trump [and] Paul Manfort," ..."
"... Remarkably, despite his clear connections to Rice and Brennan, he was brought back into the inner circle of the Trump NSC by HR McMaster. McMaster appointed him to be his personal aide. ..."
"... He was fired in June of 2017 after being directly implicated in a series of serious national security leaks from the White House calculated to be damaging to President Trump. ..."
"... Vindman also leaked the classified information about the President's call with a foreign head of state to a number of other people. These unauthorized leaks are criminal. Both illegal, unethical and unconscionable. ..."
"... Ciaramella worked with both Grace and Misko in the NSC at the Obama White House. Misko and Grace joined Schiff's committee in early August of 2019, just in time to coordinate the "whistleblower" complaint. ..."
"... Both Vindman and Ciaramella do not qualify for "whistleblower" status. They were reporting on a diplomatic conversation, not an intelligence matter. They were not reporting on a member of the Intelligence committee. ..."
"... IC IG Michael Atkinson surreptitiously changed the rules for whistleblower complaints to allow second-hand testimony in September of 2019. He then backdated the changes to allow the Ciaramella complaint, initially filed in early August, to be included under the new "interpretive" guidelines. ..."
"... The playbook is the same as the Mueller Inquisition and the Russia Hoax, the same as the Kavanaugh smear campaign. With the same co-conspirators of the left-wing mainstream media. Not only carrying water for the coup plotters but being actual participants in the scheme. Paid mouthpieces for the Deep State. ..."
"... Sperry's devastating expose makes clear that Ciaramella is another cog in the Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Rice, Obama conspiracy to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States. As Chuck Schumer said in January of 2017, ..."
"... Ciaramella helped generate the "Putin fired Comey" narrative. Sperry reports, "In the days after Comey's firing, this presidential action was used to further political and media calls for the standup of the special counsel to investigate 'Russia collusion.'" ..."
WASHINGTON, DC : Adam Schiff "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella has
been exposed as a John Brennan ally. An ally who actively worked to defame, target, and destroy
President Donald Trump during both the Obama and Trump administrations. He was fired from the
Trump White House for leaking confidential if not classified information detrimental to the
President. ( The Pajama Boy
Whistleblower Revealed – Rush Limbaugh )
The 33-year-old Ciaramella, a former Susan Rice protege, currently works for the CIA as an
analyst.
Eric Ciaramella: The Deep State non-whistleblower
During his time in the Obama White House, NSC Ciaramella worked under both Vice President
Joe Biden and CIA director John Brennan. He reported directly to NSC advisor Susan Rice through
his immediate boss, Charles Kupchan. Kupchan had extensive ties with Clinton crony Sydney
Blumenthal. Large portions of Blumenthal's disinformation from Ukrainian sources in 2016 was
used in the nefarious Steele Dossier.
Ciaramella also worked extensively with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa. Chalupa led the
effort at the DNC to fabricate a link between the Trump Campaign to Vladimir Putin and Russia.
According to Politico, Chalupa "met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington
in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia."
The DNC paid Chalupa $412,000 between 2004 and 2016.
DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa: Ciaramella co-conspirator
"Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump's campaign, 'I felt there
was a Russia connection.'"
Apparently without any evidence. So she set out to concoct it.
Chalupa (left) also says that the Ukrainian embassy was working directly with reporters
digging for Trump-Russia ties. How convenient, and unethical.
Ciaramella invited Chalupa to meetings and events at the Obama White House. She also visits
the Obama White House with Ukrainian lobbyists seeking aid from Obama. Senator Charles
Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a letter to Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein in 2017, "
"Chalupa's actions appear to show that she was simultaneously working on behalf of a
foreign government, Ukraine, and on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign, in an effort to
influence not only the U.S voting population but U.S. government officials."
The FEC complaint against the DNC and Chalupa
In September 2019 a complaint was filed with the Federal Elections Commission against the
DNC naming Alexandra Chalupa. The complaint alleges that Chalupa acted "improperly to gather
information on Paul Manafort and Donald Trump in the 2016 election".
According to Fox News, the complaint alleges that the DNC specifically "tasked Chalupa
with obtaining incriminating or derogatory information about Donald Trump [and] Paul
Manfort,"
Fox News reporting, that Chalupa allegedly
"Pushed for Ukrainian officials to publicly mention Manafort's financial and political ties
to" Ukraine and "sought to have the Ukrainian government provide her information about
Manafort's work in the country."
John Solomon and Wikileaks both expose Chalupa as DNC operative
"Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information
from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort's dealings inside the country. Chalupa later
tried to arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort's Russian ties
on a U.S. visit during the 2016 campaign."
Ciaramella's connection with John Brennan and Susan Rice
Eric Ciaramella had been working with John Brennan, Susan Rice, the Obama White House, and
Alexandra Chalupa to target and destroy Donald Trump well before he was elected. He was
initially brought into the NSC and the White House inner circle by John Brennan himself.
Remarkably, despite his clear connections to Rice and Brennan, he was brought back into the
inner circle of the Trump NSC by HR McMaster. McMaster appointed him to be his personal
aide.
He was fired in June of 2017 after being directly implicated in a series of serious national
security leaks from the White House calculated to be damaging to President Trump.
Ciaramella and Alexander Vindman: the second "whistleblower"
Ciaramella's title at the White House was NSC Director for Ukraine. That position is now
held by the newest Schiff star witness and Trump hater Lt. Col Alexander Vindman. Vindman is
apparently the "2nd whistleblower" to leak his concerns about the call between Trump and
President Zelensky to Ciaramella.
Vindman also leaked the classified information about the President's call with a foreign
head of state to a number of other people. These unauthorized leaks are criminal. Both illegal,
unethical and unconscionable.
Violating clear national security guidelines for classified information.
Republicans, on cross-examination of Vindman was asked by Republicans cross-examining him
during the closed-door secret police hearings conducted by Adam Schiff, asking who Vindman had
contact with. Schiff cut off the questioning, coaching the witness while refusing to let him
answer the questions.
Schiff coordinated with Ciaramella and Vindman
It is now clear that Ciaramella and Vindman coordinated the entire whistleblower affair with
Schiff and his staff in violation of the "whistleblower" statute. That Ciaramella has been
coordinating his complaint with Schiff committee staffers Abigail Grace and Sean Misko.
Ciaramella worked with both Grace and Misko in the NSC at the Obama White House. Misko and
Grace joined Schiff's committee in early August of 2019, just in time to coordinate the
"whistleblower" complaint.
Both Vindman and Ciaramella do not qualify for "whistleblower" status. They were reporting
on a diplomatic conversation, not an intelligence matter. They were not reporting on a member
of the Intelligence committee.
The suspicious case of IC IG Michael Atkinson
IC IG Michael Atkinson surreptitiously changed the rules for whistleblower complaints to
allow second-hand testimony in September of 2019. He then backdated the changes to allow the
Ciaramella complaint, initially filed in early August, to be included under the new
"interpretive" guidelines.
The level of subterfuge and coordination between Schiff, Ciaramella, Vindman, Abigail Grace,
Sean Misko, and IG Atkinson is more than suspicious. It reeks of yet another episode of a Deep
State coordinated coup attempt.
The whole impeachment affair is a brazen sequel to the Russia Hoax involving many of the
same key players. Susan Rice, John Brennan, Adam Schiff. Designed to target, destroy, and in
this case, fabricate grounds for the impeachment of the President.
The playbook is the same as the Mueller Inquisition and the Russia Hoax, the same as the
Kavanaugh smear campaign. With the same co-conspirators of the left-wing mainstream media. Not
only carrying water for the coup plotters but being actual participants in the scheme. Paid
mouthpieces for the Deep State.
Paul Sperry and Real Clear Investigations
The most comprehensive expose on Ciaramella, that has forced even the mainstream media to
take notice, was the Real Clear Investigations reporting of Paul Sperry. Only Sperry, the
Federalist, and CDN have exposed the whistleblowers' identity. But his name and transparent
partisan actions are the worst kept secret in Washington.
As CIA analyst Fred Fleitz has said:
"Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows.
Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is."
Sperry's devastating expose makes clear that Ciaramella is another cog in the Brennan,
Clapper, Comey, Rice, Obama conspiracy to overthrow the duly elected President of the United
States. As Chuck Schumer said in January of 2017,
"If you take on the intelligence community, they have nines ways to Sunday of getting back
at you."
The never-ending coup attempt against Trump
The reality is that Trump was targeted by the Obama White House well before he was
President. The ongoing coup against him started as soon as he was elected. It morphed into the
Mueller Weissman inquisition and the Peter Strzok insurance policy.
When that fizzled into oblivion it was time for plan B, or in this case plan C or D. The
Deep State and their paid minions in the left-wing press have been unrelenting in their ongoing
anti-constitutional putsch against the President.
The impeachment farce, with its calculated rollout reminiscent of the Kavanaugh smear
campaign, is yet another extension of a never-ending East German Stassi coup (sic) attempt
against the constitution, the Republic, and the people of the United States.
Sperry lays out the trail of evidence against Ciaramella
Paul Sperry's excellent investigative reporting makes clear that Ciaramella "previously
worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan. (He) left his
National Security Council posting in the White House's West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns
about negative leaks to the media." As Sperry reports, "He was accused of working against Trump
and leaking against Trump," said a former NSC official.
Sperry reports that "a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research
dossier on him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill". The
dossier documents Ciaramella's bias against Trump. His relationships with Brennan, Rice, the
Obama White House, and DNC operative Chalupa. As well as his coordination with Vindman, Schiff
and his committee staff.
Chuck Schumer: "Eight ways to Sunday of getting back at you"
It questions both Ciaramella's and Vindman's veracity as a legitimate whistleblower. It
makes clear that Ciaramella and his co-conspirators are part of a Deep State coup attempt. A
calculated, coordinated, illegal, seditious, and illegitimate putsch.
As CIA analyst Fred Fleitz makes clear, " They're hiding him ." Fleitz was emphatic,
" They're hiding him because of his political bias."
Ciaramella helped generate the "Putin fired Comey" narrative. Sperry reports, "In the days
after Comey's firing, this presidential action was used to further political and media calls
for the standup of the special counsel to investigate 'Russia collusion.'"
How IC Inspector General Atkinson found the whistleblower complaint "credible" and "urgent"
at the same time he was backdating the change in regulations to allow the complaint to be filed
is more than highly suspicious. How the 'whistleblower" coordinated with Schiff, Grace, Misko,
and Atkinson to stager the start of impeachment farce is criminal.
Adam Schiff: Constantly lying while moving the goalposts
... ... ...
Schiff: Outstanding scoundrel in a cesspit filled to the brim with similar criminals.
Now Eric Ciaramella is apparently backing away from testifying. Schiff says he no longer
needs his testimony. But Ciaramella should be subpoenaed and called to testify before the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He should not be allowed to escape accountability for his role in
this calculated charade of a conspiracy.
He would then have to testify to his coordination with Schiff and the committee staff. He
would have to expose how Vindmann leaked national security information illegally. How the
entire 'whistleblower" farce was a calculated effort to again derail the Trump Presidency.
A lot has come out about Eric Ciaramella, the Adam Schiff 'Whistleblower", in recent days.
It is the tip of the iceberg. Any legitimate investigation of the circumstances surrounding the
entire Ukraine affair will reveal the extensive criminality of the Obama White House and the
coup plotters.
Exposing the dark underbelly of the Obama White House
It stretches back to the Steele Dossier and the clear efforts of the DNC and the Deep State
to use to a foreign power to interfere in the 2016 election. He exposes the corruption of Vice
President Biden to enrich his family at the expense of the American taxpayer. Details the $6
million dollar bribery scheme of Hunter and Joe Biden by Burisma Holdings.
Lays out the corrupt dealings of Ambassador Yovanovich.
It will lay open the devious underbelly of all the so-called hero witnesses of the Schiff
impeachment Star Chamber inquisition. Of the criminal actions of the coup plotters. Of
Ambassador Yovanovich, Ambassador Taylor, Alexandra Chalupa, and Alexander Vindman.
As well as the so-called whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella.
Calling the Fourth Estate back
It is the tip of the iceberg that only a truly free and independent press will have to
take the reins to fearlessly expose. Like brilliant investigative reporter Paul Sperry at
Real Clear Investigations. Like the Federalist, NOQ Report, and here at CommDigiNews, who
broke the Ciaramella story a full two days before Real Clear Investigations.
No one else in the corrupt media establishment seems willing to rise to the challenge.
If you've not heard the story, Zlochevsky is alleged to have been doing other people's
laundry. About 7.5 billion dollars worth – a sum that has attracted some attention. And
not just because Ukraine claims Hunter Biden's attachment to Burisma resulted in a take if 16.5
million. Money that has nothing to do with his complete lack of knowledge about energy or gas
but probably relates in some predictable way to the name 'Biden.' The investment firm doing the
laundry has close ties to Barack Obama. Joe Biden. Lt. Col Alexander Vindman. Perhaps a few
members of the US State Department. And maybe a George Soros funded operation "fighting
corruption."
We've seen that Vindman has close ties to the previous Ukrainian government, dating back
to Yanukovych and his successor Petro Poroshenko, while this alleged money-laundering scheme
was taking place. The connection to the Franklin Templeton Fund is interesting because John
Templeton, Jr. was a major Obama campaign donor, and Thomas Donilon, who was Obama's National
Security Advisor before Susan Rice and is now the chairman of BlackRock
Investment Institute , a major owner of Franklin Templeton stock.
Vindman is a holdover from the Bamster years, embedded at the NSC.
He served as National Security Advisor to President Barack Obama. In that capacity Mr.
Donilon oversaw the U.S. National Security Council staff, chaired the cabinet level National
Security Principals Committee, provided the president's daily national security briefing, and
was responsible for the coordination and integration of the administration's foreign policy,
intelligence, and military efforts. Mr. Donilon also oversaw the White House's cybersecurity
and international energy efforts. Mr. Donilon served as the President's personal emissary to
a number of world leaders.
Not a casual acquaintance but watch Obama distance himself from him now. "Who? O
I..uh-hardly knew him!"
Under the Obama Administration, former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovich, like Biden,
like the Soros funded group working with the State Department, were all supposed to be focused
on fighting corruption. There's that word again. I don't think it means what they think it
means.
But while all this corruption-fighting was underway Joe's kid Hunter gets a sweetheart
payoff from Burisma. Joe (who is in charge of Ukraine) gets close to a million for himself. All
while 7.5 Billion is alleged to have been laundered through a "fund" whose primary players are
a major Obama donor and the President's "personal emissary" (under the watchful anti-corruption
eye of a group funded by perhaps the biggest Democrat donor in history, George Soros).
During this series of events, Ukraine got leveraged by the Obama Administration to fire a
prosecutor in exchange for a billion in US aid, probably because that prosecutor was getting
too close to what we are learning today.
Somebody was engaged in a record number of quid pro quos, and no one is named Trump.
...
... ... Steve
MacDonaldis a New Hampshire resident, blogger, and activist. A member of the 603
Alliance, NHCMP, NHRVC, LFGC, and the host of GrokTALK! Please Note: My opinions are my own and
not those of my Family, employers, politicians, campaigns, or other contributors or commenters
at GraniteGrok
You say--"John Brennan convened a secret task force at CIA headquarters composed of several
dozen analysts and officers from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI.
The unit functioned as a sealed compartment, its work hidden from the rest of the
intelligence community. Those brought in signed new non-disclosure agreements to be granted
access to intelligence from all three participating agencies."
Repeat: "Those brought in signed new non-disclosure agreements to be granted access to
intelligence from all three participating agencies"!!!
I suppose this means that John Brennan had access to all electronic communications
gathered on Trump campaign officials by the NSA. That suggests to me that the intel agencies
now have almost absolute power over future elections in the US. All the agency chiefs have to
do is concoct some wacky pretext for expanding their surveillance net (Like "collusion") and,
presto, they have immediate access to all private conversations between presidential
candidates and their lieutenants.
Do the American people really want John Brennan and his crooked spawn to choose our future
leaders??
I certainly hope Durham can crack this nut, otherwise this country is headed for the
landfill.
I've been surprised to learn that it wasn't IG Horowitz that uncovered the Strzok-Page texts
but rather Strzok's wife. With all of the so-called investigators involved in the "Russian
collusion" matter, turns out it was a scorned wife who unearthed the Rosetta Stone of the
hoax.
And now Sundance on the CTH has an item addressing the claims of former Overstock CEO
Patrick Byrne that he was used in an FBI op that tried to dirty up Trump campaign associates
via Maria Butina:
Larry, thanks for the clarifications (and the reassurance). Your entry so consistently
mentions payment that I find myself wondering how to correctly relate payment and spying.
That is, one can be an unpaid informant (Sater could be acting simply in exchange for a delay
in sentencing, though that might also constitute payment perhaps?).
Others could just be acting as good citizens, patriots or under direct question by the
authorities. None of which would necessarily entail payment, but some of which could
constitute spying (perhaps??) even if unpaid...
Further, spying here isn't the only thing that might be considered illegal, improper or
otherwise censurable. True?
Sundance sees these leaks as coming from investigation targets who are allowed to read and
comment on and rebut the draft report language addressing them. Thus, this is probably
"spinning" by targets and their media pals to try to "set the narrative" before the report is
released. Horowitz can rebut these "target" comments in the final report and the "targets"
are not provided any rebuttal material prior to the final report release, so it will be quite
interesting to see what the report actually says when final....
so we have this IG investigation that takes forever to complete, and when people ask why so
long the answer is the scope was increasing and we have to get it right. Now, with the report
finally being released, people are told the IG never had the jurisdiction necessary and we
have to wait for Durham.
1. Sater states that he was trying to do the Moscow deal to make money, on his own. Not
prompted by FBI.
2. I don't see in that super long pdf for Steele where there is a payment record. Please
give the exact page. There are some pages on the form, that are for payments. But no
indication that a payment was made. My recollection is that FBI was PLANNING to pay Steele,
but never did. (Correct me if wrong, like to see the actual page number.)
3. The Greenberg thing is the most interesting (and mysterious). Still, it's not 100%
proven to me that he was prompted by the government to make the approach. Perhaps likely, but
I don't see why you refer to it as a fact.
4. In general, there is a bad habit from our side to state speculation, even likely
speculation as fact. See this from Sundance all the time. Really gets in the way of serious
sleuthing and discussion though. The problem is one gets confused over what really is fact,
versus what is speculation. (An easy one is all the speculation that Mifsud was an intel
asset, versus just a networker--who knows for sure.)
P.s. To one of your commenters: My recollection was that the Strozk texts came to light
because of Lisa Page being questioned on the McCabe leak. Have seen a lot of our side jumping
to conclusions that the Strozk wife was the precipitant (but all the recent document said was
that she had access and threatened).
4. Would Trump benefit from investigations in Ukraine and Burisma? Would he benefit any
more then the DNC would benefit with Russia?
Yes, Trump would benefit from investigations into Ukraine and Burisma. Does that mean that
it's not the right thing for the country? No. The truth is important no matter which side it
hurts in the next election. The left should be just as interested in learning the facts about
what had happened in Ukraine as they are trying to make it seem like they are with the Russia
investigations. Would it benefit him more then it would benefit the DNC though, then it does
with the Democrats investigating Russia? No. Unlike the Democrats, Trump doesn't have a
majority of the media on his side. A media who tries to spin absolutely every little rumor into
a major crisis, that they are sure will take down the President this time.
The left is quick to dismiss any talk of Ukraine just like the right is quick to dismiss any
talk of Russia. If either, or both, are true, it is a very severe threat to our Republic and
needs to be dealt with.
5. Which is more in line with America's national interest?
a) Withhold U.S. aid money ($400 billion) until recipient investigates: What happened to $7
billion in U.S aid? Was there any collusion to influence the U.S. election, government
corruption involving the State Department, U.S. intelligence, NGO's, U.S. candidates, etc.
OR
b) A President or Vice President withholding U.S. aid ($1 billion) unless recipient STOPS
investigations.
The answer to this question is really easy. We should absolutely investigate where the $7
billion went. We need to figure out if there was any influence in the US election. We should
investigate Vice President Joe Biden calling for the ambassador to be fired.
We know for a fact that there was collusion between the DNC and the Ukraine embassy in D.C.,
so why is it that nobody cares about that collusion? Why is it a big deal that Trump supposedly
withheld aid from Ukraine until they investigated Joe Biden, but no one seems to have a problem
with Joe Biden withholding aid to force Ukraine to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor so that an
investigation would be stopped? That wasn't an impeachable offense, but Donald Trump's phone
call with the Ukrainian President was? What has Trump done that is any worse then anything the
Obama administration did?
These 5 questions should be questions that both sides should be able to come together on but
sadly both sides are more concerned with party politics, more then they are concerned about the
security of our republic. Claiming that Russia is a treat doesn't automatically mean that you
believe Trump is an illegitimate President and that he colluded with Russia. Claiming that
Ukraine needs to be investigated doesn't mean that you are excusing anything that Donald Trump
has done. It simply means that you are more concerned with the national security of our country
then you are with party politics.
Chalupa reportedly
acknowledged in her 2017 interview with Politico that she worked as a consultant for the
DNC during the 2016 campaign with the goal of publicly exposing Trump campaign aide
Paul Manafort 's
links to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine. Chalupa admitted coordinating with the Ukrainian
Embassy, and with Ukrainian and U.S. news reporters.
I won't sit here and claim that what I've heard over the last 2 days with family in town,
is at all representative of all Americans but it was interesting. I have all kinds of
political affiliation in the family: Maga's, Dims and Independents. All are TIRED of both
sides antics. No one wanted to discuss it except to say that we are ALL fucked in one way or
another. What was lively political debate before was met with a lack of discussion and
instead a pervasive frustration and sadness about the system itself how corrupt it all is but
not knowing what to do about it.
I just wonder if that's how many Americans feel about all this. At least those sick of all
of it.
Most of us are aware of that. It doesn't mean that he isn't right about some things
though, and he's incredibly amusing at times. If there is ever a non zionist candidate, I'd
happily vote for them. At least he's not a west hating bolshevik golem.
As is everyone else in washington. Ron, Rand, and Tulsi, not given a chance. Obama was
probably the least zionist president we've had in decades, and he still went along with most
of their goals, along with being a fabian socialist.
Please wake up soon. Your savior is running $1 trillion annual deficits, has raised the
troop numbers in Afghanistan from 8500-14,000, will not leave Syria, bombed Syria twice with
zero evidence of gas attacks because there were none. Anybody who thinks there's a dime's
worth of difference between the parties comatose, please wake up soon.
"... The worst of these massacres happened in Ghouta in August 2013 when 2000 civilian hostages (rebel claim) were gassed to death by rebels and their pre-White Helmets "civil defence". The OPCW was there to cover up the crime and to fabricate evidence to assign blame to Syria. ..."
Manufacturing a pretext for the U.S.
missile strike on Syria in April 2018 is nowhere near the biggest of OPCW's crimes. The
OPCW is an accessory , both before and after the fact to the crime of
mass murder.
It should now be clear to everyone that Syrian "rebels" gassed thousands of hostages in
cellars, most likely with chlorine gas, and then paraded the victims in White Helmets
snuff videos. OPCW conspired in this crime in both encouraging the terrorists to more murder
and by protecting them afterward by assigning blame to Assad and the Syrian government.
The worst of these massacres happened in Ghouta in August
2013 when 2000 civilian hostages (rebel claim) were gassed to death by rebels and their
pre-White Helmets "civil defence". The OPCW was there to cover up the crime and to fabricate
evidence to assign blame to Syria.
We have been documenting
these crimes and hoaxes at A Closer Look On Syria from December 2012. OPCW was used
from the beginning to manufacture consent for war. See for example:
Of course, the OPCW is already there! I highly suggest Caitlin Johnstone's article b
linked be read, which can be
found here .
We should expand on Petri's number of people involved in this crime to include all the
paid disinformation artists noted in Caitlin's essay at minimum. What becomes very clear in
all this is the total collusion with OPCW upper level management--those whom the
whistleblowers and their allies within OPCW petitioned--in these crimes as Petri contends.
Until they are visibly replaced, nothing issued by OPCW has any credence.
OPCW has shown to be a pure political entity, used at will by few regimes in the UN to
promote their agenda, b has done a tremendous job to humanity to bring the truth to the
public worldwide. Syrians have paid the price for UN leaders support to global terrorism for
too long. It must stop now.
"... "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."- Joseph Goebbels ..."
At yesterday's Thanksgiving table, fifteen adults present, there was not one word uttered
about impeachment, Russia, Ukraine, and, most notably, a certain Golden Golem of Greatness,
whose arrival at the center of American life three years ago kicked off a political hysteria
not witnessed across this land since southern "fire eaters" lay siege to Fort Sumter.
I wonder if some great fatigue of the mind has set in among the class of people who follow
the news and especially the tortured antics of Rep. Adam Schiff's goat rodeo in the House intel
Committee the past month. I wonder what the rest of congress is detecting among its
constituents back home during this holiday hiatus. I suspect it is that same eerie absence of
chatter I noticed, and what it may portend about the nation's disposition toward reality.
The dead white man Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) famously observed that "all truth
passes through three stages: first, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and
third, it is accepted as self-evident."
America has been stuck in stage two lo these thirty-six months since Mr. Trump shocked the
system with his electoral victory over She-Whose-Turn-Was-Undoubted, inciting a paroxysm of
rage, disbelief, and retribution that has made the Left side of the political transect
ridiculous, and repeatedly, ignominiously so, as their fantasies about Russian "collusion" and
sequential chimeras dissolve in official proceedings.
The astounding failure of Mr. Mueller's report did nothing to dampen the violent
derangement. There was no rethinking whatsoever about the terms-of-engagement in the Left's war
against the populist hobgoblin. The solidarity of delusion remained locked in place, leading to
Mr. Schiff's recent antics over his false "whistleblower" and the enfilade of diplomatic
flak-catchers tasked to ward off any truthful inquiry into events in Ukraine.
But then, with the Thanksgiving shut-down, something began to turn. It was signaled
especially in the Left's chief disinformation organ, The New York Times , with a week-long
salvo of lame stories aimed at defusing the Horowitz report, forthcoming on December 9. The
Times stories were surely based on leaks from individuals cited in the IG's report, who were
given the opportunity to "review" the briefs against them prior to the coming release. The
stories gave off an odor of panic and desperation that signaled a crumbling loss of conviction
in the three-year narrative assault on the truth -- namely, that the US Intel Community
organized a coup to overthrow the improbable President Trump.
From this point forward, the facts of the actual story -- many of them already in the public
record, one way or another, and sedulously ignored by the news media -- will be officially
detailed by federal authorities outside the orbit of the coupsters, and finally beyond the
coupsters' control. The facts may include the uncomfortable truth that Mr. Mueller and his
helpers were major players in the bad-faith exercises of the Intel Community against the
occupant of the White House.
I'm not so sure that the Resistance can keep up the fight,
since their enemy is reality as much as reality's mere personification in Mr. Trump. The
violent opposition Schopenhauer spoke of in his three-stage model was just procedural in this
case, moving through the courts and committees and other organs of the state. I don't think the
Left can bring the fight to the streets. They don't have it in them, not even the ANTIFA corps.
The hard truths of perfidy and treachery in the upper ranks of government will rain down in the
weeks ahead, and when they do, there's an excellent chance that they will be greeted as
self-evident. The Times , the WashPo and the cable news networks will have no choice but to
report it all. My guess is that they will display a kind of breathlessly naïve wonder that
such things are so. Most remarkably, they might just assert that they knew it all along -- a
final twitch of bad faith as the new paradigm locks into place.
I expect that we will see something else happen along with that: a loud repudiation of the
Democratic Party itself, a recognition that it betrayed the mental health of the nation in its
lawless and demented inquisitions . I expect that sentiment will extend to the party's current
crop of candidates for the White House, to the delusional proposals they push, and perhaps even
to the larger ethos of the Wokester religion that has programmatically tried to destroy the
common culture of this country -- especially the idea that we have a duty to be on the side of
truth.
And then there is the Magnitsky Act, Behind the Scenes one showing in the US then banned in all Western countries. Two minute trailer
https://vimeo.com/286527081
I've never wanted to be wrong more in my life, but this IG report and the "investigation"
by Barr et al isn't going to "find" $hit. 99% of their time, effort, and energy has been
focused on what they absolutely have to report and destroying evidence they can get away
with. No big name, evil MFers will be touched by this. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not.
You are correct and the contempt they are going to face will render all of them
meaningless for the rest of their lives. If in doubt, ask Romney; if he gave someone
directions to a doughnut shop they would assume it was a lie.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people
from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the
mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the
State."- Joseph Goebbels
The Horowitz report on 12-19-19. CNN has already front run the report and reveled a
nothing little fatty that will be blamed for the FISA abuse. There will be no bomb shells
that the mainstream media can't obfuscate. The county is divided and facts no longer matter.
The good news is the right is too polite to fight in the streets and the left are such
pussies nobody can really be afraid of them.
Democrats live in a lie. They live in a completely made up propaganda-supported la-la
land, and they get angry when the rest of the world recognizes those lies.
"... However, when it came to assessing whether or not the whistleblower, in reporting the second-hand information provided to him by White House persons familiar with the July 25 Trump-Zelensky phone call, had done so accurately, Atkinson did not review the actual records of the telephone call, noting that he "decided that access to records of the telephone call was not necessary to make my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible.'" ..."
"... Within days the details of these calls were leaked to the media , resulting in a series of unflattering articles being published by the mainstream media. While no direct evidence has emerged about who was responsible for leaking these calls, NSC staffers who worked in the White House at the time suspected the whistleblower. (One of the byproducts of this incident was the decision by NSC lawyers to move the records of Presidential phone calls to a more secure server , significantly limiting access by NSC staff.) ..."
"... When Hill arrived in April 2017 to assume her responsibilities as the NSC director for Russia and Europe, the whistleblower found himself without a job. ..."
"... The "whistleblower" was CIA and it seems 'he' just seized this transgression as the main chance for the security state to finally get rid of Trump, just as they have tried since his campaign statements for restoring detente with Russia. As Scott Ritter points out, careers have been made on the New Cold War. ..."
"... The purpose of "intelligence" is to enhance/preserve specific political relationships of the entity/entities for whom activities which are defined/framed as "intelligence" are undertaken, and hence "intelligence" is always "politicised" since it is a component of politics a.k.a. interactions defined/framed by the "initiators" implemented in interaction. ..."
"... Scott seems convinced that the NSC serves the administration, although it surrounds and outnumbers them, controls the information and narratives available to them, is controlled by secret tribes of the secret agencies, and acts against them everywhere when it disagrees. The administration are mere figureheads in a government by secret agencies lost in their own self-serving narratives. Any contrary administration would have to move in a shadow government by force right after election, and abolish the NSC. Not that it could get elected. ..."
"... It works the same in every country, whether monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, socialist, communist or various blends with democracy. Once you set up an unaccountable secret police or intelligence agency and empower it to spy on people, carry out various deceptions and allow it to operate outside the law, it becomes the real power, blackmailing and even murdering according to its own direction. ..."
"... I believe Scott is right on target with his presented material. We still don't know what happened with the JFK murder but we do know that CIA knew something big was up. So JFK get murdered and CIA prevents a thorough exacting investigation. I see CIA interference as being political. What else would it be be. CIA escaped any blame at the time and the president was gone and replace. Political. ..."
"... In this day and age CIA can't afford getting caught with gunpowder residue anywhere on it entity if a sitting president happens to catch a round or two. The alternative is to use all that money the Super Wealthy Elites have stashed and go openly political. Hiding in plan sight as always. ..."
"... The bottom line here is that a deputy national intelligence officer charged with overseeing intelligence activities regarding the Russian-Ukraine target used his position to initiate a Whistleblower complaint which failed to conform to the legal requirements required of such. ..."
"... A huge problem is that most US bureaucrats have never lived abroad and gone thru culture shock. They are so rigidly American they do not understand foreign cultures ..."
"... the MSM is spiking any negative Biden stories. Biden seems to be the CIA's preferred Democrat. ..."
"... Evidently he was so pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia (pointed out by Mike Cernovich who suggested he was involved in leaks, as noted in Foreign Policy back in 2017), that it must have been difficult for him to fall in line and do his required job, implementing new foreign policy with a new administration. Whether he "went native" or truly decided to over-ride the President's policies in favor of the old Obama "consensus community" policies for Ukraine, he has crossed several lines interfering with foreign policy and national security. ..."
"... This case is classical sedition. If the CIA wants to run the country, they should run for office (as several did and won as Democrats in 2018). ..."
"... The West's blanket condemnation of Russia and its so-called annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014 would suggest that more of us need to educate ourselves on the history of Russia and Crimea in particular before we whole heartedly swallow the narrative that our political leaders and media foist on us. ..."
"... "After considering the whistleblower's complaint and classified annex, the Criminal Division opted not to pursue charges, in effect determining that no crime had been committed." When the whistleblower refused to accept this decision, and instead took his complaint to Schiff, as a politicized weapon, he and anyone else involved should have been or now be charged with Sedition. (Obama would have thrown the whistleblower's butt in jail as he did so many others.) ..."
"... Stephen Cohen has emphasized the essential ability of elected Presidents to meet in private with foreign leaders, as every President since Kennedy has done (saving us from nuclear destruction in JFK's case and leading to the fall of the Soviet Union in Reagan's). That's where important deals are concluded and military, intelligence, and state members whose jobs depend on warmongering advantages, cannot and should not be allowed access to sensitive national security decisions. ..."
"... "The intelligence community somehow has been empowered to run the country and its politics since 2016 ." ..."
"... If one truly studies such things -- seriously -- objectively -- that date will be determined to be November 22, 1963. ..."
SCOTT RITTER: The 'Whistleblower' and the Politicization of Intelligence November 27,
2019 •
52 Comments
The whistleblower complaint has opened a window into the politicization of the intelligence
community, and the corresponding weaponization of the national security establishment, argues
Scott Ritter.
Special to Consortium News
The whistleblower. A figure of great controversy, whose actions, manifested in an
11-page
report submitted to the Intelligence
Community Inspector General (ICIG) on August 12 alleging wrongdoing on the part of the
president of the United States, jump-started an ongoing impeachment process targeting Donald
Trump that has divided the American body politic as no other issue in contemporary time.
His identity has been cloaked in a shroud of anonymity which has proven farcical, given that
his name is common knowledge throughout the Washington-based national security establishment in
whose ranks he continues to serve. While Trump
publicly calls for the identity of the whistleblower
to be revealed , the mainstream media has played along with the charade of confidentiality,
and Congress continues to pretend his persona is a legitimate national security secret, even as
several
on-line publications have printed it , along with an extensive document trail sufficient to
corroborate that the named man is, in fact, the elusive whistleblower.
There is no legitimate reason for the whistleblower's identity to remain a secret. The
Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam Schiff , (D-CA) has cited statutory protections that
simply do not exist while using his authority as chairman to prohibit any probe by his
Republican colleagues designed to elicit information about the whistleblower's identity. "The
whistleblower has a right, a statutory right, to anonymity," Schiff recently opined during
recent impeachment-related testimony. And yet The Washington Post, no friend of Trump,
was compelled to assign Schiff's statement
three "Pinocchios" , out of a scale of four, in rejecting the claim as baseless.
The myth of statutory protection for the whistleblower's identity has been aggressively
pursued by his legal counsel, Andrew Bakaj , the managing partner of the Compass
Rose Legal Group, which has taken on the whistleblower's case pro bono.
In a letter to the president's legal counsel, Pat Cippolone, Bakaj demanded that Trump
"cease and desist in calling for my client's identity", claiming that the president's actions,
undertaken via Twitter and in press briefings, constituted violations of federal statutes
prohibiting, among other things, tampering with a witness, obstruction of proceedings, and
retaliating against as witness.
All of Bakaj's claims are contingent upon the viability of the whistleblower's status as a
legitimate witness whose testimony can, therefore, be tampered, obstructed or retaliated
against. The legal foundation of the whistleblower's claims are based upon the so-called
Intelligence Community whistleblower statute , 50 USC § 3033(k)(5), which
stipulates the processes required to report and sustain an allegation of so-called "urgent
concern" to the U.S. intelligence community. An "urgent concern" is defined, in relevant part,
as: "A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive order, or
deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity
within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving
classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy
matters."
The Call
At issue was a telephone call made between President Trump and the newly elected President
of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky , on July 25
of this year. According to the whistleblower's report to the ICIG, "Multiple White House
officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of
pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests."
President Trump, the whistleblower alleged, "sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take
actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid," an act which the whistleblower claimed
presidential abuse of his office "for personal gain."
Upon review of the whistleblower's report, which consisted of a nine-page unclassified
letter and a separate two-page classified annex, Michael K. Atkinson, the Inspector General of
the Intelligence Community, initiated an investigation of the complaint as required by the
whistleblower statute. This investigation must be completed within a 14-day period mandated by
the statute, during which time the ICIG "shall determine whether the complaint or information
appears credible."
While the statute is silent on the methodology to be used by the ICIG in making this
determination, Atkinson
had testified during his Senate confirmation hearing that, when it came to any
investigation of a whistleblower complaint, "I will work to ensure that ICIG personnel conduct
investigations, inspections, audits, and reviews in accordance with Quality Standards
promulgated by CIGIE (Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency) to keep
those activities free from personal, external, and organizational impairments." The CIGIE
standard in question requires that, "Evidence must be gathered and reported in an unbiased
and independent manner in an effort to determine the validity of an allegation or to resolve an
issue."
In a
letter transmitting the whistleblower
complaint to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Atkinson stated that he had
"determined that the Complainant (i.e., whistleblower) had official and authorized access to
the information and sources referenced in the Complainant's Letter and Classified Appendix,
including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject
matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant's
Letter and Classified Appendix."
However, when it came to assessing whether or not the whistleblower, in reporting the
second-hand information provided to him by White House persons familiar with the July 25
Trump-Zelensky phone call, had done so accurately, Atkinson did not review the actual records
of the telephone call, noting that he "decided that access to records of the telephone call was
not necessary to make my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern
'appears credible.'"
Atkinson declared that "it would be highly unlikely for the ICIG to obtain those records
within the limited remaining time allowed by statute," and opted to perform an investigation in
violation of the very CIGIE standard he had promise to adhere to in his Senate testimony. In
short, no evidence was gathered by the ICIG to determine the validity of the whistleblower's
allegation, and yet Atkinson decided to forward the complaint to the DNI, certifying it as
"credible."
The whistleblower statute allows the DNI seven days to review the complaint before
forwarding it to the House Committee on Intelligence, with comments if deemed appropriate.
However, in reviewing the actual complaint, Joseph McGuire, the acting DNI who took over from
Dan Coats, who was fired by President Trump in early August, had questions about whether or not
the matters it alleged fell within the remit of the whistleblower statute, and rather than
forwarding it to the House Intelligence Committee, instead sent it to the Justice Department
Office of Legal Counsel for legal review.
The Office of Legal Council, on September 3, issued a legal opinion
rejecting the ICIG's certification of the whistleblower complaint as constituting an "urgent
concern" under the law. "The complaint," the opinion read,
"does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence
activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence
community. Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication
between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant
received secondhand. The question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory
definition of 'urgent concern' that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence
committees. We conclude that it does not. The alleged misconduct is not an 'urgent concern'
within the meaning of the statute."
DOJ Rejected Complaint as Urgent
As related in the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion, the Justice Department did, however,
refer the matter to the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice for appropriate review.
After considering the whistleblower's complaint and classified annex, the Criminal Division
opted not to pursue charges, in effect determining that no crime had been committed.
Under normal circumstances, this would have concluded the matter of Trump's phone call with
Zelensky, and the second-hand concerns unnamed White House officials had reported to the
whistleblower. But this was not a normal circumstance. Far from diffusing an improperly
predicated complaint, the failure of the acting DNI to forward the whistleblower complaint to
the House Intelligence Committee, and the concurrent legal opinion of the Justice Department's
Office of Legal Counsel rejecting the "urgent concern" certification of the ICIG, opened the
door for the whistleblower, through legal counsel, to reach out to the House Intelligence
Committee directly.
The whistleblower followed procedures set forth in the whistleblower statute detailing
procedures for a complaint, which had not been certified as an "urgent concern," to be
forwarded to Congress. The issue is that the matter was being treated by the ICIG, Congress and
the whistleblower's attorney's as an "urgent concern", a status that it did not legally qualify
for.
On September 24, Bakaj sent a "
Notice of Intent to Contact Congressional Intelligence Committees" to acting DNI McGuire
providing "formal notice of our intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees
directly" on behalf of the whistleblower, identified only as "a member of the Intelligence
Community." Almost immediately, Schiff announced via Twitter that
"We have been informed by the whistleblower's counsel that their client would like to speak to
our committee and has requested guidance from the Acting DNI as to how to do so. We're in touch
with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower's testimony as soon as this week."
Andrew Bakaj, whistleblower attorney. (Twitter)
Thus was set in motion events which would culminate in impeachment proceedings against
President Trump. On the surface, the events described represent a prima facia case for the
efficacy of statutory procedures concerning the processing of a whistleblower complaint. But
there were warning signs that all was not right regarding both the whistleblower himself, and
the processes involved leading to the whistleblower's complaint being presented to
Congress.
Political Bias?
Far from an exemplar in bureaucratic efficiency, the whistleblower complaint has opened a
window into the politicization of the intelligence community, and the corresponding
weaponization of the national security establishment, against a sitting president.
As I shall show, such actions are treasonous on their face, and the extent to which this
conduct has permeated the intelligence community and its peripheral functions of government,
including the National Security Council and Congress itself, will only be known if and when an
investigation is conducted into what, in retrospect, is nothing less than a grand conspiracy by
those ostensibly tasked with securing the nation to instead reverse the will of the American
people regarding who serves as the nation's chief executive.
The key to this narrative is the whistleblower himself. Understanding who he is, and what
role he has played in the events surrounding the fateful July 25 telephone conversation, are
essential to unravelling the various threads of this conspiracy.
Much has been made about the political affiliation of the whistleblower, namely the fact
that he is a
registered Democrat who
supports Joe Biden as the Democratic candidate for the 2020 presidential election. On the
surface this information is not dispositive -- the intelligence community is populated by
thousands of professionals of diverse political leanings and affiliations, all of whom have
been trained to check their personal politics at the door when it comes to implementing the
policies promulgated by the duly elected national leadership.
Indeed, Inspector General Atkinson, while acknowledging in his assessment of the
whistleblower's complaint an indication of possible political bias on the part of the
whistleblower in favor of a rival political candidate, noted that "such evidence did not change
my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible'". But
when one reverse engineers the whistleblower's career, it becomes clear that there in fact
existed a nexus between the whistleblower's political advocacy and professional actions that
both influenced and motivated his decision to file the complaint against the president.
A Rising Star
Like most CIA analysts, the whistleblower possessed a keen intellect born of
stringent academic preparation , which in the whistleblower's case included graduating from
Yale University in 2008 with a degree in Russian and East European studies, post-graduate study
at Harvard, and work experience with the World Bank.
Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a contemporary colleague of the whistleblower, has provided an apt
account for what is expected of a CIA analyst. "The CIA is an intensely apolitical
organization," Kendall-Taylor wrote . "As
intelligence analysts, we are trained to check our politics at the door. Our job is to produce
objective analysis that the country's leaders can use to make difficult decisions. We undergo
rigorous training on how to analyze our own assumptions and overcome biases that might cloud
our judgement."
The training program Kendall-Taylor referred to is known as the Career
Analyst Program (CAP) , a four-month basic training program run out of the CIA's in-house
University, the Sherman Kent
School , which "introduces all new employees to the basic thinking, writing, and briefing
skills needed for a successful career. Segments include analytic tools, counterintelligence
issues, denial and deception analysis, and warning skills."
Andrea Kendall-Taylor (Center for a New American Security)
The
standards to which aspiring analysts such as the whistleblower were trained to meet were
exacting, and included a requirement to be "independent of political considerations," meaning
the product produced should consist of objective assessments "informed by available information
that are not distorted or altered with the intent of supporting or advocating a particular
policy, political viewpoint, or audience." As an analyst, the whistleblower would have chosen a
specific specialization, which in his case was as a " Political Analyst " , charged with
examining "political, social, cultural, and historical information to provide assessments about
foreign political systems and developments."
By the time the whistleblower completed his application process with the CIA, which requires
a detailed background check, several rounds of interviews, and final security and psychological
evaluation before an actual offer of employment can be made, and by the time he finished his
basic analytical training, the U.S. had undergone a political and social revolution of sorts
with the election of Barack Obama as the 44 th president of the United States.
The whistleblower was assigned to the Office of Russian and Eurasian Analysis (OREA), within
the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence, at a time when U.S.-Russian policy was undergoing a
radical transformation.
Under the guidance of Michael McFaul, President Obama's special advisor on Russia and the
senior director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council, the Obama
administration was seeking to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the election of
Dmitri Medvedev as Russia's president in 2008. Medvedev had succeeded Vladimir Putin, who went
on to serve as prime minister. Medvedev was a more liberal alternative to Putin's autocratic
conservatism, and McFaul envisioned a policy "reset" designed to move relations between the
U.S. and Russia in a more positive trajectory.
As a junior analyst, the whistleblower worked alongside colleagues such as Andrea
Kendall-Taylor, who joined OREA about the same time after graduating from UCLA in 2008 with a
PhD is Slavic and Eurasian studies. A prolific writer, Kendall-Taylor wrote extensively on
autocratic leaders and Putin in particular . Her work was in high demand at both the CIA
and NSC, which under the Obama administration had undergone a massive expansion intended to
better facilitate policy coordination among the various departments that comprised the NSC.
The whistleblower had a front-row seat on the rollercoaster ride that was U.S.-Russian
policy during this time, witnessing the collapse of McFaul's Russian "reset," Putin's return to
power in 2012, and the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine that led to the annexation of Crimea and
Russian support for rebels in the Donbas region.
During his tenure at OREA, the whistleblower obviously impressed his superiors, receiving
several
promotions and, in July 2015, he detailed to the NSC staff at the Obama White House as the
Director for Ukrainian Affairs. According to a former CIA officer, any high-performing analyst
who aspires to be promoted into the ranks of the Senior Intelligence Service must, prior to
that time, do a rotation as part of the overall policy community, which includes the NSC or
another department, such as Defense or State, as well as a tour within another directorate of
the CIA.
NSC positions were originally intended for senior CIA analysts, at the GS-15 level, but
waivers could be made for qualified GS-14 or "very strong" GS-13's (the whistleblower was a
GS-13 at the time of his assignment at the NSC, a reflection of both his qualification and the
regard to which he was held by the CIA.) NSC assignments do not coincide with the political
calendar -- detailees (as career civil servants who are detailed to the NSC are referred) are
expected to serve in their position regardless of what political party controls the White
House. When an opening becomes available (usually when another detailee's assignment has
finished), prospective candidates apply, and are interviewed by their senior management, who
forward qualified candidates to another board for a final decision.
Assignments to the NSC are considered highly sought after, and while the process for
application must be followed, the selection process is highly political, with decisions being
signed off by the director of the CIA. In the case of the whistleblower, his candidacy would
have been approved by both Peter Clement
, the director of OREA, and John Brennan , the CIA director.
Into the Lion's Den
By the time the whistleblower arrived at the NSC, the NSC staff had grown into a well-oiled
policy machine managing the entire spectrum of Obama administration national security
policy-making and implementation. The NSC staff operated in accordance with Presidential Policy Memorandum (PPM) 1 ,
"Organization of the National Security Council System", which outlined the procedures governing
the management of the development and implementation of national security policies by multiple
agencies of the United States Government.
Brennan briefing Obama May 3, 2010. He approved whistleblower. (Official White House Photo
by Pete Souza)
The vehicle for accomplishing this mission was the NSC Interagency Policy Committee
(NSC/IPC). The NSC/IPCs were the main day-to-day fora for interagency coordination of national
security policy. They provided policy analysis for consideration by the more senior committees
of the NSC system and ensured timely responses to decisions made by the president. NSC/IPCs
were established at the direction of the NSC Deputies Committee and were chaired by the
relevant division chief within the NSC staff.
The whistleblowers job was to develop, coordinate and execute plans and policies to manage
the full range of diplomatic, informational, military and economic national security issues for
the countries in his portfolio, which included Ukraine. The whistleblower coordinated with his
interagency partners to produce internal memoranda, talking points and other materials for the
National Security Advisor and senior staff.
The whistleblower reported directly to Charles Kupchan , the Senior Director for
European Affairs on the NSC. Kupchan, a State Department veteran who had previously served on
the NSC staff of President Bill Clinton before turning to academia, in turn reported directly
to Susan Rice, President Obama's national security adviser.
When the whistleblower first arrived at the NSC, he volunteered for the Ukraine portfolio.
Kupchan was impressed by the whistleblower's work ethic and performance, and soon expanded his
portfolio to include the fight against the Islamic State. The whistleblower was aided by
another organizational connection -- his colleague and mentor at OREA, Andrea Kendall-Taylor,
had been selected to serve in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as the d
eputy national
intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Among Kendall-Taylor's responsibilities was to
closely coordinate with the NSC staff on critical issues pertaining to Russia and Ukraine.
The whistleblower's arrival at the NSC staff also coincided with the start of Trump's
improbable candidacy for the presidency of the United States. As 2015 transitioned into 2016,
and it became apparent that Trump was the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party,
allegations about the Trump campaign colluding with Russia began to circulate within the
interagency. Trump's electoral victory in November 2016 , the shocked the whistleblower, like everyone else on the NSC
staff.
Alarmed By Trump on Russia
The line between policy and politics began to blur, and then disappeared altogether.
National Security Advisor Rice was becoming increasingly alarmed by the activities of the Trump
transition team, especially when it came to issues pertaining to Russia.
According to The Washington Post , "Rice apparently was closely monitoring the
high-profile investigation into Russian interference."
The President-elect had, during the campaign, openly advocated for better relations between
the U.S. and Russia and had even suggested that the Russian annexation of Crimea could
eventually be accepted by the U.S. This stance was anathema to the policies that had been
massaged into place by the NSC in general, and the whistleblower in particular. According to
multiple sources familiar with the whistleblower during this time, his animus against Trump was
palpable.
In December 2016, Rice was involved in the unmasking of the identities of several members of
the Trump transition team. Various sensitive intelligence reports were circulating within the
NSC regarding the interaction of unnamed U.S. citizens with foreign targets of intelligence
interest. In order to better understand the significance of such a report,
Rice has acknowledged that, on several occasions, she requested that the identity of the
U.S. persons involved be "unmasked."
The U.S. intelligence community is prohibited by law from collecting information about U.S.
citizens. As such, when a conversation undertaken by a foreign national of intelligence
interest was captured, and it turned out the person or persons whom the target was speaking to
was a U.S. citizen, the analysts preparing the report for wider dissemination would "mask", or
hide, the identities of the U.S. citizens involved. Under relevant laws governing the
collection of intelligence, up to 20 officials within the Obama administration had the
authority to unmask the identities of U.S. citizens. One of those was Rice.
In late December 2016, the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Mohammed bin
Zayed al-Nahyan, arrived in New York for a meeting with several top Trump transition officials,
including Michael Flynn, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and the President-elect's top
strategist Steve Bannon. Intelligence reports had been circulating about the UAE coordinating a
backchannel for the Trump transition team and Russia.
Zayed's arrival, which was unannounced and had not been coordinated with the U.S.
government, caused great concern among the NSC staff especially given the context of
allegations of collusion between Trump and Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016
election.
The principle NSC staffers who would logically been advising Rice on this matter were
Kupchan, the whistleblower, and
Sean Misko , a State Department detailee who served as the director for the Gulf Arab
States (According the NSC staffers who worked in the White House at the time, Misko and the
whistleblower were said to be close friends, frequently socializing with one another after
hours, and possessing a common dislike for Trump.)
Rice requested that the intelligence reports pertaining to Zayed's visit be subjected to
unmasking procedures.
While the
subsequent reporting about the three-hour meeting between Zayed and the Trump transition
team failed to uncover any evidence of a secret communications channel with Russia, Rice (who
would logically have been assisted by Kupchan and the whistleblower) facilitated the near
continuous unmasking of intelligence reports involving Flynn, who was in contact with Russian
officials, including Sergei Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
The Greatest Sin
Susan Rice, center, with Obama, March 10, 2009. (White House photo)
As a professional intelligence analyst detailed to the NSC, the whistleblower was committed
to a two-year assignment, extendable to three years upon the agreement of all parties.
President Obama's departure from the White House did not change this commitment. According to
NSC staffers who served in the White House at the time, the whistleblower, like many of his
fellow detailees, had grown attached to the policies of the Obama administration which they had
fought hard to formulate, coordinate and implement. They viewed these policies to be
sacrosanct, regardless of who followed in the White House.
In doing so, they had committed the greatest sin that an intelligence professional could
commit short of espionage -- they had become political.
In December 2016, the whistleblower was, based upon his role as a leading Russian analysts
advising Rice directly, more than likely helping unmask Flynn's communications with Russians; a
month later, he was working for Flynn, someone he had likely actively helped conspire against,
using the unfettered power of the intelligence community.
The Trump administration had inherited a national security decision-making apparatus that
was bloated, and which fostered White House micromanagement via the NSC. While the Obama NSC
had proven able to generate a prolificate amount of "policy", it did so by relying on a staff
that had expanded to the largest in the history of the NSC, and at the expense of the various
departments of government that were supposed to be the originators of policy.
As the new national security adviser, Flynn let it be known from day one that there would be
changes. One of his first actions was to hire four new
deputies who centralized much of the responsibilities normally tasked to regional directors
such as the whistleblower. Flynn was putting in place a new level of bureaucracy that shielded
professional detailees from top level decision makers.
Moreover, it recognized that the NSC, while staffed with professionals who are supposed to
be apolitical, was viewed by the White House as a partisan policy body whose work not only
furthered the interests of the United States, but also the political interests of the
president. When Trump included his top political advisor, Bannon, on the list of people who
would comprise the National Security Council (normally limited to cabinet-level officials), it
sent shockwaves through the national security establishment, which accused Trump of
politicizing what they claimed was an apolitical process.
But the reality was that the NSC had always functioned as a partisan decision-making body.
Its previous occupants may have tried to temper the level to which domestic politics intruded
on national security decision-making, but its presence was an unspoken reality. All Trump did
by seeking to insert Bannon into the mix was to be open about it.
Like the other professional detailees who comprised 90 percent of the NSC staff and were
expected to remain at their posts as part of a Trump administration, the whistleblower was
dismayed by the changes.
Some accounts of the early days of the Trump NSC indicate that the whistleblower was
defensive of the Ukraine policies he had helped craft during his tenure at the NSC.
When his immediate superior, Kupchan (a political appointee) departed the NSC, the
whistleblower was temporarily elevated to the position of senior director for Russia and
Eurasia until a new replacement could be found. (Flynn had reached out to
Fiona Hill , a former national intelligence officer for Russia under the administration of
George W. Bush, to take this job; Hill had accepted, but would not be available until
April.)
According to persons familiar with his work at the NSC during the Trump administration, the
whistleblower's frustration and anger soon led to acts of resistance designed to expose, and
undermine public confidence in President Trump.
Cut Out of Call to Putin
In late January 2017 Trump made several introductory telephone calls to world leaders,
including President Putin. Normally the NSC director responsible for Russia would help prepare
the president for such a call by drafting talking points and supporting memoranda, and then
monitor the call directly, either from within the Oval Office or from the White House situation
room.
According to sources familiar with the incident, Flynn did not coordinate Trump's call with
NSC staff, and as such the whistleblower, who was acting as the director for Russia and
European Affairs at the time, would have been cut out of the process altogether. When the
whistleblower tried to access the read out of the phone call afterwards, he found that no
verbatim record existed, only a
short summary released by the White House , presumably prepared by Flynn.
More frustrating was the fact that the official readout of the call released by the
Kremlin contained much more information, putting Russia in the driver's seat in terms of
defining U.S.-Russian policy priorities -- the very policy blunder the NSC was supposed to
prevent from happening. While searching for the non-existent records of the Putin-Trump
conversation, however, the whistleblower came across detailed verbatim transcripts of two other
calls made by Trump that day -- one with Mexico, and one with Australia.
On February 13, 2017,
Flynn resigned from his position as President Trump's national security adviser. The reason
given was Flynn's having misrepresented his conversations with Russian Ambassador Kislyak when
questioned by Vice President Mike Pence. For the whistleblower, whose previous work in the
Obama NSC appeared to help Rice's efforts to unmask the very conversations Flynn was being held
accountable for, this had to have been a satisfying moment. He had to have been even more
pleased by
Trump's choice to replace Flynn -- Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster, a decorated combat
veteran known for his intelligence and willingness to challenge the establishment.
McMaster rewrote the presidential guidance regarding the functioning of the NSC, replacing
the original Presidential Policy Memorandum 1 with a new version, PPM
4 , which removed Bannon from the NSC and restored much of the policy coordinating
functions that characterized the NSC under Obama.
Moreover, McMaster stuck up for
the professional detailees , such as the whistleblower. When Hill arrived in April 2017 to
assume her responsibilities as the NSC director for Russia and Europe, the whistleblower found
himself without a job.
But instead of being returned to the CIA, McMaster, who had come to know the whistleblower
during his first month as national security adviser,
appointed him to serve as his personal assistant . The whistleblower moved from his desk
next door in the Executive Office Building, where most NSC staffer work, to the West Wing of
the White House, a move which gave him direct access to every issue that crossed McMaster's
desk.
Oval Office Leak
The new job, however, did nothing to diminish the disdain the whistleblower had for Trump.
Indeed, the proximity to the seat of power may have served to increase the concern the
whistleblower had about Trump's stewardship. On May 10, President Trump played host to Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Kislyak. During the now-infamous meeting,
Trump spoke about the firing of former FBI Director Jim Comey; a sensitive Israeli intelligence
source related to the ongoing fight against ISIS in Syria; and alleged Russian interference in
the 2016 presidential election.
As McMasters' assistant, the whistleblower was privy to the readout of the meeting, and was
so alarmed by what he had seen that he sent an email to John Kelly , who at that
time was serving as director of the Department of Homeland Security, detailing the president's
actions and words. All materials relating to this meeting were
collected and secured in the NSC's top secret codeword server ; the only unsecured data was
that contained in the whistleblower's email. When the media subsequently reported on the
details of Trump's meeting with the Russians, the White House condemned the "leaking of private
and highly classified information" which undermined "our national security."
According to a NSC staffer who worked in the White House at the time, an internal
investigation pointed to the whistleblower's email as the likely source of the leak, and while
the whistleblower was not directly implicated in actually transmitting classified information
to the press, he was criticized for what amounted to unauthorized communication with an outside
agency, in this case the Department of Homeland Security. When his initial two-year assignment
terminated in July 2017, the White House refused to authorize a one-year extension (a courtesy
offered to the vast majority of detailees).
The whistleblower had become a liability,
publicly smeared by right-wing bloggers and subjected to death threats. He was released
from the NSC and returned to the CIA, where he resumed his role as a Eurasian analyst. Shortly
after the whistleblower left the NSC, the full transcripts of President Trump's January 28,
2017 conversations with the leaders of Mexico and Australia were leaked to the press. While
several colleagues in the NSC believed that the whistleblower was behind the leaks, McMaster
refused to authorize a formal investigation which, if evidence had been found that implicated
the whistleblower, would have effectively terminated his career at the CIA.
It is at this juncture the saga of the whistleblower should have ended, avoiding the turn of
events which ended up labeling him with the now famous (or infamous) appellation. However, in
June 2018 the whistleblower's colleague, Kendall-Taylor, ended her assignment as the deputy
national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. An announcement was made to fill the
vacancy , and the whistleblower applied.
Despite having left the NSC under a cloud of suspicion regarding the unauthorized disclosure
of sensitive information, and even though his anti-Trump sentiment was common knowledge among
his colleagues and superiors, the whistleblower was picked for a position that would put him at
the center of policy formulation regarding Russia and Ukraine, and the sensitive intelligence
that influenced such. His appointment would have been approved by Director of National
Intelligence Dan Coates.
Enter Vindman
The whistleblower was well versed in the collaborative functions of the deputy national
intelligence officer position, having worked with Kendall-Taylor during his time at the NSC. He
began to develop professional relationships with a number of individuals, including the new
director of Ukraine at the NSC, Army Lieutenant Colonel
Alexander Vindman . Vindman had extensive experience regarding Ukraine and had been
detailed to the NSC from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The two soon appeared to share a mutual
concern over President Trump's worldview of both Russia and Ukraine, which deviated from the
formal policy formulations promulgated by the interagency processes that both Vindman and the
whistleblower were involved in.
The whistleblower's concerns about President Trump and Ukraine predated the July 25, 2019
telephone call, and mirrored those expressed by Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, both in chronology
and content,
provided during his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee . While Vindman was
critical of President Trump's deviation and/or failure to conform with policy that had been
vetted through proper channels (i.e., in conformity with PDD 4), he noted that, as president,
"It's his prerogative to handle the call whichever way he wants."
Vindman took umbrage at the non-national security topics brought up by the president, such
as investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, regarding their
relationship with a Ukrainian energy company,
Burisma Holdings , and other references to the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
According to Vindman, it was this aspect of the telephone call Vindman believed to be
alarming, and which he subsequently related to an authorized contact within the intelligence
community. While Vindman remained circumspect about the identity of the intelligence community
official he communicated with about his concerns over Trump's Ukraine policy, the fact that the
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee refused to allow any discussion of this person's
identity strongly suggests that it was the whistleblower who, as the deputy national
intelligence officer for Russia and Ukraine, would be a logical, and fully legitimate,
interlocuter.
According to
an account published in T
he Washington Post, sometime after being informed by Vindman of the July 25
Trump-Zelensky telephone call, the whistleblower began preparing notes and assembling
information related to what he believed was untoward activity vis-à-vis Ukraine on the
part of President Trump and associates who were not part of the formal Ukraine policy making
process. He made numerous telephone calls to U.S. government officials whom he knew from his
official work as the deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Because much
of the information he was using was derived from classified sources, or was itself classified
in nature, the whistleblower worked from his office, using a computer system approved for
handling classified data.
Off Limits
From the perspective of security, the whistleblower's work was flawless. There was one
problem, however; investigating the actions of the president of the United States and officials
outside the intelligence community who were carrying out the instructions of the president was
not part of the whistleblower's official responsibilities.
Indeed, anything that whiffed of interference in domestic American politics was, in and of
itself, off limits to members of the intelligence community.
Robert Gates, a long-time CIA analyst and former CIA director, had warned about this
possibility
in a speech he delivered to the CIA in March 1992 on the issue of the politicization of
intelligence. "National intelligence officers", Gates noted, "are engaged in analysis and --
given their frequent contact with high-level policymakers -- their work is also vulnerable to
distortion."
There was no greater example of politicized distortion than the rabbit hole the
whistleblower had allowed himself to fall into. From Gates' perspective, the whistleblower had
committed the ultimate sin of any intelligence analyst -- he had allowed his expertise to
become tarnished by political considerations.
Worse, the whistleblower had crossed the threshold from advocating a politicized point of
view to becoming political -- that is, to intervene in the domestic political affairs of the
United States in a manner which influenced the political future of a sitting president of the
United States.
Once he had assembled his notes, he sought out staffers on the House Intelligence Committee
for guidance on how to proceed. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, had
hired two former members of the Trump NSC staff who had served at the same time as the
whistleblower.
One, Abigail Grace, had worked at the NSC from 2016-2018, covering U.S.-Chinese relations.
Grace was hired by Schiff in February 2019 for the express purpose of investigating the Trump White House.
A second NSC veteran was
hired in August 2019, around the same time that the whistleblower was preparing his
complaint. That staffer was none other than Sean Misko, the whistleblowers friend and fellow
anti-Trump collaborator.
Both Misko and the whistleblower departed the NSC in 2017 under a cloud. Misko went on to
work for the Center for New American
Security , a self-described bipartisan think tank set up by two former Obama administration
officials, Michèle Flournoy and Kurt M. Campbell, before being recruited by Schiff. It
is not known if Misko was one of the House Intelligence staffers the whistleblower approached,
or if there had been any collaboration between the whistleblower and Misko about the nature of
the complaint prior to Misko being recruited by Schiff.
After conferencing with the House Intelligence Committee staffers, the whistleblower sought
legal counsel. He reached out to a lawyer affiliated with Whistleblower Aid , a group of national security lawyers
who came together in September 2017 -- eight months after the inauguration of President Trump
-- to
encourage w histleblowers within the U.S. g overnment to come out agains Trump , and
provide legal and financial assistance to anyone that chose to do so. One of Whistleblower
Aid's founding members was a lawyer named Mark Zaid.
In the days following Trump's swearing in as president, Zaid turned to Twitter to send out
messages supportive of a "coup" against Trump that would lead to the president's eventual
impeachment. The identity of the lawyer who met with the whistleblower is not known. However,
this lawyer referred the whistleblower to Bakaj, a fellow member of Whistleblower Aid, who took
on the case and provided procedural guidance regarding the preparation of the complaint. Bakaj
later brought on Zaid and another lawyer, Charles McCullough, with close ties to Senator Chuck
Schumer and Hillary Clinton, to assist in the case.
On August 12, the whistleblower completed his complaint, and forwarded it to the
intelligence community inspector general, thereby setting in motion events that produced weeks
of hearings before the House Intelligence Committee that will very likely result in Trump's
impeachment.
Shielded from Questions
While the whistleblower, through counsel, had expressed a desire to testify before the House
Intelligence Committee about the issues set forth in his complaint, he was never called to do
so, even in closed-door session. The ostensible reason behind this failure to testify was the
need to protect his anonymity, a protection that is not contained within the relevant statutes
governing whistleblower activities within the intelligence community.
Later, as witnesses were identified from the content of the whistleblower's complaint and
subpoenaed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, both Schiff and Bakaj indicated
that the whistleblower's testimony was no longer needed, since the specific issues and events
covered in his complaint had been more than adequately covered by the testimony of others.
But the apparent reason Schiff and Bakaj refused to allow the whistleblower to testify, or
to be identified, was to avoid legitimate questions likely to be asked by Republican committee
members.
Namely, what was a deputy national intelligence officer of the U.S. intelligence community
doing investigating activities of a sitting president? Who, if anyone, authorized this
intervention in U.S. domestic political affairs by a CIA official? How did the whistleblower,
who had a history of documented animosity with the Trump administration that included credible
allegations of leaking sensitive material to the press for the express purpose of undermining
the credibility of the president, get selected to serve as a deputy national intelligence
officer? Who signed off on this assignment? What was the precise role played by the
whistleblower in unmasking the identities of U.S. citizens in 2016, during the Trump
transition?
Did the whistleblower maintain his friendship with Misko after leaving the NSC in July 2017?
Did the whistleblower collaborate with Misko to get the House Intelligence Committee to
investigate the issues of concern to the whistleblower before his complaint was transmitted to
the ICIG? Who did the whistleblower meet on the House Intelligence staff? What did they
discuss? Who was the lawyer the whistleblower first met regarding his intent to file a
complaint? Did the whistleblower have any contact with Whistleblower Aid prior to this
meeting?
Answers to these questions, and more, would have been useful in understanding not only the
motives of the whistleblower in filing his complaint -- was he simply a concerned citizen and
patriot, or was he part of a larger conspiracy to undermine the political viability of a
sitting president? There is no doubt that Congress has a constitutional right and obligation to
conduct proper oversight of the operations of the executive branch, and to hold the president
of the United States accountable if his conduct and actions are deemed unworthy of his office.
Whether or not the facts surrounding the July 25, 2019 telephone call between Trump and
Zelensky constitute grounds for impeachment is a political question for Congress to decide.
Intervening in Domestic Affairs
There is, however, the major issue looming in the background of this impeachment frenzy: the
intervention by elements of the intelligence community in the domestic political affairs of the
United States. There is no question that the whistleblower's complaint served as the genesis of
the ongoing impeachment proceedings.
The American people should be deeply concerned that an inquiry which could result in the
removal of a duly elected president from office was initiated in secrecy by a member of the
intelligence community acting outside the four corners of his legal responsibilities. The
legitimacy of the underlying issues being investigated by the House Intelligence Committee is
not at issue here; the legitimacy of the process by which these proceedings were initiated
is.
To find out what happened, the whistleblower should not only be identified, called before
the House Intelligence Committee, and other relevant Congressional committees, and be compelled
to answer for his actions.
Impeachment is a constitutional remedy afforded to the U.S. Congress to deal with the
political issues surrounding the conduct of a sitting president. If this constitutional remedy
can be triggered by the intelligence community in a manner which obviates laws prohibiting the
intrusion of intelligence agencies into the domestic political affairs of the United States,
and done so in a manner where the identities of the persons and organizations involved, along
with their possible motives, are shielded from both American people and those whom they elect
to represent them in Congress, then a precedent will have been set for future interventions of
this nature which undermine the very foundation of American democracy.
The political weaponization of intelligence represents a significant threat to the viability
of the American constitutional republic that cannot be ignored.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet
Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm,
and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.
Great Article Scott. You are as right about the politicization of Intelligence you were
about there being no WMD's in Iraq.
There is a corollary to the old saw that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." The
power to surveil also carries the power to destroy.
FBI director J. Edgar Hoover used it (after WWII) to control or get what what he wanted from
politicians who had something embarrassing in their past or maybe a current affair.
FBI Director James Comey's attempt to Hoover president Trump didn't work. It does reveal
that the FBI hasn't changed much. Intelligence, especially the CIA, is so corrupted (read
politicized) it has to be considered a political faction. A very powerful political faction
that wants to run the country without being elected. If Russiagate was the coup d'essai
(first attempt) the impeachment is a coup de theatre.
Former US Senator from New York, and UN Ambassador, Danial Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003)
proposed disbanding the CIA and transferring its intelligence functions to the State Dept. He
also introduced a bill in the senate to do it. See onlinelibrary dot wiley dot com. –
"Do we still need the CIA" 15 pages pdf. If even half the CIA's 'deeds' were public and half
what it has failed to do or know became public, the voters would happily support Senator
Moynihan's bill.
Tedder , November 29, 2019 at 10:53
I always thought that focussing on Trump's rather idiotic and stupid obsession with
Ukraine and Joe Biden made little sense for impeachment, compared with a long list of valid
and important reasons of Trump's transgressions. The fact that the team who listened to the
call were disturbed by it but 'blew no whistle' implies that they probably just shrugged
their shoulders and looked away in embarrassment.
The "whistleblower" was CIA and it seems 'he' just seized this transgression as the main
chance for the security state to finally get rid of Trump, just as they have tried since his
campaign statements for restoring detente with Russia. As Scott Ritter points out, careers
have been made on the New Cold War.
Arnieus , November 29, 2019 at 10:30
Scott Ritter is obviously still a fearless truth teller. My first awareness of Scott was
an interview on CNN with the disgusting Paula Zahn during the months before the Iraq war.
Like the rest of corporate media, her job was obviously to be a cheer leader for "W" Bush's
disastrous war. She didn't know how to respond to Scott as he explained that as Chief Weapons
Inspector he had witnessed the elimination of anything that could be considered a WMD in
Saddam's Iraq. This interview, the exposure of the outdated plagiarized student thesis held
up as intelligence, the Downing St. memo, and the yellow cake lie outing of Valerie Plame all
added up to one thing. The Bush administration obviously knew there was no justification for
their "shock and awe" invasion. This was my awakening at age 50 I am embarrassed to admit. I
helped organize the local protest demonstrations of several thousand people in my area which
did no good of course. Millions of people all over the world could not stop it.
Mark Rabine , November 29, 2019 at 08:41
If you think it is proper, in fact imperative, to publically identify the whistleblower
(which is publically known anyway), then why do you keep referring to him as the
whistleblower? Not only iis it annoying it casts a shadow over the rest of the information
you present (without sources).
Consortiumnews.com , November 29, 2019 at 16:49
From Scott Ritter:
The idea behind my not including the name of the Whistleblower, all the while providing a
documentary trail that clearly identifies the individual in question, was to highlight the
absurdity of the ongoing decision by Congress and the Whistleblower's legal counsel to
pretend that he enjoys a modicum of anonymity. Perhaps my approach was too sophisticated by
far, but with all due respect, it certainly did not lack for courage.
OlyaPola , November 29, 2019 at 04:14
"the Politicization of Intelligence"
The purpose of "intelligence" is to enhance/preserve specific political relationships of
the entity/entities for whom activities which are defined/framed as "intelligence" are
undertaken, and hence "intelligence" is always "politicised" since it is a component of
politics a.k.a. interactions defined/framed by the "initiators" implemented in
interaction.
Often interactions deemed to facilitate de-mystification are facilitated/framed by
mystification a.k.a. perception management in which the "initiators" are also
immersed/subject to in some assay.
Bill Rood , November 29, 2019 at 00:49
Note that House Democrats just extended the PATRIOT act for 3 mos by stealthily attaching
it to a "must pass" bill.
Thank you, Scott Ritter, for this background info. I'm very upset about the Dems
protecting the whistleblower, who works for them, while persecuting others.
Sam F , November 28, 2019 at 19:34
Thanks for this detailed glimpse of secret operations at the top of the USG. Indeed
interventions of this nature "undermine the very foundation of American democracy" along with
the economic power of oligarchy that controls all branches of federal government and the mass
media.
Scott seems convinced that the NSC serves the administration, although it surrounds and
outnumbers them, controls the information and narratives available to them, is controlled by
secret tribes of the secret agencies, and acts against them everywhere when it disagrees. The
administration are mere figureheads in a government by secret agencies lost in their own
self-serving narratives. Any contrary administration would have to move in a shadow
government by force right after election, and abolish the NSC. Not that it could get
elected.
Bill Mack , November 28, 2019 at 16:21
In 1979 a presidential CAMPAIGN colluded with a foreign country for political leverage ,
and used it successfully .
Good investigative reporting in the tradition of Consortium News founder Bob Parry, who
was warned he would be "controversialized" and went full scale ahead anyway -- no, not
"anyway" -- rather ALL THE MORE, ALL THE STRONGER.
More than two years before his untimely death, Bob had it pretty much figured out, and
wrote it. See, for example The Foundering Russia-gate Scandal on Dec. 13, 2007 and Protecting
the Shaky Russia-gate Narrative on Dec. 15, 2017.
Needless to say, your VIPS colleagues are among those proud of your gutsy, professional
work. Perhaps Consortium News folks merit a reminder to send this piece of Scott's far and wide
-- and best BEFORE the politicians, who prefer not to understand why intelligence needs to be
apolitical, make the usual hay out of your findings.
This afternoon I told a close friend about your findings in getting the truth out. He
asked, Will this help Trump??
Aaaaaaaaagh, no, I said, this will help the TRUTH, which still matters. If the dumb Dems
can't find something more important and unconstitutional on which to impeach Trump, they are
beyond help.
Ray McGovern
Sam F , November 29, 2019 at 07:24
Yes, it is astounding that the Dems seek to impeach Trump for investigating their own
corruption, rather than exposing Rep corruption. I am doing the latter at one corner of the
state government level, and am sure that hundreds of times that could be found at the federal
level if the Dems were not equally enthusiastic kleptocrats and nepotists.
But we would be ahead even if Reps prosecute only Dems and Dems prosecute only Reps: the
public would at least see that Rep judges only convict Dems and probably the reverse as well.
Only the scum floats to the top in an unregulated market economy dumbed-down by
oligarchy-controlled mass media.
Fran Macadam , November 27, 2019 at 17:44
It works the same in every country, whether monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, socialist,
communist or various blends with democracy. Once you set up an unaccountable secret police or
intelligence agency and empower it to spy on people, carry out various deceptions and allow
it to operate outside the law, it becomes the real power, blackmailing and even murdering
according to its own direction.
robert e williamson jr , November 27, 2019 at 17:28
I believe Scott is right on target with his presented material. We still don't know what happened with the JFK murder but we do know that CIA knew
something big was up. So JFK get murdered and CIA prevents a thorough exacting investigation. I see CIA
interference as being political. What else would it be be. CIA escaped any blame at the time
and the president was gone and replace. Political.
Then Robert fell, a likely winner of the next election he was terminated.
In this day and age CIA can't afford getting caught with gunpowder residue anywhere on it
entity if a sitting president happens to catch a round or two. The alternative is to use all
that money the Super Wealthy Elites have stashed and go openly political. Hiding in plan
sight as always.
Veronica Roberts , November 27, 2019 at 15:26
Excellent report, Scott Ritter. Thank you. I have always trusted your reports and analysis
since the days of Iraq's supposed
weapons of mass destruction. You have really served the American people well.
phree , November 27, 2019 at 14:40
Interesting stuff. I'm certainly against politicization of intelligence. I am troubled
about the whistleblower not being willing and allowed to testify.
But the rest of this sounds very much like a conspiracy theory. I'll have to reread
Ritter's prior work, which I viewed very favorably. Given this mess, though, I'll have to
reconsider. Let's assume the whistleblower was out to get the President. What difference does
the whistleblower's motivations t make if the President was doing exactly what the
whistleblower said the President was doing? Prosecutors are always out to get criminals, and
we don't let the criminals go just because of that. Prosecutors get tips from all sorts of
unsavory people, such as informants and criminal competitors. Are they supposed to just
ignore those tips?
There are a number of other problems with this theory.
First, Ritter confuses "political" with "partisan." Foreign policy is necessarily
political -- can't be avoided. What it shouldn't become is partisan -- the party in power
shouldn't leverage the United States' national security interests to gain political power
over their domestic opponents. I hope we can all agree on that. When we say intelligence
shouldn't be political, we mean intelligence shouldn't be "fixed around the policy." Even
going into Iraq, as stupid as that was, and as bad as the intelligence agencies acted, that's
different than using national foreign policy to stick it to your domestic political rivals.
The Bushies and the neocons really thought it was in the national interest to go into Iraq.
It also isn't being "political" in the "partisan" sense to become wedded to a policy that you
helped developed, it just means you think that's the right policy and should be followed
regardless of which party or politician is in office. It's actually the opposite of
political. Fiona Hill is a perfect example: To her, Russia is and always will be evil and
duplicitous, and she's going to say that no matter which party is in the oval office. She may
not be right, but she sure isn't partisan. If you are convinced that the President is selling
the U.S. and the Ukraine out, what are you supposed to do?
Second, it is a real stretch to call phone calls to friends and acquaintances to verify
the reports of the July 25 call and the surrounding circumstances "an investigation" of the
president. Really? Sounds pretty deep statey to me.
Third, why does Ritter refer to the President's request of a "favor" of a Biden
investigation as "non-national security topics" rather than what it clearly was -- a request
for help that could only be primarily for Trump's personal benefit in our domestic politics?
Such sophistry is troubling and revealing. If the whistleblower's claim is true, and it sure
looks like it is based on publicly available evidence, Trump was giving Ukraine $391 Million
reasons to fabricate evidence on Biden. Even the mere announcement, as Sondland says, would
be politically damaging to the candidate who polls the best against Trump in key
constituencies with no benefit at all to the U.S.'s national security. That's why the story
is troubling, not because it related to "non-national security topics."
Fourth, who else other than an anti-Trump lawyer is the whistleblower supposed to choose?
A pro-Trumper? Ridiculous criticism.
Fifth, he's got friends here and there, and he might have leaked. This is just more "deep
state" conspiracy nonsense, and the old look at all of this smoke, there must be a fire. It
was so smoky and he was such a swampy deep stater that he was rehired into the White House
despite those concerns? Yeah, maybe, or maybe the suspicions were not substantiated. And,
again, what does any of that have to do with Trump essentially soliciting a bribe in exchange
for aid and/or a White House meeting. All this shows is that Trump, who complains that
they're all out to get him, was stupid enough to get caught. Because he was stupid enough to
rely on Rudy Giuliani.
So, this would make a nice spy novel, but it is pretty weak tea to support the claim that
the Whistleblower did anything other than report what he thought was an improper and likely
illegal act, and even weaker tea to support a claim that we ought to just ignore the whole
scandal.
Withholding aid and a White House meeting unless Ukraine agreed to announce an
investigation the primary purpose of which is to benefit the President personally and
politically is wrong. It's wrong for Trump and it will be wrong for every president of any
party. If Ritter isn't alarmed about that, it says more about him than it does about the
whistleblower. If Ritter isn't also troubled by that allegation, and the evidence that has
come out to support it, his judgment is more suspect than the whistleblower's.
Consortiumnews.com , November 29, 2019 at 17:09
From Scott Ritter:
The bottom line here is that a deputy national intelligence officer charged with
overseeing intelligence activities regarding the Russian-Ukraine target used his position to
initiate a Whistleblower complaint which failed to conform to the legal requirements required
of such. Many sins are conducted by officials "under the cover of law", and this is one. You
can spin and cherry pick and obfuscate the article all you like, but you can't avoid the
reality that an intelligence officer, operating under a veil of secrecy, initiated a
political action under the color of law designed to unseat the President of the United
States. At a minimum this individual should be identified and subjected to an appropriate
amount of investigation as to his motive and that of those who collaborated/conspired with
him.
John Neal Spangler , November 27, 2019 at 14:12
Anner is right. A huge problem is that most US bureaucrats have never lived abroad and
gone thru culture shock. They are so rigidly American they do not understand foreign
cultures
jhawk620 , November 27, 2019 at 12:12
this is an historical abstract into the machinations of bureaucrats within the U S
government. Well worth the time to read it.
Ojkelly , November 27, 2019 at 11:38
Blowing the whistle on the whistle blower! Great article. He learned well.. I am still in
shock from Morrell's op ed in NYT, "I used to run the CIA and I am for Hillary Clinton".
I know the morels post the government career doesn't include a job at Booz Allen or SAIC or $
think tank world, just a desk at the Clinton Foundation BGS. Plus only a few crumbs from CBS
and CNN. Maybe that is an instructive object lesson for other senior retiring officials.
michael , November 27, 2019 at 19:52
Good point, although the MSM is spiking any negative Biden stories. Biden seems to be the CIA's preferred Democrat.
Heavy published their "five facts" on the presumed whistleblower several days ago, including
that he worked as the point man with Biden on Ukraine issues. Evidently he was so
pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia (pointed out by Mike Cernovich who suggested he was involved in
leaks, as noted in Foreign Policy back in 2017), that it must have been difficult for him to
fall in line and do his required job, implementing new foreign policy with a new
administration. Whether he "went native" or truly decided to over-ride the President's
policies in favor of the old Obama "consensus community" policies for Ukraine, he has crossed
several lines interfering with foreign policy and national security.
Ritter mentions treason, but that is only applicable to wartime. This case is classical
sedition. If the CIA wants to run the country, they should run for office (as several did and
won as Democrats in 2018).
Llitchfield , November 27, 2019 at 20:55
Exactly. The relevant timeline is not the 2020 election.
The relevant timeline is of VP Biden's alleged activities on behalf of his son while serving
as VP and as the Obama administration point man on Ukraine. The sequence whereby various
phone calls by Biden and his son resulted in monies departing Ukr bank accounts and arriving
in American bank accounts Those are the activities that need to be investigated. Before Biden
can dream of running for POTUS.
It is in a sense coincidence that Biden's activities became known to the public and others at
this moment in time.
AnneR , November 27, 2019 at 08:09
Mr Ritter's own anti-Russian bias is clearly on display throughout this piece, which
reduces considerably its pretensions toward objectivity.
As for the politicization of the secret agencies – as a fairly recent phenomenon or
so it would seem from Mr Ritter's piece – from my reading and understanding of the past
70+ years, these agencies and their forebears have *Always* been politically biased. Not
necessarily regarding whichever of the dual headed monopoly party that has controlled US
politics for even longer, but biased always on behalf of the Ruling Elites.
As for the educational attainments of these secret agencies' staffs and their supposed
knowledge of, in this instance, Russia and other eastern European/Eurasian countries, I would
suggest that they apparently understand very little about Russia particularly, no matter how
well they speak, read and write the language; and what they remain steeped in, for reasons
having to do with the insatiable desire for the US to remain *the* hegemon and the political
biases of their university tutors/professors which they clearly absorb (their leanings
probably already in those directions anyway), is the COLD WAR US/western erroneous
apprehension of what the USSR intended. Of course Russia (the USSR before) want to dominate
the world – we do, so obviously other such nations (China being the other one) want to
overtake us. We visit war, coups, invasions, destruction, siege warfare (sanctions) on every
nation that won't do as we want – therefore Russia and China want to do exactly the
same thing to us and the rest of the world.
Apparently the Anglo-American ruling elites and their instruments (such as the staffs of
these agencies) are utterly incapable of conceiving of, perceiving that other cultures exist
and that those cultural perspectives are *NOT* the same as ours, do not want to be exactly
like ours (rightly so). WE cannot, do not, are utterly unwilling, are incapable, lack the
imagination to try to walk in the footwear of another, very different culture. But for the
world's sake, we need to start doing so. Now.
Actually, the anti-Russian bias of the author is not clear at all. I surmise that Anne is
displeased by what he did not write. For example, there is a revolving door between academia
and CIA, and no field is more contaminated than Russian and East European studies. For
details, reading "Team B" at Wikipedia is a good start.
Skip Scott , November 27, 2019 at 13:52
How true. The CIA (Capitalism's Invisible Army) killed JFK when I was seven years old.
They've been in charge my whole life. Assassinating a sitting president isn't "political"? I
would think its way beyond "allowing your expertise to be tarnished by political
considerations". It is willful blindness to think there is any remnant of a "constitutional
republic" in the USA, especially from a former "intelligence" officer.
Reading Putin's speeches and interviews, it is plain to see that he is interested in the
welfare of his citizens, and maintaining sovereignty by refusing vassal status to Empire.
Imagine if we had a president truly committed to serving "We the People".
CharlieK , November 29, 2019 at 05:27
Yes, Anne, there is an uncontested, imperial mindset that seeps through the US body
politic. And a central part of that imperial mindset is the demonization of Russia, of
everything Russian, and anything that Russia might do. This has been ongoing for at least
over 100 years, since the revolution of 1917.
It is so ingrained into the lifeblood of this
country that to challenge it results in being condemned as a heretic. One perfect example is
the delusional version of events surrounding Crimea, which was a part of Russia for centuries
until Khrushchev "transferred" Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukranian SFSR in 1954.
Who
even bothers with such historical facts! Moreover, it was incredible to watch the impeachment
hearings, as everyone in the room, Republican and Democrat, sat around and discussed Ukraine
as if it was ours to control. Imagine for one second if Russia (or China) were discussing
Mexico in the same terms, or if they had intervened in a similar fashion as the US National
Security State did to midwife the overthrow of the elected government in Ukraine. Under such
circumstances we would probably be ready to declare war.
All of our meddling in Ukraine is
for the sole purpose of solidifying US hegemony and undermining Russia. Would the US tolerate
Mexico joining a military bloc a la NATO that was a part of a Russian global military
alliance? To ask the question is itself heretical. Anne, your declaration that the US is
unwilling and genetically incapable of walking in the footwear of another, very different
culture is totally accurate. Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatsoever that this
imperial mindset is likely to change. And if history is any lesson, this kind of imperial
mindset never changes until it is forced to do so, as Germany and Japan learned as a result
of WWII.
Sally Snyder , November 27, 2019 at 08:03
As shown in this article, there is a key aspect to the entire anti-Russia/pro-Ukraine
story that has received no coverage by the mainstream media:
The West's blanket condemnation of Russia and its so-called annexation of the Crimean
peninsula in 2014 would suggest that more of us need to educate ourselves on the history of
Russia and Crimea in particular before we whole heartedly swallow the narrative that our
political leaders and media foist on us.
TimN , November 27, 2019 at 07:41
Just as I suspected, the CIA directly interfered in US politics. Great article, but why
the coy insistence on not naming the "whistle-blower, " yourself, Scott? And of course
"whistle-blower" should be in quotes throughout the article, no? His name is Eric
Ciaramella.
This is simply Russiagate 2.0, with the "Intelligence" agencies having run completely amok at
this point. Very disturbing, but not really surprising.
Jeff Davis , November 29, 2019 at 08:49
" why the coy insistence on not naming the "whistle-blower, "
Indeed, the universal coyness in the repetitive use of the term "the whistleblower",
beyond becoming now tedious and annoying, has so embedded the term in discussions of this
issue, that it has now become the default usage. To the point where writing Eric Ciaramella,
without explaining that he is the presumed "the whistleblower", would leave one wondering who
this Eric person is. To overcome this problem, I would suggest, at least as a temporary
measure, that the term "Eric Ciaramella a.k.a. 'the whistleblower' "be used instead.
Consortiumnews.com , November 29, 2019 at 16:48
From Scott Ritter:
The idea behind my not including the name of the Whistleblower, all the while providing a
documentary trail that clearly identifies the individual in question, was to highlight the
absurdity of the ongoing decision by Congress and the Whistleblower's legal counsel to
pretend that he enjoys a modicum of anonymity. Perhaps my approach was too sophisticated by
far, but with all due respect, it certainly did not lack for courage.
michael , November 27, 2019 at 06:36
Excellent detailed summary of the SNAFU of politicized national foreign policy that has
led to the unhinged continual neocon/ neolib invasions and coups and sanctions this
century.
The whistleblower's complaint was rejected as "not urgent" by the DNI with the government
lawyers' advice (rejected as most whistleblower's complaints are in government, for better or
worse).
"After considering the whistleblower's complaint and classified annex, the Criminal Division
opted not to pursue charges, in effect determining that no crime had been committed."
When the whistleblower refused to accept this decision, and instead took his complaint to
Schiff, as a politicized weapon, he and anyone else involved should have been or now be
charged with Sedition. (Obama would have thrown the whistleblower's butt in jail as he did so
many others.)
The whole point of Electing a President is to change ineffective policies (in the new
President's view), particularly in foreign policy. Unelected expert advisers are only that.
While Ciaramella and Vindman may feel the consensus community foreign policy agendas are
sacrosanct and untouchable by any new President, their only recourse is to advise, make their
arguments, and as the constitution states, Heads of Departments can disagree in writing. Or
they can resign.
As Thomas Jefferson noted "the President is the only channel of communication between the
United States and foreign nations, it is from him alone 'that foreign nations or their agents
are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation'; that whatever he communicated as
such, they had a right and were bound to consider 'as the expression of the nation'; and that
no foreign agent could be 'allowed to question it,' or 'to interpose between him and any
other branch of government, under the pretext of either's transgressing their functions.'
There is a major difference between oversight by Congress and interfering in executive branch
functions (such as taking up a rejected whistleblower's complaint for political reasons.
Where were these people with Snowden's, and Manning and Assange's much more serious
complaints?).
Stephen Cohen has emphasized the essential ability of elected Presidents to meet in private
with foreign leaders, as every President since Kennedy has done (saving us from nuclear
destruction in JFK's case and leading to the fall of the Soviet Union in Reagan's). That's
where important deals are concluded and military, intelligence, and state members whose jobs
depend on warmongering advantages, cannot and should not be allowed access to sensitive
national security decisions.
As Chuck Schumer said ""Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community -- they have
six ways from Sunday at getting back at you". This is essentially the rotten core of American
government today. The intelligence community somehow has been empowered to run the country
and its politics since 2016, which is much more dangerous than anything the Russians could
ever do.
Litchfield , November 27, 2019 at 21:16
Isn't there also something in the Constitution that prohibits anyone from conducting an
"independent" foreign policy? That is, the president and the State Department (part of the
executive branch) are the ones who make foreign policy. A senator, say, can't go off on his
or her own, travel to a foreign country, and advance different policies from those advanced
by the POTUS and State. In this respect McCain was way out of line. Maybe because he thought
he *should* have been the pres. He should have been punished publicly for his
transgression.
Looks like it it up to the Orange One to draw a line on these off-the-reservation
activities, whether by those in Congress or in the national security apparatus. They should
all be charged with sedition.
David Otness , November 27, 2019 at 23:41
"The intelligence community somehow has been empowered to run the country and its politics
since 2016 ."
If one truly studies such things -- seriously -- objectively -- that date will be determined
to be November 22, 1963.
The U.S.' counterinsurgency war against the communist and Black self-determinationist
movements of the 20th century ensured that the period of U.S. imperial decline beginning in the
1970s would embolden the rich to eviscerate any and all gains made by workers in the decades
prior. Neoliberal austerity, privatization, and monopolization drowned the United States in a
sea of counterrevolutionary political ideology. "Call out culture" commodified movement culture
and channeled activists into profitable modes of expression that promoted individual
recognition, academic prestige, and careerism rather than the plight of the poor, especially
the Black poor.
... ... ...
"Corporate political operatives like Obama seek to 'diversify' a violent empire."
As I wrote for Black
Agenda Report in 2016, Obama's legacy is in large part shaped by a mastery of
counterinsurgency warfare. His recent slandering of millennial activists fits snugly within
this legacy. While appearing to castigate the very political environment that elevated him
beyond criticism for eight years, Obama was really taking aim at the increasingly left posture
of millennials. The "Bernie or bust" movement is worrisome to a ruling class that has utilized
the counterinsurgency skills of Barack Obama to engineer massive profits from endless war and
austerity. "Wokeness" and "purity" must be shot down by Obama because it threatens the
legitimacy of political class actors like him who expect to be praised for their intelligent
leadership over the great race to the bottom.
Barack Obama takes great pride in his impurity. Obama was elected in 2008 to bring "hope"
and "change" to the masses, only to escalate and add to every single ill of end-stage U.S.
imperialism. Under his administration, whistleblowers were prosecuted
under the Espionage Act in record numbers,
Black wealth plummeted, bankers ran away with trillions worth
in bailout rescue funds, and the military industrial complex expanded its special
operations to
engulf 70 percent of the world's nations in a regime of endless chaos. In many ways,
Obama's presidency was the biggest lie in the history of an empire built on grand lies of
democracy, liberty, and freedom. As he successfully posed as the "lesser evil," Obama was hard
at work instituting a permanent private healthcare system ( the Affordable Care Act ),
murdering thousands of people
by way of drone strike , and militarizing the African continent
through AFRICOM to ensure the instability required for Western corporations to plunder the
continent of its vast wealth.
"'Wokeness' and 'purity' must be shot down by Obama because it threatens the legitimacy
of political class actors like him."
While Obama succeeded in ramming through the ruling class' agenda, he also helped engineer
the political crisis which paved the way for the rise of Bernie Sanders. Millennials have
mobilized in the millions to elect a president that will bring them Medicare for All, a Green
New Deal, and living wages. They are no longer interested in politicians like Obama who claim
to be a "lesser evil" choice to the Republicans only to implement a more effective Wall Street
agenda that renders
ninety percent of all new jobs low-wage or temporary. The "purity" of the Sandernista's
principles is a sign to Obama and his class that Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and
Pete Buttigieg are unlikely to garner any support from Sanders' large millennial base. It
should come as no surprise, then, that Obama feels compelled to condemn the political leanings
of young people as an affront to his sordid legacy.
Obama benefitted from the proliferation of call out culture so much that he has no shame in
telling its most loyal adherents to "shut up and dribble" into the embrace of the Democratic
Party. Neither Obama nor the rest of the corporate Democratic Party has anything to offer
except the so-called civility and respectability that characterizes their approach to imperial
rule. Obama is aware of who he works for and what will keep him well-paid now that his
presidential career has ended. Like Hillary Clinton, Obama has quickly become a pundit for Wall
Street and its paid killers in the war machine. His most recent comments offer further evidence
of the desperate need for a mass exit from the Democratic Party. Of course, no mass exodus from
the Democratic Party is possible prior to a popular repudiation of Obama's legacy and all the
imperial arrogance and destruction that comes with it.
Danny Haiphong is an activist and journalist in the New York City area. He and Roberto
Sirvent are co-authors of the book entitled American Exceptionalism and American Innocence:
A People's History of Fake News--From the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror ( Skyhorse
Publishing). He can be reached at[email protected], on Twitter @spiritofho,
and on Youtube at The Left Lens with Danny Haiphong
"... The EU are, really, really pissed with the USA for making this happen. ..."
"... So the EU lost Russia and for the bobby prize they got the entirely corrupt Ukraine instead ..."
"... You will know when the **** has well and truly hit the fan for the Ukraine, when the USA finally uncovers some 'er' surprise evidence that the Ukraine government actually shot down that Malaysian flight and hit them with across the board sanctions to well and truly cripple it prior to trying to dump it back on Russia but the EU gets stuck with it for a while longer, to become a festering den of organized crime in the EU. ..."
The EU are, really, really pissed with the USA for making this happen. They had always
hoped to get a broken up Russia into the EU and now, instead, they will have to deal with a
Russia China economic union with strong defense ties and whole bunch of other countries
around the globe tied to it.
So the EU lost Russia and for the bobby prize they got the entirely corrupt Ukraine
instead, almost like the USA wanted to **** the EU up with the Ukraine on purpose (they just
wanted to **** over Russia and got way too greedy trying to pillage the Ukraine and turned
the entire mess into a real **** show, that only has one way forward for the Ukraine, grovelling back to Russia and Russia will make higher and higher demands of them because who
wants to deal with a entirely corrupt **** show).
You will know when the **** has well and truly hit the fan for the Ukraine, when the USA
finally uncovers some 'er' surprise evidence that the Ukraine government actually shot down
that Malaysian flight and hit them with across the board sanctions to well and truly cripple
it prior to trying to dump it back on Russia but the EU gets stuck with it for a while
longer, to become a festering den of organized crime in the EU.
Russia still says some nice things about the Ukraine but they are in no hurry to get them
back.
"... In contrast, the transatlantic alliance should advance American and European security. Absorbing former members of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union, thereby pushing the alliance up to the Russian Federation's border, proved to be a foolish move because it violated assurances made to Russian leaders. Despite being former KGB, Vladimir Putin never appeared to be ideologically antagonistic toward America. However, when he perceived Washington's behavior as threatening -- including dismembering Serbia, backing revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, and promising to include both nations in NATO -- it encouraged him to respond violently. ..."
"... Admitting new members is never costless. Aid will be necessary to improve their militaries. Moreover, newer members sometimes become the most demanding, like the Baltics and Poland, which insist that they are entitled to American bases and garrisons. ..."
"... Continuing expansion also reinforces the message that NATO is hostile toward Russia. That's the only country allies are joining to oppose, after all. Obviously, there are plenty of other reasons Moscow should distrust the United States, but reinforcing negative perceptions for no benefit at all is bad policy. ..."
America Doesn't Need Another Weakling NATO Ally Macedonia is the latest nation invited into the alliance, but how does
that enhance America's (or Europe's) security?•
July 19,
2018
Utenriksdept /
cc At last week's NATO summit, President Donald
Trump denounced the allies for taking advantage of American taxpayers. Then he approved their latest subsidies. He even agreed to
invite a military weakling, Macedonia, to join NATO, which will add yet another nation to our military dole.
When George Washington warned Americans against forming a "passionate attachment" to other countries, he might have been thinking
of the Balkans. Indeed, a couple decades later, John Quincy Adams criticized proposals to aid Greece against the Ottoman Empire,
which then ruled that region. America "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy," he intoned.
On into the 20th century, the Balkans were in turmoil. Germany's "Iron Chancellor," Otto von Bismarck, warned that "the great
European War would come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans." That's exactly what happened in 1914.
It took decades and two world wars for the Balkans to stabilize. But after the Cold War ended, Yugoslavia, which had emerged from
Europe's previous convulsions, broke apart. One of the smaller pieces was Macedonia.
The battles among the Serbians, Croatians, and Bosnians were bloody and brutal. In contrast, Macedonia provided comic relief.
The small, mountainous, landlocked nation of two million people won its independence without a fight in 1991, though Athens launched
a verbal and economic war against Skopje over the latter's use of the name "Macedonia."
Perhaps modern Greeks feared that a resurrected Alexander the Great would lead the newly freed Macedonian hordes south and conquer
Greece. Skopje entered the United Nations under the provisional name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, or FYROM. In June, after
only 27 years, the two governments agreed that Macedonia/FYROM would be called the Republic of North Macedonia -- though the decision
must still be ratified by the Macedonian people in a referendum.
More serious was the insurgency launched by ethnic Albanians who made up about a quarter of the nation's population. The battle
two decades ago over Kosovo inflamed ethnic relations in Macedonia, eventually resulting in a short-lived insurgency. Although the
fighters disarmed, Skopje's politics remained nationalist and difficult. Last year, a more liberal administration took over, but
the country's democratic institutions remain fragile.
Indeed, Freedom House only rates the nation "partly free." The group cites voter intimidation, political patronage networks, violent
protests, and problems with judicial impartiality and due process. Particularly serious were the threats against press freedom, which
led to a rating of "not free" in that area. While NATO's newer members tend to score lower than "Old Europe," as Donald Rumsfeld
once referred to the original allies, Macedonia is a step further down. Only Turkey, an incipient dictatorship, is worse: it almost
certainly would not be considered for membership today.
None of this mattered last week, however. After suffering Trump's many slings and arrows, alliance members approved an invitation
for Skopje to join NATO. Macedonian lawmaker Artan Grubi called it "our dream coming true. We have been in the waiting hall for too
long."
That's because Macedonia had hoped for an invite back in 2008 at the Bucharest summit, but was blocked by Athens over the name
dispute, and has wanted to join ever since. Macedonia's Defense Minister Radmila Sekerinska said, "With NATO membership, Macedonia
becomes part of the most powerful alliance. That enhances both our security and economic prosperity." Money and status are expected
to follow.
But how would this benefit the United States and other NATO members? James Ker-Lindsay at the London School of Economics made
the astonishing claim that "opening the way for the country to join NATO would be a big win for the organization at a crucial time
when concerns over Russian influence in the Western Balkans are growing in many capitals." As Skopje goes, so goes Europe? Not likely.
If Washington and Moscow are engaged in a new "great game," it is not a battle for Macedonia.
In fact, Macedonia is a security irrelevancy, destined to require American aid to create the pretense that its military is fit
for the transatlantic alliance. Skopje spent just $112 million on its armed forces last year, ahead of only one NATO member, Montenegro.
That was barely 1 percent of its GDP, putting Macedonia near the back of the NATO pack.
With an 8,000-man military, one is tempted to ask, why bother? But then one could similarly pose that query to several other NATO
members. Skopje's military is roughly the same size as Albania's, slightly bigger than Slovenia's, and about four times the size
of Montenegro's. None will be of much use in a conflict with the only conceivable threat, Russia.
So why bring Macedonia into NATO?
Some American policymakers see alliance membership as a means to socialize nations like Macedonia, helping them move towards democracy.
However, the European Union, which sets standards governing a range of domestic policies, has always been better suited to this task,
and EU membership imposes no security obligations on Washington. With the name controversy tentatively resolved, Skopje could begin
the EU accession process -- if the Europeans are willing. That is properly their -- not Washington's -- responsibility.
In contrast, the transatlantic alliance should advance American and European security. Absorbing former members of the Warsaw
Pact and Soviet Union, thereby pushing the alliance up to the Russian Federation's border, proved to be a foolish move because it
violated assurances made to Russian leaders. Despite being former KGB, Vladimir Putin never appeared to be ideologically antagonistic
toward America. However, when he perceived Washington's behavior as threatening -- including dismembering Serbia, backing revolutions
in Georgia and Ukraine, and promising to include both nations in NATO -- it encouraged him to respond violently.
The Balkans are peripheral even to Europe and matter little to America's defense. The states and peoples there tend to be more
disruptive and less democratic than their neighbors, reflecting the region's unstable history. (North) Macedonia's 8,000 troops aren't
likely to be reborn as the Spartan 300 and hold off invading Russians. So why should America threaten war on Skopje's behalf?
Admitting new members is never costless. Aid will be necessary to improve their militaries. Moreover, newer members sometimes
become the most demanding, like the Baltics and Poland, which insist that they are entitled to American bases and garrisons.
Expansion also complicates alliance decision-making. No doubt, Washington wishes its European allies would do what they're told:
spend more, shut up, and deploy where America wants them. That doesn't work out very well in practice, alas, as Trump has discovered
in Europe (though nations with smaller militaries are more likely to acquiesce than nations with bigger ones). An organization of
30 members, which NATO will become if Macedonia is added, is a more complex and less agile creature than one of 16, the number that
existed before NATO raced east.
Continuing expansion also reinforces the message that NATO is hostile toward Russia. That's the only country allies are joining
to oppose, after all. Obviously, there are plenty of other reasons Moscow should distrust the United States, but reinforcing negative
perceptions for no benefit at all is bad policy.
Finally, expanding the alliance is nonsensical in light of the president's criticisms of the Europeans. Hiking U.S. military spending,
increasing manpower and materiel deployments in Europe, and adding new members all contradict his demand that the allies do more
and signal that the president is not serious in his demands. That leaves the Europeans with little incentive to act, especially since
most of their peoples perceive few if any security threats.
Yet again President Trump has been exposed as a thoughtless blowhard. His rabid supporters have likely enjoyed his confrontational
rhetoric, but he has done nothing to turn it into policy. The Europeans need only wait for his attacks to ebb and then they can proceed
much the same as before. The status quo will continue to reign, impervious to change.
Montenegro always resembled the Duchy of Grand Fenwick from the delightful novel The Mouse that Roared . Macedonia is
the Duchy of North Grand Fenwick, a slightly larger neighboring state with similar features but additional problems. Neither is remotely
relevant to American security. America doesn't need yet another security black hole as an alliance partner.
WSJ columnist today raises an old obscure issue today about the Clinton emails and Comey's
calculated exoneration of Clinton's culpability.
This story reopens the claim Comey had a report there was an email exchange between
Loretta Lynch and Clinton claiming Lynch promised her the DOJ would go easy on Clinton. Comey
claimed when confronted with this memo, Lynch merely smiled like the Cheshire cat and nothing
more was done.
This memo was later discredited as an alleged planted Russian hoax. Yet the memo story is
again put in lead position on the opinion pages of the WSJ this very morning. Why was that?
Not clear, but does the author think this alleged Lynch-Clinton campaign exchange will be
part of the upcoming Horowitz report?
(WSJ: 11/27/19 - Holman Jenkins, Jr. - "Who will turn over the 2016 rocks")
"... With it becoming ever more clear that the US government and media have been covering up especially the Democratic Party's collusion with Ukraine's government in order to facilitate the self-enrichment of DP leaders' family members, undermine the presidential candidacy and presidency of Donald Trump (however unpresidential he may be) and foment liberal-socialist revolutions globally, the participants are moving into high gear propaganda mode. ..."
"... The most erroneous and deliberate omission in the piece is directly germane to the Trump's delay of the arms supplies. That is, the Barack Obama administration had more than two years to send such arms and did not do so. Moreover, this failure occurred at the height of the civil war and relatively large-scale military operations, not during a shaky ceasefire. So again we have partisan attacks masquerading as foreign policy analysis. This -- the American tendency to distort the reality of foreign affairs and the nature of various foreign countries and regimes, especially Russian and Ukraine today by both sides of the aisle in order to score points in the domestic political competition -- is one of the most deleterious aspects of American politics, and there are many such aspects. ..."
With it becoming ever more clear that the US government and media have been covering up
especially the Democratic Party's collusion with Ukraine's government in order to facilitate
the self-enrichment of DP leaders' family members, undermine the presidential candidacy and
presidency of Donald Trump (however unpresidential he may be) and foment liberal-socialist
revolutions globally, the participants are moving into high gear propaganda mode.
This is apparently a move by the
Democratic establishment to escalate the confrontation with the White House by adding to the
charge that Trump held up financial assistance to Ukraine until Ukrainian President Volodomyr
Zelenskiy renewed Ukraine's investigation of the Bidens' corrupt activities the charge that
Trump also held military assistance hostage in return for an investigation of the Bidens.
Unfortunately, Ignatuis's 'narrative' falls flat on its face when it is understood, as former
US National Security Council Europe-Eurasia chief Fiona Hill testified to Congress in the
impeachment hearings that the hold up was part of a general delay caused by a broad policy
review conducted by the incoming Trump administration ( https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11/FionaHill-compressed.pdf
, pp. 227-8).
Ignatius writes that while Trump fiddles, Ukraine burns, that Ukrainians died while, if not
because Trump withheld military aid to Kyiv:
"As Ukrainians were struggling with near-daily shellfire, Trump appeared to treat military
aid appropriated by Congress as a personal political tool." "Trump's Ukraine machinations have
yielded something like what we've seen in these other theaters: the diminution of U.S. power
and a corresponding increase in Russia's military and diplomatic leverage." (Here he cites
Syria specifically.) "Russian diplomatic gains have also been evident in Ukraine. While Trump's
lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was flitting around the country disparaging U.S. diplomats, Moscow
was seeking a deal to stabilize Ukraine on favorable terms. The Russians are now discussing an
agreement with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – the man Trump importuned in his
infamous July 25 phone call for a 'favor' in investigating his political rivals in return for
military help." Ignatius hits this point again: "Zelensky has pressed ahead with his peace
efforts, and Ukrainian and Russian-backed forces have now disengaged at Zolote and two other
crossing points."
Ignatius blames several deaths on Trump's weapons' supply delay, as he tries to make the
debate over Ukraine policy, as he states explicitly, "more visceral" -- that is, emotional --
rather than rational. To achieve this effect, he closes his article with supposed dramatic
effect: "Here are some details from recent OSCE cease-fire monitoring reports: On Oct. 5, a man
and a woman died after a grenade exploded in their apartment in Kurakhove; on Oct. 24, a man
was injured by shrapnel near Luhansk; on Nov. 1, a man was injured by shelling in Spartak. As
you watch the impeachment hearings, remember this basic fact: While Trump was playing politics
on Ukraine, people who depended on U.S. military aid were getting killed and wounded."
Like
Canadian Professor Paul Robinson, when I read this I immediately smelled a rat, but Prof.
Robinson beat me to the punch in exposing this falsehood. As it turns out, these casualties of
the civil war are all almost certainly to have been inflicted by the pro-Kyiv Madian forces and
not by the separatists. In the case of the grenade exploding in the apartment, neither of the
warring sides appears to be responsible, since a criminal was opened in the matter, suggesting,
no one fired or threw the grenade into the apartment, since a criminal case was opened. In all
cases, Ignatius's casualties occurred in areas controlled by the rebels, suggesting the
Ukrainian government forces fired on rebel territory, inflicting the casualties (
https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/trump-is-killing-ukrainians/
). Whatever the case, Ignatius would have no way of knowing otherwise, but he wrote so as to
imply the rebels and, of course, Russia and its agent Trump are to blame. He likely assumed and
hoped the rebels and thus Russia and Trump 'were responsible', while failing to look deeper
into the OSCE report in the way Prof. Robinson studiously has. Nevertheless, Ignatius elsewhere
in the piece provides detailed OSCE statistics on ceasefire violations from such reports, but
somehow he missed the details on the locations of the casualties and under which side's control
they are under.
The most erroneous and deliberate omission in the piece is directly germane to the Trump's
delay of the arms supplies. That is, the Barack Obama administration had more than two years to
send such arms and did not do so. Moreover, this failure occurred at the height of the civil
war and relatively large-scale military operations, not during a shaky ceasefire. So again we
have partisan attacks masquerading as foreign policy analysis. This -- the American tendency to
distort the reality of foreign affairs and the nature of various foreign countries and regimes,
especially Russian and Ukraine today by both sides of the aisle in order to score points in the
domestic political competition -- is one of the most deleterious aspects of American politics,
and there are many such aspects.
Ignatius also implies that the Russian-backed Donbass separatists are the attackers, even
though it was Kyiv which declared and started the civil war, refusing to negotiate with the
separatists. The separatists have seceded and are preventing the Ukrainian government's forces
from seizing their breakaway regions and forcing them back into the Ukrainian fold without any
concessions. But Ignatius says: "Zelensky announced Oct. 1 that he had agreed to Russian calls
to implement a formula proposed in 2016 by then-German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier
that, in Zelensky's version, would provide withdrawal of Russian proxy forces followed by
elections in the separatist areas of the east." There is no 'Zelensky version' of the
Steinmeier plan. There is only the Steinmeier plan, which seeks to get both sides to withdraw
forces from the front line, not just 'Russian proxy forces.'
Oddly, Ignatius uses terms such as "Russian-backed forces" and "Russian proxy forces." He
never mentions the once falsely claimed tens of thousands of Russian troops occupying Ukraine.
What happened, Mr Ignatius? Tens of thousands turned out to be a few thousand who temporarily
intervened twice to save the Donbass rebels from encirclement and destruction.
Ignatius is at wit's end over Trump's lack of diplomatic action in the peace negotiations
and Russian "diplomatic gains," noting: "How is the United States shaping events as Ukraine is
rebalanced? America isn't really a player. Trump said in September while meeting Zelensky in
New York: 'I really hope that you and President Putin get together and can solve your
problem.'" Also: "Trump's Ukraine machinations have yielded something like what we've seen in
these other theaters: the diminution of U.S. power and a corresponding increase in Russia's
military and diplomatic leverage." However, it was the Barack Obama administration that: helped
spark the entire crisis with its revolution-promotion policies, stayed away from the talks
between eventually overthrown Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition
sponsored by the EU and Russia leading to the 20 February 2014 agreement that could have
averted all that followed (including the Donbass civil war), lied about who shot at protesters
on the Maidan on 20 February 2014 sparking the revolution and the agreement's burial, did
nothing to stop the new Maidan regime from starting the civil war, and did not participate in
the Minsk peace process. This is the reason America is not a player in the peace process, and
Russia and the EU, which have been participants from the beginning, are. Any US role under the
Trump administration in peace talks that involve Putin would be called by the likes of Ignatius
as appeasement of, and capitulation to the dictator Putin by his agent and colluder Trump.
Meaningful participation by Washington is now impossible given 'Russiagate' and 'Ukrainegate'.
While I am no admirer of President Trump or his foreign policy, as i have written several
times, There is little to no reason to place the onus for the American absence from diplomatic
action surrounding Ukraine on Trump's shoulders.
President Zelenskiy's 'critics' have descended on key front line sectors to prevent the
drawback of Ukrainian armed forces and ultranationalist-dominated 'volunteer battalions. These
radicals are so dangerous that Zelenskiy was forced a few weeks ago to visit them and appeal to
them to support his attempt to broker peace in Donbass. Afterwards, they issued a video
refusing to compromise and threatening Zelenskiy in an undefined way if he continued with his
peace efforts.
It is now important for every American to realize that he or she can get little to no
reliable news from the US mainstream media on Ukraine, Russia, or even the United States
itself. The inevitable confusion and apathy is particularly dangerous in a country with the
enormous responsibility of being the leader of the democratic community of states the U.S.
purports itself to be. It will allow political leaders with strong media support to manipulate
reality and lead the country down a dark alley from which there is no return.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., is an Expert Analyst at Corr
Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com and a
Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group,
www.cetisresearch.org . Dr. Hahn's
most recent book is Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the "New Cold War" . He
has authored three previous, well-received books: The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global
Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014), Russia's
Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007), and Russia's Revolution From Above:
Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist Regime, 1985-2000
(Transaction Publishers, 2002). He also has published numerous think tank reports, academic
articles, analyses, and commentaries in both English and Russian language media.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco
State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia and
has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, the Kennan Institute in Washington DC, and the Hoover Institution.
"... Since 2014, it's been glaringly obvious to astute (and honest) observers that the Administration of Barack Obama and Joe Biden supported the most vicious street mobs in Europe, people who considered themselves proud fascists . Western media routinely censored this part of the story. Obama's Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, made deals with their leaders and was caught on an open phone line handpicking the next unelected leader of Ukraine, someone they could sell to the US public: "Yats is the guy." ..."
"... Representative Dennis Kucinich expressed outrage on Bill O'Reilly's TV show that the Obama Administration had aided this bloody, illegitimate coup. The head of the CIA-linked STRATFOR called Ukraine " the most blatant coup in history. " ..."
"... Aiding and abetting fascist militias to violently siege a foreign capital is not considered a crime in Washington DC, at all. Conversely, it is business as usual, as Bolivians and Venezuelans can attest to. ..."
"... Woody Allen directed a film entitled "Crimes and Misdemeanors." That pretty much sums up the DC circus unfolding in Congress. Everything above is completely true, and yet Barack Obama is heralded as someone in the neighborhood of saints and superheroes. To the belligerent American empire, Obama was a star quarterback. Let's not even delve into Barack's support for Al Qaeda in Syria , and another half-million dead there, or we'll be here all day. ..."
"... This farce is so laughable on its face and so irrelevant to the American people's interests, that it's difficult to overstate the insanity -- and outrageous hypocrisy -- of the Democrats' contrived "Ukrainegate" case. This impeachment charge has nothing whatsoever to do with right and wrong. ..."
"... In 2014 , Barack Obama's White House, "refused to include weapons in an aid package for embattled Ukraine despite an impassioned plea by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko for more military assistance." Obama didn't send any weapons at all, which would have provoked Russia to an even greater degree, after overthrowing their legitimately elected next-door ally and tearing Ukraine apart. It was obvious that Russia wasn't "invading" Ukraine, as propaganda memes claimed, but simply responding to these international crimes and to the dangerous destabilization on its border. The US had already done quite enough damage, and they didn't need to escalate a proxy war against Russia toward nuclear Armageddon . ..."
"... Hunter Biden knew absolutely nothing about Ukraine or the natural gas industry. The nepotism was glaring. This was clear graft, payback, kickback, corruption, parasites descending after the violent seizure of the state. Biden the elder was in charge of US Ukraine policy, and specifically the big money spigot, after the illegal, US-supported coup there. ..."
"... Biden's conflict of interest was so obvious that Trump certainly believed he was onto something. Joe Biden, and media sympathetic to his claims, has predictably tried to cloud the issue, but the corruption is too obvious not to notice. This should, and may, have ended Joe Biden's 2020 presidential bid. ..."
"... What happened in Ukraine was old-timey Smash & Grab , a reckless attack right on Russia's western border. Joe Biden arrived to grab as much loot from Ukraine's gas sector as he possibly could through a cut-out, his son. Biden used his leverage over Ukraine's international "loan guarantees" (which is money the coup leaders receive but don't have to pay back) to finance their new illegitimate junta. ..."
"... This current Ukrainegate impeachment charade appears to be motivated only by blind partisanship and the desire to insulate corrupt insiders like Joe Biden from any scrutiny of their actions. The farce has gone so over-the-top that even as Democratic partisan media heralded the testimony of Trump's Ukraine Ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, Donald Trump's allies have already used portions of her testimony as a video advertisement for his reelection! ..."
Did you know that Donald Trump had the State Department, USAID,
NED , and the CIA fund and train
Neo-Nazi, fascist militias to overthrow the government of Ukraine? These riot mobs, primarily
Svoboda and
Right Sector , stormed the capital, firebombed and shot the police, and destroyed democracy inside Ukraine. When the legitimately
elected president was forced out by the rioters, the population which had supported him in the east seceded from the country, tearing
the entire nation into pieces and sparking a civil war. The Ukraine civil war has cost the lives of
over 13,000 Ukrainians . There is so much blood on Donald Trump's hands.
Oh, wait a minute! That was Barack Obama . Change that paragraph, please.
Since 2014, it's been glaringly obvious to astute (and honest) observers that the Administration of Barack Obama and Joe Biden
supported the most vicious street mobs in Europe, people who considered themselves proud
fascists . Western media
routinely censored this part of the story. Obama's Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, made deals with their leaders and
was caught on an open phone line
handpicking the next unelected leader of Ukraine, someone they could sell to the US public: "Yats is the guy."
America's proxy terrorists burned Kiev, seized power violently, and through the power of the purse strings, Obama's Administration
installed friendly-faced fascists, who immediately set about attacking their countrymen in the east, with a policy of mass murder
and indiscriminate bombings. Eastern provinces of
Crimea and
Donetsk , which notably had supported
the ousted president, held referenda. The people there voted overwhelmingly to secede from the illegitimate, unelected, foreign-sponsored
coup regime in Kiev.
The above is most certainly not the reason cited this week for Impeachment hearings.
Aiding and abetting fascist militias to violently siege a foreign capital is not considered a crime in Washington DC, at all.
Conversely, it is business as usual, as Bolivians and Venezuelans can attest to.
Woody Allen directed a film entitled "Crimes and Misdemeanors." That pretty much sums up the DC circus unfolding in
Congress. Everything above is completely true, and yet Barack Obama is heralded as someone in the neighborhood of saints and superheroes.
To the belligerent American empire, Obama was a star quarterback. Let's not even delve into Barack's
support for Al Qaeda in Syria , and another half-million dead there, or we'll be here all day.
Donald Trump made a phone call. In his phone call, he is said to have bullied the President of Ukraine a little. He may have even
delayed some weapons transfers to that country, which was engaged in a proxy war with nuclear-armed Russia and its separatist allies
in the east of Ukraine.
That's a crime? A real crime? In light of over thirteen thousand slaughtered and an illegal coup in broad daylight? Trump's telephone
call is the real crime?
Other Presidents haven't bullied other client-state puppet leaders, ever?
And why exactly is the President of the United States of America required to send lethal weapons to
foreign fascists at all? Has anyone located that section of the Constitution?
This farce is so laughable on its face and so irrelevant to the American people's interests, that it's difficult to overstate
the insanity -- and outrageous hypocrisy -- of the Democrats' contrived "Ukrainegate" case. This impeachment charge has nothing whatsoever
to do with right and wrong.
In 2014 , Barack Obama's White House, "refused to include weapons in an aid package for embattled Ukraine despite an impassioned
plea by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko for more military assistance." Obama didn't send any weapons at all, which would have
provoked Russia to an even greater degree, after overthrowing their legitimately elected next-door ally and tearing Ukraine apart.
It was obvious that Russia wasn't "invading" Ukraine, as propaganda memes claimed, but simply responding to these international crimes
and to the dangerous destabilization on its border. The US had already done quite enough damage, and they didn't need to escalate
a proxy war against Russia toward nuclear Armageddon .
Which brings us now to Donald Trump, who became interested in Joe Biden's obvious corruption inside Ukraine, installing his own
son on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma . Hunter Biden knew absolutely nothing about Ukraine or the natural gas
industry. The nepotism was glaring. This was clear graft, payback, kickback, corruption, parasites descending after the violent seizure
of the state. Biden the elder was in charge of US Ukraine policy, and specifically the big money spigot, after the illegal, US-supported
coup there.
Then -- as Joe will be Joe -- Biden bragged publicly about
getting Ukraine's top prosecutor fired to the strains of Washington insider laughter. The Ukrainian prosecutor had been investigating
that same company which Biden had arranged his son Hunter onto the board of. Biden's conflict of interest was so obvious that
Trump certainly believed he was onto something. Joe Biden, and media sympathetic to his claims, has predictably tried to cloud the
issue,
but the corruption is too obvious not to notice. This should, and may, have ended Joe Biden's 2020 presidential bid.
What happened in Ukraine was old-timey Smash & Grab , a reckless attack right on Russia's western border. Joe Biden
arrived to grab as much loot from Ukraine's gas sector as he possibly could through a cut-out, his son. Biden used his leverage over
Ukraine's international "loan guarantees" (which is money the coup leaders receive but don't have to pay back) to finance their new
illegitimate junta.
Biden's own quid pro quo , in his own words: "I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting
the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired." This is exactly the type of crime they now accuse Trump of perpetrating with his
telephone. The hypocrisy is comical.
The Obama Administration's corruption, along with a bloody war and thirteen-thousand corpses, is what a real crime looks like.
Hold onto that picture.
Democrats were allegedly the good guys vis a vis Ukraine?
Weren't these international war crimes breaching the UN Charter, which demands exclusively peaceful actions between states,
Article II?
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security,
and justice, are not endangered.
-- United Nations Charter, a ratified Treaty, and the "Supreme Law of the Land"
Launching a proxy war on nuclear-armed Russia was a sane foreign policy? Sending even more arms to escalate that conflict was
allegedly such a glorious idea that any delay in weapons shipments becomes an impeachable offense?
This unserious charge leveled against Donald Trump distracts from all of his obvious corruption. Trump's
Emoluments violations have been impeachable for years, but
the Democrats weren't interested. Do Democrats long to cash in on the Office of the Presidency next time?
Multiple deaths of refugee children in US federal
custody at the southern border could be considered murders linked directly to official policies of harsh treatment and deliberate
neglect. Are Democrats afraid of exposing Obama's own
caging of immigrant children?
This current Ukrainegate impeachment charade appears to be motivated only by blind partisanship and the desire to insulate
corrupt insiders like Joe Biden from any scrutiny of their actions. The farce has gone so over-the-top that even as Democratic partisan
media heralded the testimony of Trump's Ukraine Ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, Donald Trump's allies have already used portions of
her testimony as a video advertisement for his reelection!
Are Democrats trying to hurt or to help Trump's reelection?
Joe Giambrone has written for WhoWhatWhy, Foreign Policy Journal, International Policy Digest, Counterpunch, GlobalResearch,
OpEdNews, and his fabulous new novel is DEMIGODS. Read
other articles by Joe .
Thus, a seventh reason is that major European countries, such as
Italy , have long wearied of the Crimea sanctions. One can only wonder how much more
healthy European economies might be today, including that of economic juggernaut
Germany , if Europe chose to drop these policies of deleterious economic distortion.
As an eighth reason, one can reasonably say that these hostile sanction policies are badly
dividing NATO, but also preventing the Alliance from acting against palpable security
threats, including terrorism and immigration-related to failed states on its periphery.
Then, a ninth reason is that the continuing festering of tensions over Crimea could, by
way of misperception, lead to an actual U.S.-Russia military
confrontation , which might well reach the nuclear level of conflict in short order.
As a tenth and most important point, one could very reasonably hope that Moscow would be
willing to compensate Kyiv for letting the peninsula go finally. This could take many forms,
ranging from favorable gas deals to halting aid to rebels in East Ukraine to allowing Ukraine
to join NATO without applying counter-measures.
Thus, American diplomats should perhaps turn their attention away from reciting tiresome
talking points and stirring up old Cold War tensions to actually negotiating a "grand
bargain" to set European security on a much more positive course. Such a bargain
is not that far-fetched, actually.
For now, Ukrainians and others in southeast Europe may be less worried about Washington's
impeachment spectacle and more about whether the
heat will remain on through this winter. Too bad that American LNG cannot be offloaded at
Odessa since the Turks long ago ruled that such vessels could not safely pass through the
Bosporus. In any case with U.S.-Turkish relations at nearly an all-time low, that decision is
not likely to be reversed any time soon. Still, American oilmen could be
pleased to see U.S. oil flowing into Ukraine for the first time -- though it's far from
clear that's either economically efficient or environmentally sound. Perhaps if President
Trump ends the war in Afghanistan, as promised, some of the dozens of billions saved could be
set aside for Kyiv to build even more wind turbines.
There is that small problem that this aid
seems to increase the very corruption it has been allocated to reduce. To hear American
diplomats and "Ukraine experts" wax eloquent on the supposedly grave threat to American
national security interests in Ukraine these days, it seems they will not be satisfied until
they've seen a video of American-made anti-tank missiles and sniper rifles delivering up
large numbers of casualties against Russian regulars in eastern Ukraine.
Fortunately, most Ukrainians are wiser and more realistic. They know that such battlefield
"successes" would likely be followed by devastating Russian air and missile attacks against
Ukraine. They also know well by now that neither Americans nor other Europeans are about to
come and save them from that sad fate.
Lyle J. Goldstein is Research Professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute
(CMSI) at the United States Naval War College in Newport, RI. In addition to Chinese, he also
speaks Russian and he is also an affiliate of the new Russia Maritime Studies Institute
(RMSI) at Naval War College. You can reach him at [email protected] . The opinions in his columns are entirely
his own and do not reflect the official assessments of the U.S. Navy or any other agency of
the U.S. government.
With it becoming ever more clear that the US government and media have been covering up
especially the Democratic Party's collusion with Ukraine's government in order to facilitate
the self-enrichment of DP leaders' family members, undermine the presidential candidacy and
presidency of Donald Trump (however unpresidential he may be) and foment liberal-socialist
revolutions globally, the participants are moving into high gear propaganda mode. A recent
piece from David Ignatius is a good place to begin to highlight the intensification. In a
recent article (People died while Trump played games with Ukraine's military aid, Washington
Post, November 13, 2019,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/people-died-while-trump-played-games-with-ukraines-military-aid/2019/11/12/a4cc18a6-0598-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html
), Ignatius charges Trump with the responsibility for the continuation of the Donbass civil war
and its casualties for withholding military aid to Kyiv. This is apparently a move by the
Democratic establishment to escalate the confrontation with the White House by adding to the
charge that Trump held up financial assistance to Ukraine until Ukrainian President Volodomyr
Zelenskiy renewed Ukraine's investigation of the Bidens' corrupt activities the charge that
Trump also held military assistance hostage in return for an investigation of the Bidens.
Unfortunately, Ignatuis's 'narrative' falls flat on its face when it is understood, as former
US National Security Council Europe-Eurasia chief Fiona Hill testified to Congress in the
impeachment hearings that the hold up was part of a general delay caused by a broad policy
review conducted by the incoming Trump administration ( https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11/FionaHill-compressed.pdf
, pp. 227-8).
Ignatius writes that while Trump fiddles, Ukraine burns, that Ukrainians died while, if not
because Trump withheld military aid to Kyiv:
"As Ukrainians were struggling with near-daily shellfire, Trump appeared to treat military
aid appropriated by Congress as a personal political tool." "Trump's Ukraine machinations have
yielded something like what we've seen in these other theaters: the diminution of U.S. power
and a corresponding increase in Russia's military and diplomatic leverage." (Here he cites
Syria specifically.) "Russian diplomatic gains have also been evident in Ukraine. While Trump's
lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was flitting around the country disparaging U.S. diplomats, Moscow
was seeking a deal to stabilize Ukraine on favorable terms. The Russians are now discussing an
agreement with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – the man Trump importuned in his
infamous July 25 phone call for a 'favor' in investigating his political rivals in return for
military help." Ignatius hits this point again: "Zelensky has pressed ahead with his peace
efforts, and Ukrainian and Russian-backed forces have now disengaged at Zolote and two other
crossing points."
Ignatius blames several deaths on Trump's weapons' supply delay, as he tries to make the
debate over Ukraine policy, as he states explicitly, "more visceral" -- that is, emotional --
rather than rational. To achieve this effect, he closes his article with supposed dramatic
effect: "Here are some details from recent OSCE cease-fire monitoring reports: On Oct. 5, a man
and a woman died after a grenade exploded in their apartment in Kurakhove; on Oct. 24, a man
was injured by shrapnel near Luhansk; on Nov. 1, a man was injured by shelling in Spartak. As
you watch the impeachment hearings, remember this basic fact: While Trump was playing politics
on Ukraine, people who depended on U.S. military aid were getting killed and wounded." Like
Canadian Professor Paul Robinson, when I read this I immediately smelled a rat, but Prof.
Robinson beat me to the punch in exposing this falsehood. As it turns out, these casualties of
the civil war are all almost certainly to have been inflicted by the pro-Kyiv Madian forces and
not by the separatists. In the case of the grenade exploding in the apartment, neither of the
warring sides appears to be responsible, since a criminal was opened in the matter, suggesting,
no one fired or threw the grenade into the apartment, since a criminal case was opened. In all
cases, Ignatius's casualties occurred in areas controlled by the rebels, suggesting the
Ukrainian government forces fired on rebel territory, inflicting the casualties ( https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/trump-is-killing-ukrainians/
). Whatever the case, Ignatius would have no way of knowing otherwise, but he wrote so as to
imply the rebels and, of course, Russia and its agent Trump are to blame. He likely assumed and
hoped the rebels and thus Russia and Trump 'were responsible', while failing to look deeper
into the OSCE report in the way Prof. Robinson studiously has. Nevertheless, Ignatius elsewhere
in the piece provides detailed OSCE statistics on ceasefire violations from such reports, but
somehow he missed the details on the locations of the casualties and under which side's control
they are under.
The most erroneous and deliberate omission in the piece is directly germane to the Trump's
delay of the arms supplies. That is, the Barack Obama administration had more than two years to
send such arms and did not do so. Moreover, this failure occurred at the height of the civil
war and relatively large-scale military operations, not during a shaky ceasefire. So again we
have partisan attacks masquerading as foreign policy analysis. This -- the American tendency to
distort the reality of foreign affairs and the nature of various foreign countries and regimes,
especially Russian and Ukraine today by both sides of the aisle in order to score points in the
domestic political competition -- is one of the most deleterious aspects of American politics,
and there are many such aspects.
Ignatius also implies that the Russian-backed Donbass separatists are the attackers, even
though it was Kyiv which declared and started the civil war, refusing to negotiate with the
separatists. The separatists have seceded and are preventing the Ukrainian government's forces
from seizing their breakaway regions and forcing them back into the Ukrainian fold without any
concessions. But Ignatius says: "Zelensky announced Oct. 1 that he had agreed to Russian calls
to implement a formula proposed in 2016 by then-German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier
that, in Zelensky's version, would provide withdrawal of Russian proxy forces followed by
elections in the separatist areas of the east." There is no 'Zelensky version' of the
Steinmeier plan. There is only the Steinmeier plan, which seeks to get both sides to withdraw
forces from the front line, not just 'Russian proxy forces.'
Oddly, Ignatius uses terms such as "Russian-backed forces" and "Russian proxy forces." He
never mentions the once falsely claimed tens of thousands of Russian troops occupying Ukraine.
What happened, Mr Ignatius? Tens of thousands turned out to be a few thousand who temporarily
intervened twice to save the Donbass rebels from encirclement and destruction.
Ignatius is at wit's end over Trump's lack of diplomatic action in the peace negotiations
and Russian "diplomatic gains," noting: "How is the United States shaping events as Ukraine is
rebalanced? America isn't really a player. Trump said in September while meeting Zelensky in
New York: 'I really hope that you and President Putin get together and can solve your
problem.'" Also: "Trump's Ukraine machinations have yielded something like what we've seen in
these other theaters: the diminution of U.S. power and a corresponding increase in Russia's
military and diplomatic leverage." However, it was the Barack Obama administration that: helped
spark the entire crisis with its revolution-promotion policies, stayed away from the talks
between eventually overthrown Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition
sponsored by the EU and Russia leading to the 20 February 2014 agreement that could have
averted all that followed (including the Donbass civil war), lied about who shot at protesters
on the Maidan on 20 February 2014 sparking the revolution and the agreement's burial, did
nothing to stop the new Maidan regime from starting the civil war, and did not participate in
the Minsk peace process. This is the reason America is not a player in the peace process, and
Russia and the EU, which have been participants from the beginning, are. Any US role under the
Trump administration in peace talks that involve Putin would be called by the likes of Ignatius
as appeasement of, and capitulation to the dictator Putin by his agent and colluder Trump.
Meaningful participation by Washington is now impossible given 'Russiagate' and 'Ukrainegate'.
While I am no admirer of President Trump or his foreign policy, as i have written several
times, There is little to no reason to place the onus for the American absence from diplomatic
action surrounding Ukraine on Trump's shoulders.
President Zelenskiy's 'critics' have descended on key front line sectors to prevent the
drawback of Ukrainian armed forces and ultranationalist-dominated 'volunteer battalions. These
radicals are so dangerous that Zelenskiy was forced a few weeks ago to visit them and appeal to
them to support his attempt to broker peace in Donbass. Afterwards, they issued a video
refusing to compromise and threatening Zelenskiy in an undefined way if he continued with his
peace efforts.
It is now important for every American to realize that he or she can get little to no
reliable news from the US mainstream media on Ukraine, Russia, or even the United States
itself. The inevitable confusion and apathy is particularly dangerous in a country with the
enormous responsibility of being the leader of the democratic community of states the U.S.
purports itself to be. It will allow political leaders with strong media support to manipulate
reality and lead the country down a dark alley from which there is no return.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., is an Expert Analyst at Corr
Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com and a
Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group,
www.cetisresearch.org . Dr. Hahn's
most recent book is Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the "New Cold War" . He
has authored three previous, well-received books: The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global
Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014), Russia's
Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007), and Russia's Revolution From Above:
Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist Regime, 1985-2000
(Transaction Publishers, 2002). He also has published numerous think tank reports, academic
articles, analyses, and commentaries in both English and Russian language media.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco
State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia and
has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, the Kennan Institute in Washington DC, and the Hoover Institution.
This doesn't even touch on the fact that Biden has been revealed as an incredibly corrupt sleazebag. That is, what Trump wanted
investigated, the Bidens scooping up cash (our cash ultimately, since we gave it to Ukraine) in the corrupt Ukraine. How they
think all the attention will be focused on Trump asking Zelensky to look into these shameful payoffs and not the payoffs themselves,
is beyond me.
Meddling in the 2016 US presidential election by Ukrainian politicians and government
agencies did indeed happen. No amount of denial is going to change that.
By Yasha Levine ####
Vis Fiona Hill (as ME & Mark referenced earlier), does she really think everyone else
is stupid?
Anyway, it's not what the partisan media reports that matters but what the American voter
thinks. If it's 'A pox on both your houses', then there will be plenty more shocks to the
body politik to come and hopefully, real change.
Thus the fierce struggle for regulation over the internet, and the flap about 'fake news' and
how critical it is that you cede control over what you can see so that you can be 'protected'
– it's all 'for your own safety'. A narrative can really only be driven home when the
audience is not exposed to conflicting stories or evidence which does not fit the
establishment tale.
"... Sanders went on to argue that "pressure has got to be put on media" to cover policy issues like income inequality and poverty more heavily, instead of devoting attention to sensational campaign moments and the state of political horse races. ..."
"... 'You know what, forget the political gossip. Politics is not a soap opera. Talk about the real damn issues facing this country.'" ..."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has not been shy about
his disdain for the mainstream media. But the
Democratic presidential hopeful
has rarely, if ever, articulated it as bluntly as he did in an interview that aired on
MSNBC 's "
The Rachel Maddow Show " on Friday night. Sanders
called out the network for its corporate character in a novel exchange with host
Rachel Maddow .
"The American people are sick and tired of establishment politics and economics, and by the way, a little bit tired of corporate
media as well," Sanders told Maddow in an interview taped in Burlington, Vermont.
Maddow pressed Sanders for specifics on how he would change the media if he were president. "What's the solution to corporate
media?" she asked.
"We have got to think of ways the Democratic party, for a start, starts funding the equivalent of Fox television," Sanders
answered. Of course, MSNBC is a corporate media outlet that is widely seen as a Democratic version of Fox News because of the perceived
sympathies of many of its political talk shows.
Sanders went on to argue that "pressure has got to be put on media" to cover policy issues like income inequality and poverty
more heavily, instead of devoting attention to sensational campaign moments and the state of political horse races.
He then claimed that bringing that pressure to bear would be difficult, since corporate ownership makes it harder for news outlets
to cover issues in a way that conflicts with the interests of top executives. "MSNBC is owned by who?" Sanders asked. "Comcast, our
overlords," Maddow responded with a chuckle.
"All right, Comcast is not one of the most popular corporations in America, right?" Sanders said. "And I think the American people
are going to have to say to NBC and ABC and CBS and CNN, 'You know what, forget the political gossip. Politics is not a soap
opera. Talk about the real damn issues facing this country.'"
The list contains some (but not all) of the key participants of the 2014 coup d'état
against President Yanukovich. There are 13 names in the list: MPs Serhiy Leshchenko, Mustafa
Nayem, Svitlana Zalishchuk, Serhiy Berezenko, Serhiy Pashynsky; ex-Prime Minister Arseniy
Yatsenyuk; ex-Head of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriya Hontareva; ex-First Deputy of the
National Security and Defense Council Oleg Hladkovsky; judge of the Constitutional Court of
Ukraine Makar Pasenyuk; candidate for presidency Anatoly Hrytsenko; singer Svyatoslav Vakarchuk;
journalist Dmytro Hordon and ex-Head of the Presidential Administration Borys Lozhkin.
Pashynsky was involved in Snipergate. Yatsenyuk was the marionette chosen by Nuland to head
the Provisional government after Yanukovich will be overthrown.
Almost all of these people from the list were involved in various sort of scandals during
the last five years. Particularly, Oleg Hladkovsky was recently dismissed from his post due to
the corruption scandal in the defense sphere. Serhiy Leshchenko became known for the purchase
of the flat for $275,253 and the number of information attacks at well-known politicians and
businessmen. Serhy Pashynsky was tied to the hostile takeover of a confectionary factory in
Zhytomyr.
In its turn, the U.S. Department of State stated that the
words of Lutsenko are not true and aims to tarnish the reputation of Ambassador
Yovanovitch. Thus, there are certain concerns that the actual list might be fake.
Dr Kyle Kopko , an associate professor of political science and director of the honours and
pre-law programmes at Elizabethtown College, noted that neither Taylor nor Kent's testimonies
had significantly changed the views of Congress or the public on the impeachment proceedings,
but it could change as the hearings continue:
"I think, at the very least, this is laying the groundwork to show that the president acted
with a political motivation to harm one of his potential campaign rivals", he said.
Dr Kopko also pointed out that there's still not enough evidence to get the impeachment
through.
"...I'm not convinced, yet, that there is enough evidence to result in a conviction in the
Senate", he explained.
"It may be the case that Democrats are using this as a means of damaging President Trump's
credibility as a leader going into the 2020 election, and I see that as being the most likely
outcome where they are able to severely damage his candidacy and reduce his likelihood of
re-election", he concluded.
The central impeachment mantra seems to be "Russian aggression." Look
how many times the witnesses mention this as their central motivation to countermand the
directions of their boss, the commander in chief. But meanwhile, war plans for Iran continue
with the support of both parties. Watch today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - The House is holding its second public hearing with former US envoy
to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch centring around her ouster which, according to her, is pertinent
to the impeachment probe against Trump. Former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch
flatly denied allegations that she circulated a list of potential corruption targets in Ukraine
that the United States did not want prosecuted, according to testimony at the opening of
hearings in the House impeachment probe of President Donald Trump on Friday.
"I want to reiterate first that the allegation that I disseminated a do not prosecute list
was a fabrication", Yovanovitch said. "Mr Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian prosecutor general
who made that allegation, has acknowledged that the list never existed. I did not tell Mr
Lutsenko or other Ukrainian officials who they should or should not prosecute. Instead I
advocated the US position that rule of law should prevail."
US President Donald Trump in a series of tweets on Friday
criticised former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch's performance while she was
testifying in the impeachment hearing against him. He defended his decision to replace
Yovanovitch - appointed by his predecessor Barak Obama - as the US ambassador to Ukraine, where
she served from August 2016 until May 2019.
....They call it "serving at the pleasure of the President." The U.S. now has a very
strong and powerful foreign policy, much different than proceeding administrations. It is
called, quite simply, America First! With all of that, however, I have done FAR more for
Ukraine than O.
During Friday's Democrat-led impeachment inquiry hearing, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine
Marie Yovanovitch testified under oath that she did not give former Ukrainian Prosecutor
General Yuriy Lutsenko a "do not prosecute list" in 2017. Yovanovitch also doubled-down on
left-wing disinformation saying that Lutsenko "acknowledged that the list never existed" in
April.
"I want to reiterate first that the allegation that I disseminated a "Do Not Prosecute" list
was a fabrication,"
Yovanovitch told the House Intelligence Committee . "Mr. Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian
prosecutor general who made that allegation, has acknowledged that the list never existed. I
did not tell Mr. Lutsenko or other Ukrainian officials who they should or should not
prosecute."
"That is such a lie," Glenn Beck said on Friday's show. "She should be held for
perjury."
During a three-part BlazeTV exposé on the Democrats' corruption in Ukraine, Glenn
debunked what he called "the most misleading fabrication I've ever seen by the mainstream
media."
Earlier this year, award-winning investigative journalist John
Solomon reported Lutsenko's claim that then-Ambassador Yovanovitch gave him a list of
"people whom we should not prosecute" during a meeting in 2016. Shortly after Solomon's article
was released, several news sources, including the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal,
reported that Lutsenko retracted his statement.
When Lutsenko said Yovanovitch "gave" him a list, he did not mean she actually handed him
anything in writing, but verbally conveyed the names of people he shouldn't prosecute.
"They never mentioned the fact that it was verbally dictated and he wrote the list down
himself -- are you kidding me?" Glenn exclaimed. "This is how the media is fact-checking and
debunking. They are playing with our republic and Ukraine's republic. They are planting
dynamite all around everything that we hold dear. How do they sleep at night? Everyone that
reads their stories actually thinks that there was a retraction of one of the most damning
parts of this entire case."
If you like what you see, use promo code GB20OFF to get $20 off a full year of BlazeTV . With a BlazeTV subscription, you're not just paying to watch
great pro-free speech, pro-America TV. Your subscription funds the intensive investigations
that let BlazeTV tell the stories
the liberal media wants to keep in the dark, giving you the unvarnished truth, showing you what
the media doesn't want you to see.
Read More
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko told Hill.TV's John Solomon in an interview that
aired Wednesday that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch gave him a do not prosecute
list during their first meeting.
"Unfortunately, from the first meeting with the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, [Yovanovitch] gave
me a list of people whom we should not prosecute," Lutsenko, who took his post in 2016, told
Hill.TV last week.
"My response of that is it is inadmissible. Nobody in this country, neither our president
nor our parliament nor our ambassador, will stop me from prosecuting whether there is a crime,"
he continued.
The State Department called Lutsenko's claim of receiving a do not prosecute list, "an
outright fabrication."
"We have seen reports of the allegations," a department spokesperson told Hill.TV. "The
United States is not currently providing any assistance to the Prosecutor General's Office
(PGO), but did previously attempt to support fundamental justice sector reform, including in
the PGO, in the aftermath of the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. When the political will for
genuine reform by successive Prosecutors General proved lacking, we exercised our fiduciary
responsibility to the American taxpayer and redirected assistance to more productive
projects."
Hill.TV has reached out to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine for comment.
Lutsenko also said that he has not received funds amounting to nearly $4 million that the
U.S. Embassy in Ukraine was supposed to allocate to his office, saying that "the situation was
actually rather strange" and pointing to the fact that the funds were designated, but "never
received."
"At that time we had a case for the embezzlement of the U.S. government technical assistance
worth 4 million U.S. dollars, and in that regard, we had this dialogue," he said. " At that
time, [Yovanovitch] thought that our interviews of Ukrainian citizens, of Ukrainian civil
servants, who were frequent visitors of the U.S. Embassy put a shadow on that anti-corruption
policy."
"Actually, we got the letter from the U.S. Embassy, from the ambassador, that the money that
we are speaking about [was] under full control of the U.S. Embassy, and that the U.S. Embassy
did not require our legal assessment of these facts," he said. "The situation was actually
rather strange because the funds we are talking about were designated for the prosecutor
general's office also and we told [them] we have never seen those, and the U.S. Embassy replied
there was no problem."
"The portion of the funds namely 4.4 million U.S. dollars were designated and were foreseen
for the recipient Prosecutor General's office. But we have never received it," he said.
Yovanovitch previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Armenia under former presidents
Obama and George W. Bush, as well as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan under Bush. She also served as
ambassador to Ukraine under Obama.
... More freedom in Ukraine (Thanks Obama):
"UKRAINIAN courts were today condemned for upholding a ban on the only newspaper opposing the
country's "oligarch-nazi regime."
"Founded in 1897, Rabochaya Gazeta was banned earlier this year under Ukraine's
reactionary anti-communist laws after it published articles quoting Karl Marx.
"The newspaper actively opposed the glorification of nazi war-criminals by the Ukrainian
government. It demanded an end to the civil war launched by Kiev in the Donbass after the
2014 military coup and the seizure of power by the country's neo-nazis, oligarchs and
organised criminals.
"The Communist Party of Ukraine (KPU) warned that the political course of the new
government had not changed, with a continued hatred of the newspaper for "telling the truth
to its readers."
"It said the ban was the precursor for legislation that would "completely destroy freedom
of speech and introduce total censorship of the media."
"... A lawyer for Andrew Favorov confirmed Tuesday that he is scheduled to meet voluntarily with the U.S. Justice Department. Favorov is the director of the integrated gas division at Naftogaz, the state-owned gas provider in Ukraine. ..."
"... Federal prosecutors in New York are investigating the business dealings of Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, including whether he failed to register as a foreign agent, according to people familiar with the probe. The people were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. ..."
"... The Associated Press contributed to this report. ..."
Rudy Giuliani, the personal lawyer for President Donald Trump, eyed business deals in Ukraine as he sought
inquires into allegations of corruption against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, according
to a report released Wednesday.
The
New York Times
said Giuliani begin negotiations with Yuri Lutsenko, Ukraine's leading prosecutor at the
time, to take him and the European country's Justice Ministry as clients earlier this year. According to the
Times
, Lutsenko was expected to compensate Giuliani and lawyers Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing $200,000
to "advise on Ukrainian claims for the recovery of sums of money in various financial institutions outside Ukraine."
Further, the newspaper reported that Ukraine's Justice Ministry and the Republic of Ukraine were supposed to pay
Giuliani's company $300,000. The deal was signed by the former New York City mayor, but not the Ukraine justice
minister.
In March, the Justice Ministry reportedly appeared to have negotiated an agreement to use the services of diGenova
and Toensing where the General Prosecutor's office, headed up by Lutsenko, but would pay $300,000 to Giuliani's firm.
Responding to allegations brought forth by the
Times
, Giuliani acknowledged that he weighed doing
business with Ukraine's government, but ultimately opted against the move. "I thought that would be too complicated,"
he told the
Times
, before adding: "I never received a penny." Ukraine's Justice Ministry confirmed to the
newspaper that it has never entered into any business agreements with the Trump lawyer.
The
Times'
report comes as federal prosecutors are
slated to meet with executives from Naftogaz -- the Ukraine energy giant at the center of a federal investigation
into Giuliani and two Soviet-born associates' dealings.
A lawyer for Andrew Favorov confirmed Tuesday that he is
scheduled to meet voluntarily with the U.S. Justice Department. Favorov is the director of the integrated gas
division at Naftogaz, the state-owned gas provider in Ukraine.
Federal prosecutors in New York are investigating the
business dealings of Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, including whether he failed to register as a
foreign agent, according to people familiar with the probe. The people were not authorized to discuss the
investigation publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Giuliani's close associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, were arrested last month at an airport outside
Washington while trying to board a flight to Europe with one-way tickets. They were later indicted by federal
prosecutors on charges of conspiracy, making false statements, and falsification of records.
Following an inquiry from The Associated Press, Favorov lawyer Lanny Breuer confirmed his client is set to meet
with prosecutors.
"The Department of Justice has requested an interview,"
Breuer said. "He has agreed and will voluntarily sit down with the government attorneys. At this time, it would
not be appropriate to comment further."
Breuer declined to say when or where Favorov, who has dual
U.S.-Russian citizenship and lives in Ukraine, will be meeting with prosecutors.
Jim Margolin, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in
the Southern District of New York, declined to comment.
According to a federal indictment filed last month, Parnas
and Fruman are alleged to have been key players in Giuliani's efforts earlier this year to spur the Ukrainian
government to launch an investigation of Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
The question is who will listed to Obama after his "change we can believe in" betrayal. Also
is not he a war criminal? Obama election was probably the most slick false flag operation even
conducted by intelligence agencies. Somebody created for him complexly fake but still plausible
legend.
That Obama desire to interfere in 2020 election also shows gain that that he a regular
completely corrupt Clinton neoliberal. The worst king of neoliberals, wolfs in sheep's
clothing.
And the fact that CIA democrats dominates the Democratic Party actually is another reason
from "Demexit" from the Democratic party of workers and lower middle class. The sad fact that the
USA Corporate Dems recently became the second pro-war militarist party, and learned to love
intelligence agencies; two things unimaginable in 60th and 70th.
As we noted earlier, a bombshell admission from Politico today exploring Obama's
substantial behind the scenes influence as Democratic kingmaker : included in the lengthy
profile on the day-to-day of the former president's personal office in the West End of
Washington D.C. and his meeting with the field of Democratic candidates, is
the following gem :
"Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would
speak up to stop him."
And crucially, when asked about that prior statement reported in Politico, an Obama
spokesperson did not deny that he said it.
The frank admission underscores what many independent analysts, not to
mention prior damning WikiLeaks DNC disclosures , have pointed out for years: that the
establishment controlling the Democratic party has continuously sought to rig the system
against Bernie.
"Since losing 2016, Dem elites have waged a prolonged effort to stop Bernie. Bernie is the
obvious answer to the neoliberal Clinton-Obama legacy voters rejected..." journalist Aaron
Maté observed of the
Politico quote.
Here's the stunning and deeply revealing section in full, which began by outlining Obama's
'advice-giving' throughout meetings with Democrat contenders including Joe Biden, Elizabeth
Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker,
and others :
Publicly, he has been clear that he won't intervene in the primary for or against a
candidate , unless he believed there was some egregious attack. "I can't even imagine with
this field how bad it would have to be for him to say something," said a close adviser.
Instead, he sees his role as providing guardrails to keep the process from getting too ugly
and to unite the party when the nominee is clear.
There is one potential exception: Back when Sanders seemed like more of a threat than he
does now, Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama
would speak up to stop him. (Asked about that, a spokesperson for Obama pointed out that
Obama recently said he would support and campaign for whoever the Democratic nominee is.)
And a further deeply revealing but more laughable quote comes later as follows: "Obama
designed his post-presidency in 2016, at a time when he believed Hillary Clinton would win and
Biden would be out of politics." So the reality is... far from the idea that the Dem elites
would back the actual nominee the party puts forward, clearly the die has already been cast
against Bernie just
like the last time around against Hillary in 2016.
Politico author Ryan Lizza later in the story quotes a "close family friend," who described
that Obama's "politics are not strong left of center."
"I mean it's left, but he's nowhere near where some of the candidates are currently sitting,
at least when he got himself elected," the source claimed.
This means in the mind of Obama and other top party influencers and kingmakers, Bernie and
other popular outliers like Tulsi Gabbard have already long been sidelined. Tulsi, it should
also be noted, is one of the couple of candidates who did not bother to stop by Obama's D.C.
office for a 'blessing' and advice.
According to the US Census there are 3031 counties in the US.
If we redirected the $3.8 billion plus the 500,000,000 for missile defense that we give
Israel to US counties budgets each county would receive about
$ 1.3 million.
If we included the $1.2 billion each we give to Egypt and Jordon for signing the Carter
peace treaty with Israel that figure increases to $2.3 million for each county.
While $2.3 million may be a small figure for counties with metro cities, it would be a
large amount for the majority of counties across the nation.
Since aid to Israel alone accounts for 50% of US foreign aid who would oppose this re
direct of taxpayers money...besides the politicians...and how would the politicians explain
their opposition to the districts they supposedly represent?
"... "There is also a lot of hypocrisy," stated DiStefano, "People who claim that they are for the people -- that they are for the middle class -- which has been Joe Biden's mantra, and yet there is deal after deal in which companies are attempting to enrich themselves and members of the Biden family, and it has often been a way to open the door with the senator, [and] later vice president by doing something to support his brothers." ..."
"... DiStefano determined, "Obviously the question should be asked, 'What were the Bidens' relations in the Ukraine? What were they doing? What were they up to? Who was benefiting from that? Did it affect U.S. policy?'" ..."
Investigating the nature of Joe Biden's and Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine -- particularly with respect to energy
company Burisma -- is a legitimate endeavor, determined Joseph N. DiStefano, Philadelphia Inquirer staff writer and Nation
columnist, offering his remarks in a Tuesday interview on SiriusXM's Breitbart News Tonight with hosts Rebecca Mansour
and Joel Pollak.
DiStefano described a series of courtships from businesses targeting Joe Biden's family members, drawing on his latest Nation
column entitled, " Joe Biden's Friends and Backers Come Out on Top -- at the Expense of the Middle Class."
Joe Biden has been a beneficiary of "legal graft" via the "Delaware Way," DiStefano said -- a term defined as "politicians doing
favors for well-connected business owners in exchange for contributions after the fact."
"We go where the facts lead, DiStefano said. "In the case of the Bidens, they've been leading for a very long time. If you go
back to the early 1970s, ever since Joe Biden's been elected to the Senate, there has been a pretty unremitting series of business
transactions involving members of his family and companies that were interested for a large variety of reasons in getting access."
DiStefano recalled, "[Joe Biden] himself complained -- you might call it gaslighting, but he complained -- that his brother at
the age of 23 and his business partners were granted business loans by banks in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware -- loans that
were not paid -- to open
a discotheque right up the road from Wilmington."
DiStefano continued, "When it came time to pay those loans, the banks liened on Joe Biden, he complained to the Wilmington
News Journal -- that paper where I worked years ago -- at that time, and ever since then it's been just a series of his brothers
and his sons doing business with folks who came to them because they were Bidens, because Joe Biden was initially on the Banking
Committee and then a representative of the very powerful credit card banks that developed in Delaware, and eventually on the Judiciary
Committee."
"Of course, this is a very old American tradition," said DiStefano. "You can go back to Ben Franklin, and how he was pleased
to become Secretary of the Province of Pennsylvania, because it enabled him to take over the provincial printing business. His
son was ultimately governor of New Jersey, and there's an awful lot of that in American history.
Reviewing Joe Biden's political history reveals a pattern of businesses attempting to procure political influence via financial
relationships with Biden's brothers and sons, explained DiStefano.
"There is also a lot of hypocrisy," stated DiStefano, "People who claim that they are for the people -- that they are for
the middle class -- which has been Joe Biden's mantra, and yet there is deal after deal in which companies are attempting to enrich
themselves and members of the Biden family, and it has often been a way to open the door with the senator, [and] later vice president
by doing something to support his brothers."
DiStefano remarked, "Politics is very, very local, and the Bidens live in a very nice section of Delaware. The richest section
of Delaware -- eventually -- in Greenville. They went to some of the best schools, first in the state, and then in the country."
DiStefano went on, "Politics is very local here [in Delaware]. You can keep getting elected while being a person of modest means
if you make the networks, if you make the connections, if you do the work, if you are respected."
"There are many people in Delaware who respect Joe Biden for all those things, but it wasn't enough, because from the very beginning,
[Joe Biden was] building networks outside the state," added DiStefano. "There are people who credit or blame [Joe Biden] with corrupting
the [political] process [in Delaware] to the extent that a lot of out-of-state money came in and made him senator, and others senator
and governor after him. It really helped cement to the dominance of the Delaware Democratic Party."
"Delaware is one of those states, like Vermont, that consistently elects Democrats in recent years. Joe Biden and the money machine
he put together is a large part of that," DiStefano said. "It is a fact that he had those networks and he raised that money, and
there were a lot of trade-offs that happened as a result."
DiStefano continued, "One of the most obvious [trade-offs] was support that [Joe Biden] at first uniquely, and then very importantly
gave to the credit card banks in Delaware, in the fights that happened in Congress all through the 1970s, 80s, and 90s over just
how much power should these institutions have when a person can't pay their bills [and] what is protected and what it exposed to
the mercies of the creditors."
"Joe Biden was very consistently on the side of the credit card banks in limiting the assets that one could protect from bankruptcy,"
noted DiStefano.
Joe Biden was dubbed, "the Senator from MBNA" in 1998 by the American Spectator , recalled DiStefano.
Mansour and Pollak invited DiStefano's explanation of how Delaware came to be the home state of many national credit card companies.
"This came about when the Democrats controlled Washington back in late 1970s, after they had gotten Nixon out of the way and believed
that they would be the majority party indefinitely -- before Reagan put an end to that -- there was a period in which there was very
high inflation in this country and Democrats did not know what to do," recalled DiStefano.
DiStefano went on, "The Supreme Court and the Congress and President [Jimmy Carter] basically agreed to allow banks to export
interest rates [across state lines]. For many years, states could limit interest rates [and] how much you could charge on a loan.
The credit card industry was one of the first really national lending business, and there was an agreement in Congress -- after a
particular Supreme Court decision involving a bank in Omaha -- that it would now be possible for bank in a state with really liberalized
lending laws to export those lending laws to another state."
"Delaware was one of the very first states to take advantage of that," added DiStefano. " Now, by that point, [Joe Biden] was
in the U.S. Senate. He was not part of the initial bipartisan group in Delaware who rushed to make this happen. He had been on the
Senate Banking Committee during the debates and was on the conference committee that basically passed the bill that made all this
possible. What he did after that was to be very accommodating from Washington of the banks that immediately flocked to Delaware."
DiStefano explained, "Delaware got this early. Delaware understood that if they got rid of their usury law, if they got rid of
their consumer protections, if they reduced bank taxes to the point where they were actually regressive -- the more money you make
as a Delaware bank, the lower your tax rate is -- then the result was that the largest credit card companies reincorporated their
businesses in Delaware and began to lend from there."
Joe Biden assisted Republicans in blocking left-wing Democrats' efforts to increase state controls over the credit card industry,
noted DiStefano.
"That is what a lot of the liberals hold against Joe Biden," DiStefano said of the former vice president's opposition to increasing
government regulations over credit card companies' operations.
"[Joe Biden] really defended the interest of a very powerful group in his state, but you ought to consider that that was a lot
of jobs," added DiStefano. "That was literally tens of thousands of jobs at a time when the Dupont company was cutting back, the
auto plants were closing down, the oil refinery along the river was closing, and here were the banks, that's what they had, and that's
who gave Joe Biden money, and that is who his constituents, you know, were calling in [about] and saying, 'We need these jobs,' and
he was defending those jobs in Congress."
Joe Biden moved politically leftward after joining Barack Obama's presidential campaign as a vice presidential nominee, said DiStefano,
"[Joe Biden] was now on a national platform and he needed to run to the left, and that's where he moved."
"Joe Biden backed Obama's [and the] Democrats' attempt to socialize the [private lending industry], and make it so that anybody
who wants a loan for college can get one. no matter that it's a bad college program that doesn't help people get jobs, no matter
that it's a bad borrower who's not going to pay their loan," DiStefano explained. "That's why student lending is so expensive in
this country."
Bohai Harvest RST (BHR), a private equity firm founded by Hunter Biden,
procured
$1.5 billion in financing from the state-run Bank of China days after then-Vice President Joe Biden traveled to China as part
of an official extended trip to Asia.
DiStefano recalled BHR's involved in
purchasing "politically sensitive" assets and companies, including dual-use technology with military applications developed by
automotive parts manufacturer Henniges Automotive.
"They ended up buying the biggest copper and cobalt mine in Africa," said DiStefano of BHR's global acquisition. "They bought
a company in Detroit that did a lot of controls for vehicles, including military vehicles. They bought into a company in China hat
ended up designing a lot of technology used in the imprisonment of the Uighur population."
DiStefano added, "There are examples of companies that were close to the Bidens that did not make company, and one of those is
Hill International, a company in Philadelphia run by -- long ago -- a former felon that hired one of the Biden brothers as a vice
president of a group that was supposed to build housing in Iraq."
DiStefano went on, "That housing never got built, because the Obama administration policies in Iraq turned to, really, abandoning
a part of the country for a period of time, allowing ISIS to move in, and the plan to build all this housing was canceled. That same
company had a deal to build community colleges across Libya, and that plan got blown up when the [Obama] administration, against
the advice of many of our allies, decided to go in and blow up the Qaddafi government, leading to another period of anarchy and more
influence by ISIS. That company lost money in both of those cases, and they had very actively courted the Biden family."
Mansour invited DiStefano's comments on Biden's conflicts of interest given his former role as vice president and his son's foreign
businesses dealings.
"What would you do?" asked DiStefano. "I have six children, and a bunch of them have worked and had internships and then jobs
in corporate America, and I always tell them the same thing. I say, 'Don't tell me anything that's going on at the company you're
working at. As much as I'd love to know, and as a business reporter, I'm probably very interested, but don't tell me anything that
hasn't been published by your investor relations department or hasn't been [publicly disclosed] by the company, because you're going
to be working a lot longer than I have, and I don't want to put you in that position where you have a conflict of interest,' and
they understand that."
DiStefano added, "When my wife was a bank officer and I was a labor organizer -- way, way, way back, over 30 years ago, before
I was a reporter -- she had some sensitive information on companies I was very interested in, and she would not tell me. That's what
honorable people do. They separate it. They don't put themselves and their family members in these positions where there [are] conflicts
of interest."
"What we don't hear is denouncement [from Joe Biden]," observed DiStefano. "We hear the general abstract statement, 'I will never
put anybody in that position,' but then you see the fact of a deal in Ukraine right as the U.S. is backing Ukraine, and no apparent
attempt by the then-vice president to say, 'Well, don't do that. You shouldn't do that. I wish he wouldn't do that.' It's just, 'It's
all okay. It's my son, and what he does, I'm sure, is right,' and I just think that's an extra step that many of us try very hard
to avoid in our personal and business lives, and why should he not be setting an example?"
Mansour asked DiStefano about the President Donald Trump's inquiries into corruption in Ukraine, including possible corruption
on the part of Joe and Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma.
DiStefano determined, "Obviously the question should be asked, 'What were the Bidens' relations in the Ukraine? What were
they doing? What were they up to? Who was benefiting from that? Did it affect U.S. policy?'"
"What is [Hunter Biden] doing going on the board of an oil company that can obviously benefit if the U.S. backs Ukraine," asked
DiStefano.
"... Is it just me (wink, wink) but I find it completely coincidental that both Strzok (100%) and Pientka (likely) are of Polish origins. ..."
"... Your comment brings to mind the outdated Russophobia of many in positions of influence within the American administration. I couldn't remember who coined the term "the crazies in the basement" as applied to the more hawkish elements in US politics ..."
"... "The "crazies in the basement" is an expression that was coined originally by some unknown member of George W's administration. It used to designate the small clique of Neo-Cons who had found their way into Bush junior's team of advisors, before they rose to dubious fame after the 9/11 attacks. ..."
"... Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, at the time Colin Powell's chief of staff, described their status enhancement from "lunatic fringe" to top executives in the White House with his Southern sense of humor, adding that they had become almost overnight what was henceforth called the Cheney "Gestapo". And what happened over the weekend in the Middle-East -- and in D.C. -- certainly looked like a distant but distinct reminder of that period in the early 2000s when "crazies" coming right out of a dark basement took over the policy agenda on questions that would require adult supervision." ..."
"... Both in Canada and the States men and women of Eastern European background have risen to positions of influence in the respective administrations. I'd argue that that has not been uniformly beneficial. Not when those men and women enlist under the crazy banner. ..."
"... To a great degree American foreign policy no longer operates in the interests of the broad mass of the American people. It too often plays to the obsessions inherited from Old Europe. ..."
Is it just me (wink, wink) but I find it completely coincidental that both Strzok (100%) and Pientka (likely) are of Polish origins.
Could it be my Russian paranoia. Nah, I am being unreasonable -- those people never had a bad feeling towards Trump's attempts to
boost Russian-American relations with Michael Flynn spearheading this effort.
Jokes aside, however, I can only imagine how SVR
and GRU are enjoying the spectacle. I can only imagine how many "free" promotions and awards can be attach to this thing as a
free ride.
Your comment brings to mind the outdated Russophobia of many in positions of influence within the American administration. I couldn't
remember who coined the term "the crazies in the basement" as applied to the more hawkish elements in US politics. I thought it
had been an American Admiral. I had no luck finding a reference so I googled it. Still no joy with the American admiral, but the
list thrown up had near the top of it this informative quote from Patrick Bahzad.
"The "crazies in the basement" is an expression that was coined originally by some unknown member of George W's administration.
It used to designate the small clique of Neo-Cons who had found their way into Bush junior's team of advisors, before they rose
to dubious fame after the 9/11 attacks.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, at the time Colin Powell's chief of staff, described their status enhancement from "lunatic fringe"
to top executives in the White House with his Southern sense of humor, adding that they had become almost overnight what was henceforth
called the Cheney "Gestapo". And what happened over the weekend in the Middle-East -- and in D.C. -- certainly looked like a distant
but distinct reminder of that period in the early 2000s when "crazies" coming right out of a dark basement took over the policy
agenda on questions that would require adult supervision."
Both in Canada and the States men and women of Eastern European background have risen to positions of influence in the
respective administrations. I'd argue that that has not been uniformly beneficial. Not when those men and women enlist under the
crazy banner. Or, to put it more soberly, form part of the neocon wing of those administrations. Though I, as an outside
observer, might be prejudiced here because I happen not to get on very well with Brzezinski and his copious output.
Allowing for that prejudice, which I confess runs very deep, I still think that to an extent American foreign policy has been
hijacked by Eastern European emigres who themselves retain some of the prejudices and mindset of another age and place.
Looking at it from afar, the influence of some Eastern European emigres on American foreign policy has been uniformly deleterious.
And that from a long way back and no matter whether those emigres are in Washington or Tel Aviv.
It cannot but help be distorting, that influence. It's not merely that unexamined Russophobia is embedded in the DNA of many
Eastern Europeans. There's a narrow minded focus on aggressive Machtpolitik, bred from centuries of violent territorial disputes
with neighbors.
That, transferred to the world stage as it must be when it infects the foreign policy of the United States - because that is
a country that cannot but help be at the centre of the world stage - distorts US foreign policy. To a great degree American
foreign policy no longer operates in the interests of the broad mass of the American people. It too often plays to the obsessions
inherited from Old Europe.
In the most famous of his speeches Churchill spoke of the time when, as he hoped, "the New World, with all its power and might,
steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
Let the historians dispute as they will, that is what happened. And continued to happen for half a century and more. But there
was a price few noticed. The New World might have stepped forward to rescue the old, but it carried back from that old world a
most destructive freight.
Very well put. No better example, apart from being utter academic failure, expected from "white board" theorists with zero understanding
of power, exists of this than late Zbig. Only blind or sublime to the point of sheer idiocy could fail to see that Brzezinski's
loyalties were not with American people, but with Poland and old Polish, both legitimate and false, anti-Russian grievances. He
dedicated his life to settling whatever scores he had with historic Russia using the United States merely as a vehicle. So do
many, as you correctly stated, Eastern European immigrants to the United States. They bring with them passions, of which Founding
Fathers warned, and then infuse them into the American political discourse. It finally reached it peak of absurdity and, as I
argue constantly, utter destruction of the remnants of the Republic.
I wrote what follows before reading Andrei's response to EO, but do not see much reason to change what I had written.
When in 1988 I ended up working at BBC Radio 'Analysis' programme because it was impossible to interest any of my old television
colleagues in the idea that one might go to Moscow and talk to some of the people involved in the Gorbachev 'new thinking', my
editor, Caroline Anstey, was an erstwhile aide to Jim Callaghan, the former Labour Prime Minister.
As a result of his involvement with the Trilateral Commission, she had a fascinating anecdote about what one of his fellow
members, the former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, said about another, Zbigniew Brzezinski: that he could never work out which
of his country's two traditional enemies his Polish colleague hated most.
Almost a generation after hearing her say this, in December 2013, I read an article Brzezinski published in the 'Financial
Times, headlined 'Russia, like Ukraine, will become a real democracy.'
Unfortunately, it is behind a subscription wall, but it clearly expresses its author's fundamental belief that after all those
years of giving Russia the 'spinach' treatment -- to use Victoria Nuland's term -- it would finally 'knuckle under', and become
a quiescent satellite of the West.
An ironic sidelight on this is provided in a recent article by a lady called Anna Mahjar-Barducci on the 'MEMRI' site -- which
actually has some very useful material on matters to do with Russia for those of us with no knowledge of the language -- headlined
'Contemporary Russian Thinkers Series -- Part I -- Renowned Russian Academic Sergey Karaganov On Russia And Democracy.'
Its subject, who I remember well from the days when he was very much one of the 'new thinkers', linked to it on his own website,
clearly pleased at what he saw as an accurate and informed discussion of his ideas.
There is an obvious risk of succumbing to facetiousness, but sometimes what one thinks are essential features of an argument
can be best brought out at the risk of caricaturing it.
It seems to me that some of the central themes of Karaganov's writing over the past few years -- doubly interesting, because
his attacks on conventional Western orthodoxies are very far from silly, and because he is a kind of 'panjandrum' of a significant
section of the Russian foreign policy élite -- may be illuminated in this way.
So, attempting to link his Russian concerns to British and American ones, some central contentions of his writings might be
put as follows:
'"Government of the people, by the people, for the people' looked a lovely idea, back in 1989. But if in practice "by the people"
means a choice of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn, how can it be "for the people?"
'Moreover, it turned out that our "deplorables" were always right, against us 'intellectuals', in grasping that, with "Russophobes"
running Western policy, a "real democracy" would simply guarantee that we remained as impotent and humiliated as people like Brzezinski
clearly always wanted us to be.
'Our past, and our future, both in terms of alliances and appropriate social and political systems, are actually "Eurasian":
a 'hybrid' state, whose potential greatest advantage actually should be seen as successfully synthesising different inheritances.
'As the need for this kind of synthesis is a normal condition, with which most peoples have to reckon, this gives us a very
real potential advantage over people in the West, who, like the communists against whom I rebelled, believe that there is one
path along which all of humanity must -- and can -- go.'
At the risk of over-interpreting, I might add the following conclusion:
'Of course, precisely what this analysis does not mean is that we are anti-European -- simply that we cannot simply come to
Europe, Europe come some way to meet us.
'Given time, Helmut Schmidt's fellow countrymen, as also de Gaulle's, may very well realise that their future does not lie
in an alliance with a coalition of people like Brzezinski and traditional "Russophobes" from the "Anglosphere".
'And likewise, it does not lie with the kind of messianic universalist "liberalism" -- and, in relation to some of the SJC
and LGBT obsessions, one might say "liberalism gone bonkers" -- which Putin criticized in his interview with the "Financial Times"
back in June.
An obvious possibility implicit in the argument is that, if indeed the continental Europeans see sense, then the coalition
of traditional 'Anglophobes' and the 'insulted and injured' or the 'borderlands' may find itself marginalized, and indeed, on
the 'dustbin of history' to which Trotsky once referred.
Of course, I have no claims to be a Russianist, and my reading of Karaganov may be quite wrong.
But I do strongly believe that very superficial readings of what was happening when I was working in the 'Analysis' office,
back in 1988-9, have done an immense disservice alike to Britain and the United States.
Very well put. No better example, apart from being utter academic failure, expected from "white board" theorists with zero understanding
of power, exists of this than late Zbig. Only blind or sublime to the point of sheer idiocy could fail to see that Brzezinski's
loyalties were not with American people, but with Poland and old Polish, both legitimate and false, anti-Russian grievances. He
dedicated his life to settling whatever scores he had with historic Russia using the United States merely as a vehicle. So do
many, as you correctly stated, Eastern European immigrants to the United States. They bring with them passions, of which Founding
Fathers warned, and then infuse them into the American political discourse. It finally reached it peak of absurdity and, as I
argue constantly, utter destruction of the remnants of the Republic.
David, Karaganov is an opportunist, granted a smart one. But the events of two days ago with Putin and Lavrov being personally
present at the unveiling of the monument to Evgenii Primakov in a front of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs speaks, in fact
screams, volumes. You know of Primakov's Doctrine. It is being fully implemented as I type this and it means that the West "lost"
(quotation marks are intentional--Russia was not West's to lose) Russia and it can be "thankful" for that to a so called Russia
Studies field in the West which was primarily shaped and then turned into the wasteland, in large part thanks to influx of East
European "scholars" and some "Russian" dissidents which achieved their objectives by drawing a caricature. They succeeded and
Russia had it with the West.
DH, appreciate your comment. Haven't read the MEMRI paper yet. Scanned the first page though.
Karaganov is an opportunist, granted a smart one. ... You know of Primakov's Doctrine. It is being fully implemented as
I type this and it means that the West "lost" (quotation marks are intentional--Russia was not West's to lose)
Well, two things sticked out for me during Tumps reelection campain.
1) on the surface he stated, he wanted closer relations to Russia. Looked at more closely, as should be expected, maybe. They
were ambigous. If I may paraphrase it colloguially: I meet them and, believe me, if I don't get that beautiful deal, i'll be out
of the door the next second.
2) he promised to be enigmatic, compared to earlier American administrations. In other words, hard to read or to predict. Guess
one better is as dealmaker. But in the larger intelligence field? Enigmatic may well be a commonplace. No?
Otherwise, Andrei, I would appreciate your further elaboration on Karaganov as opportunist.
Andrei: Strzok and Pientka come from Galicia -- the westernmost portion of what is now Ukraine -- that was acquired by Empress
Maria Theresa in the mid - 18th century.
I have been curious about precisely where both Srzok and Pientka came from, but have not had time to do any serious searches.
What is the actual evidence that they have Galician origins?
And, if they do, what are these?
I would of course automatically tend to assume that Polish names mean that their origins are Polish.
But then, if this is so, why are they enthusiastically collaborating with 'Banderista' Ukrainians?
It has long been a belief of mine that one of Stalin's great mistakes was to attempt to incorporate Galicia into the empire
he was creating.
Had he returned it to Poland, the architects of the Volhynia massacres of Poles -- as also of the massacres of Jews in Lviv/Lvov/Lemberg
-- could have gone back to their old habits of assassinating Polish policemen.
I first picked up the Galician connection in an article by Scott Humor: " North America is a land run by Galician zombies "
-- published by The Saker on July 4, 2018. It seems that Galicians, especially those that arrived after WWII, migrate into security
positions such as ICE / FBI / NSA etc. It may have to do with a family history of work in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Regrettably, I am not from Eastern Europe and cannot help you further about the Bortnicks, the Gathkes, Buchtas, and so on.
"... For the Democrats to reform they need first to acknowledge that their alliance with Wall Street is a dead end and that they need to oppose the absolute rule of capital. At a minimum they should be capable of acknowledging the conflict that exists between the interests of capital and the rest of the population (Warren); and of expressing a principled determination to take the side of the majority of the population in this conflict. ..."
James Carville observed that night in 2016, Democrats haven't been this weak for more than
half-a-century. Some Democrats learned the lesson and ran on 'just fix the damn roads' in
2018 and won. Impeachment is very, very likely to do what the ACA did to Dems in 2010.
Rather than build on the hard-won victories of 2018, Democrats have decided to pursue a
dead-end policy doomed to failure which will galvanize the GOP base and drive independents
months before the election. Even a week ago, I wasn't sure whether Trump will be elected. I'm
much, much more certain now. I warned in 2017 of the opportunity costs of looking for silver
stake solutions to what OW and Carville correctly understand as bad policy, poor candidates,
identity politics, and bad messaging.
So, Russia? My guess is that after the stomping that may very well fall upon the Dems, we
might very well see real reform in the Democratic party, just as we have in the GOP. Trump's
GOP protects businesses, individuals, Americans, opportunity, and social security. And all
the bad shit that both parties always support. Dems need to figure out that Trump has stolen
their message and is on the way to stealing their base. If minorities turn out for Trump (the
GOP wet-dream) Dems are going to face a nightmare scenario. And 34 percent of
African-Americans currently support Trump.
That's a very apt observation with one reservation: one major factor in 2018 success was
Mueller investigation. Now there will be backlash against it, which favors Trump.
Moon of Alabama has a very interesting discussion of the Catch 22 style situation "Full of
Schiff" Dems found themselves with "Pelosi impeachment gambit": in no way they can allow Senate
trial, and they can't allow just a censure, or they lose the face (Schiff career is probably
over at this point in any case)
-- If more Democratic swing-state representatives defect from the impeachment camp, which
seems likely, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have a big problem. How can she proceed?
-- If the House votes down impeachment Donald Trump wins.
-- If the House holds no vote on the issue Donald Trump wins.
-- If the House votes for censure Donald Trump will have won on points and the issue will
be over.
-- If the House votes for impeachment the case goes to the Senate for trial.
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
-- It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment.
Trump wins.
-- It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the
end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
A senate impeachment trial would be a disaster for the Dems as Joe & Hunter and Adam
Schiff get to testify under oath.
A censure means that Trump won on points and now can play victim in 2020 election. Situation
which he likes and exploiting which he is a great master (that's why he wants the Senate
trial). And which increases chances of his reelection. In the latter case that most probably
means the end of career (if not prosecution) for Vindman, Hill and other "accusers" (Pelosi
sacrificial pawns in this gambit)
My feeling is that Clinton democrats are doomed to be a failure in 2020. And that Democratic
Party needs to reform (which they failed to do after 2016 fiasco.)
For the Democrats to reform they need first to acknowledge that their alliance with Wall
Street is a dead end and that they need to oppose the absolute
rule of capital. At a minimum they should be capable of acknowledging the conflict that exists
between the interests of capital and the rest of the population (Warren); and of expressing a
principled determination to take the side of the majority of the population in this
conflict.
"... With Republicans in control of the Senate, the California elder stateswoman always knew that articles of impeachment would have to be based on crimes so egregious and beyond doubt that even Republicans would have had no choice but to convict the president. ..."
"... The math may not be on the Democrats' side, as they have 31 House members representing districts won by Trump in 2016. ..."
"... Pelosi simply cannot discount the fact that at least half – and maybe more – of those Democrat representatives will consider their own chances of re-election as they cast their votes on articles of impeachment. ..."
"... Unlike impeachment, censure is not a constitutional measure. That is not to say that censure is unconstitutional, but that it is simply a course of action devised by Congress and not described in the nation's founding document. There is no mandatory consequence to censure, and nobody would suggest that censure could lead to removal from the office of president. It has been used most often to rebuke or reprimand members of Congress, though Trump, were he censured, would not be the first commander in chief to have faced it. ..."
"... In effect, censure is an act of disapproval. For a member of Congress, it may entail such undesirable consequences as loss of committee memberships or even suspension; it comes with no penalties when used against executive branch officials. And that is how it should be, or the concepts of separation of powers and co-equal branches of government would likely be swept away in an avalanche of partisan censure votes. ..."
"... The Founding Fathers proscribed impeachment for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. These are serious crimes – high crimes. Removing from office a duly elected president for anything less is congressional tyranny. Perhaps, before they step into the abyss, some Democrats are coming to that realization. Or perhaps they are simply guarding their posteriors. ..."
At this point, Democrats appear to have dug themselves a rather deep impeachment
hole, and at least a few of them are now looking for a ladder. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
(D-CA) saw this coming but could not withstand the Trump-derangement tide. They do have a way
out, and at least a few of them – along with their surrogates in the media –
realize that censure, rather than impeachment, is their best option for dealing with President
Trump in a way that will not come back to bite their carefully guarded posteriors.
Nancy Pelosi
Regardless of what one may think of Pelosi's political bent, she has always been more
pragmatic than her more strident party colleagues. Sure, she will step in front of any camera
and talk about how Trump is spitting on the Constitution, crushing the souls of hard-working
Americans, and planning to detain all non-white people before our very eyes. But, for the most
part, she understands political realities.
With Republicans in control of the Senate, the California elder stateswoman always knew that
articles of impeachment would have to be based on crimes so egregious and beyond doubt that
even Republicans would have had no choice but to convict the president.
In their impeachment
inquiry , congressional Democrats have come nowhere near that standard. Worse still, they
may barely have the votes to advance articles of impeachment to the Senate. As the balance of
power in the House now stands, the majority Democrats can afford to lose no more than 16 votes
from their own caucus in order to impeach – assuming they get no Republican votes. The
math may not be on the Democrats' side, as they have 31 House members representing districts
won by Trump in 2016.
Pelosi simply cannot discount the fact that at least half – and maybe more – of
those Democrat representatives will consider their own chances of re-election as they cast
their votes on articles of impeachment.
Second Thoughts?
Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) is not one of those who represent a 2016 Trump-voting
district. In fact, her safe Democrat district encompasses part of eastern Detroit. Even so, Lawrence
has seen the writing on the wall: Among independent voters, enthusiasm for impeachment is
waning, and Lawrence – who previously supported the idea – is perhaps now thinking
beyond her own chances of re-election.
"I will tell you, sitting here knowing how divided this country is," Lawrence explained
Nov. 24 during a radio interview, "I don't see the value of taking [Trump] out of office, but
I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable."
An editorial, published Nov. 23 by The Detroit News, suggests censure of the president
rather than impeachment, and The Chicago Tribune followed suit on Nov. 25. It is neither unfair
nor inaccurate to point out that the left-wing media rarely take up a political narrative not
preapproved by someone within the Democratic Party. So the sudden appearance of editorials
arguing for censure strongly suggests that Democrat strategists are leaning in that direction
or at least testing the waters.
What Is Censure?
Unlike impeachment, censure is not a constitutional measure. That is not to say that censure
is unconstitutional, but that it is simply a course of action devised by Congress and not
described in the nation's founding document. There is no mandatory consequence to censure, and
nobody would suggest that censure could lead to removal from the office of president. It has
been used most often to rebuke or reprimand members of Congress, though Trump, were he
censured, would not be the first commander in chief to have faced it.
In effect, censure is an act of disapproval. For a member of Congress, it may entail such
undesirable consequences as loss of committee memberships or even suspension; it comes with no
penalties when used against executive branch officials. And that is how it should be, or the
concepts of separation of powers and co-equal branches of government would likely be swept away
in an avalanche of partisan censure votes.
Both the Senate and the House have the power to censure or reprimand, and each chamber may
do it without the approval or involvement of the other. Censure requires only a simple
majority. At least some Democrats, surely, are considering how much easier than impeachment
censure will be. They also may be considering how a censure resolution will provide the
opportunity to pontificate at length – on live TV – about Trump's moral turpitude
and failings, both as a human being and as a president.
In 1834, Democrat President Andrew Jackson was censured by a Whig Senate for firing the
Treasury secretary. President John Tyler, a Democrat-turned-Whig who may have been even more of
a boat-rocking maverick than Trump, was reprimanded (another form of censure) in 1842 by the
House of Representatives. President James Polk was reprimanded in 1848 by the House. President
Abraham Lincoln was reprimanded by the Senate in 1864.
Some members of Congress argued for censuring, rather than impeaching, President Bill
Clinton, and that brings up an important point about impeachment: Attempting to remove a
president from office by any means other than a general election is, without a doubt, the
gravest and most consequential action the Congress can take. If the constitutional republic
– with its democratic method of choosing a president – is to be preserved, a
president should not be removed from office by Congress for anything less than an act that
directly endangers the American people or the U.S. government.
Jackson, Tyler, and Lincoln did nothing that justified such a measure. Polk took the country
to war without congressional approval – very much an impeachable offense, many would
argue. How about Clinton? He was not impeached for having sexual relations with a White House
intern but for lying about it to Congress.
If every politician were removed from office for lying, we would have no political
leadership at all. Clinton's lie did not jeopardize the security or stability of the United
States, and one could certainly argue that his was not an impeachable offense. At the time, the
American people appeared to agree.
The Founding Fathers proscribed impeachment for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors. These are serious crimes – high crimes. Removing from office a duly elected
president for anything less is congressional tyranny. Perhaps, before they step into the abyss,
some Democrats are coming to that realization. Or perhaps they are simply guarding their
posteriors.
"... According to a Nov. 21 report by independent journalist Sara Carter, U.S. Attorney John Durham is questioning personnel in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment (ONA). ONA awarded about $1 million in contracts to FBI informant Stefan Halper, who appears to have played a key role in alleged U.S. intelligence agency spying on 2016 Trump campaign advisers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... In addition, however, a court filing indicates that ONA's director, James H. Baker, "is believed to be the person who illegally leaked the transcript of Mr. Flynn's calls" to The Washington Post. ..."
"... The filing adds that Baker "was Halper's 'handler'" at ONA. Moreover, according to the court filing, the tasks assigned to "known long-time operative for the CIA/FBI" Halper "seem to have included slandering Mr. Flynn with accusations of having an affair with a young professor (a British national of Russian descent)." ..."
"... The filing notes that Flynn's defense team has requested phone records for then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , likewise in order to confirm contacts with Ignatius. The filing singles out records for Jan. 10, 2017, when, according to the filing, "Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of 'take the kill shot on Flynn.'" ..."
"... The Pentagon's current inspector general has already found that Baker's office "did not maintain documentation of the work performed by Professor Halper or any communication that ONA personnel had with Professor Halper." As a result, according to the inspector general, ONA staff "could not provide sufficient documentation that Professor Halper conducted all of his work in accordance with applicable laws and regulations." ..."
"... Acting Pentagon Inspector General Glenn A. Fine in November 2017 started an investigation into charges that Baker retaliated against a whistleblower who red-flagged "rigged" contracts, including Halper's. Another $11 million in contracts under scrutiny went to the Long Term Strategy Group (LTSG), which is run by a schoolmate of Chelsea Clinton, whom she has referred to as her "best friend." ..."
"... The House Judiciary and Oversight committees -- which interviewed almost two dozen witnesses -- concluded in December 2018 that the Obama Justice Department treated Trump and Clinton unequally, affording Clinton and her associates extraordinary accommodations, while potentially abusing surveillance powers to investigate Trump's associates. ..."
The
Obama holdover heading the Pentagon office
reportedly under investigation by the U.S. attorney who is conducting the criminal probe of
the Trump -- Russia investigation was accused of leaking a classified document, in a recent
court filing for retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
The connection hasn't been previously reported.
According to a Nov. 21 report by independent journalist Sara Carter, U.S. Attorney John
Durham is questioning personnel in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment (ONA). ONA awarded
about $1 million in contracts to FBI informant Stefan Halper, who appears to have played a key
role in alleged U.S. intelligence agency spying on 2016 Trump campaign advisers Carter Page and
George Papadopoulos.
In addition, however, a
court filing indicates that ONA's director, James H. Baker, "is believed to be the person
who illegally leaked the transcript of Mr. Flynn's calls" to The Washington Post.
Specifically, the filing states, "ONA Director Baker regularly lunched with Washington Post
Reporter David Ignatius."
The filing adds that Baker "was Halper's 'handler'" at ONA. Moreover, according to the
court filing, the tasks assigned to "known long-time operative for the CIA/FBI" Halper "seem to
have included slandering Mr. Flynn with
accusations of having an affair with a young professor (a British national of Russian
descent)."
Baker didn't respond to a request for comment by The Epoch Times as of press time.
The filing notes that Flynn's defense team has requested phone records for
then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , likewise in order to confirm
contacts with Ignatius. The filing singles out records for Jan. 10, 2017, when, according to
the filing, "Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of 'take the kill shot on
Flynn.'"
Clapper didn't respond to a request for comment by The Epoch Times as of press time.
The Pentagon's current inspector general has already found that Baker's office "did not
maintain documentation of the work performed by Professor Halper or any communication that ONA
personnel had with Professor Halper." As a result, according to the inspector general, ONA
staff "could not provide sufficient documentation that Professor Halper conducted all of his
work in accordance with applicable laws and regulations."
Acting Pentagon Inspector General Glenn A. Fine in November 2017 started an
investigation into charges that Baker retaliated against a whistleblower who red-flagged
"rigged" contracts, including Halper's. Another
$11 million in contracts under scrutiny went to the Long Term Strategy Group (LTSG), which
is run by a schoolmate
of Chelsea Clinton, whom she has referred to as her "best friend."
According to the whistleblower's attorney, "Baker's interest was his awareness of the
LTSG-Clinton connection; his presumptive desire to exploit that to his advantage in the event
of a Clinton election win; and the fact that contractors like LTSG served as a lucrative
landing pad for ONA retirees."
The attorney charged that Baker's claims about the whistleblower were "demonstrably false,"
calling Baker "partisan and highly vindictive."
At the time, Richard Perle, Ronald Reagan's former Assistant Secretary of Defense, called
Baker "a shallow and manipulative character that should have gone with the change in
administration." Perle further charged that the whistleblower "clearly was the target, for
political reasons, of an effort to push him out of government," saying "he's a Trump loyalist,
and it was launched and sustained by an Obama holdover."
That inquiry is being carried out by the inspector general's Investigations of Senior
Officials Directorate.
Raising additional questions, a 2016 report further revealed
that the ONA had failed to produce the top-secret net assessments the office was established to
conduct for more than 10 years, even with a yearly budget approaching $20 million.
Baker was named
as ONA director on May 14, 2015, during the Obama administration. A contemporaneous report
called his appointment "part of a wave of new Pentagon personnel moves in recent days,
senior-level officials who will outlast President Obama's final term in office." Baker
replaced Andrew W. Marshall, nicknamed "Yoda" for his "wizened appearance, fanatical
following in defense circles, and enigmatic nature." Obama Defense Secretary Ash Carter, in
selecting Baker, "passed over several of Marshall's acolytes who were in the running for the
position."
The House Judiciary and Oversight committees -- which interviewed almost two dozen
witnesses --
concluded in December 2018 that the Obama Justice Department treated Trump and Clinton
unequally, affording Clinton and her associates extraordinary accommodations, while potentially
abusing surveillance powers to investigate Trump's associates.
Jacqueline Deal, president of LTSG, wrote in an email to The Epoch Times: "My colleagues and
I began performing work in support of the Office of Net Assessment during the George W. Bush
administration, over a decade before the office's current director was appointed. None of the
awards received by LTSG from the Department of Defense resulted directly or indirectly from the
actions or influence of Secretary [Hillary] Clinton. Any statement or implication otherwise is
false."
Baker
replaced Andrew W. Marshall, nicknamed “Yoda” for his “wizened
appearance, fanatical following in defense circles, and enigmatic nature.” Obama
Defense Secretary Ash Carter, in selecting Baker, “passed over several of
Marshall’s acolytes who were in the running for the position.”
Holy ****...The replacement head of the Highlands Group..he may as well be that white
bearded guy in the matrix.. Hes the director of the MIC CIA NSA. ..the whole ball of
wax..puts it all together...only he is not Yoda like before him..like putting a restaurant
fast food manager in charge of the manhattan project. I know those acolytes must be really
pissed..and probably a potential source of leaks.
Investigations my eye! This has been going on since Moby **** was a minnow.
McCabe has been out there making money while under criminal referral.. That investigation
is DONE and still nothing happens.
The public information available on at least 50 of these double dealers is enough to send
them all up the river as of a few YEARS ago...but we have to have more
investigations...that's so they can figure out how to cover it all up.
Fire these creeps. Hire Sidney Powell.. They'll be swinging inside of six months.
"... and now Obama weighs in to warn against the real danger to the democrats, Bernie Sanders. that's who they have to beat, and Gabbard. They don't give much of a damn about beating Trump. ..."
"... This pretty much confirms my and many others here hypothesis that the Dems are fighting a "war on two fronts": one against Trump nationalist capitalism and the other against the "democratic socialists" who have been flocking to their party machine since 2014. ..."
"... Clearly, the goal is to prevent the US Polity from clawing back power from the 10% and enacting policies to their benefit. Meanwhile, a new form of Transnational Nationalism continues to take shape that will soon present a serious threat to the Financialized Globalizers and their Cult of Debt. Too many seem to laugh off the entire situation by dismissing it as Kabuki Theatre, which I see as self-serving and shortsighted since there're several very real crises we're in up to our collective armpits. ..."
"... A full blown impeachment trial that exposes the entire Russia-gate/Ukraine-gate/Whatever-gate sham is what this country needs. ..."
"... Bet the MSM sells Ukrainegate this way: Trump is guilty in Ukrainegate and should be impeached, but Democrats are moving on to focus on the election. And besides, Dems will tell us, the dastardly Republicans in the Senate will corruptly block Trump's impeachment. ..."
"... That is what they call a "trial balloon." If there isn't too much of a freakout among the true-believer base, and I don't think there is, it'll be an option they will at least take seriously. Not that I'm encouraging anyone to bet on rational thinking at this point. Anyway I agree it's the best move for congressional Democrats. ..."
"... I am liking all the commenters here that understand that there is only one empire party with two mythical faces. I think this kabuki is necessary if you don't have a major WAR to keep the masses focused on or otherwise distracted from the underlying R2P which I translate to Rape2Protect. ..."
"... If this show should teach people in the US anything (again), it is how both US parties descend like vultures onto countries where they manage to take over the government. Five billion poured into Ukraine with the requisite murder and mayhem, and who knows how many billions come pouring back out. It's a real jackpot for those in the right positions to scoop it into their pockets. ..."
"... The average people in the US don't even have a genuine safety net. Important for all those productive resources to go to pedophile islands and sinecures for coke head sons of politicians, obviously. ..."
"... The GOP is the party of the rich. The Democrats are the party the rich pay to keep the left at bay when the Republicans lose. ..."
"... the deck is stacked even more against independents than it is against actual mildly leftist candidates who run as democrats. there are a substantial number of people who think the only way to change the country is to take over the democratic party. frankly, that isn't going to happen, and nobody is going to win as an independent candidate with all the procedural rules making it so hard to even get on the ballot, while the state government, which is invariably controlled by one of the two parties, throws every roadblock, legal and illegal, in the way. my gut feeling is things are going to have to get quite a bit worse before the citizenry starts to explode, and there's no telling how that process will work out, and no way to control it once it reaches critical mass. ..."
"... the Democrats won't want to censure Trump for matters in which they themselves are equally complicit, as has been discussed here. ..."
"... "The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a "democracy." ..."
"... Trump is up against an entrenched powerful bureaucracy and people who buy ink by the 55 gallon barrel. The democrats need to take a hard turn towards Mayor Pete and Tulsi. The rank and file Democrats are tired of the elite political class ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... He could lay out his story about how the American People never got to hear the full story because of house dems, and how the Senate would fully investigate the 2016 election, Russiagate, Ukraine, and whatever else they want. Maybe even make Hillary testify. Heads would explode and his base would love it. ..."
"... To the people here clamoring for Bernie Sanders to go independent: The American electoral system is very unique. The two parties -- GOP and Dems -- are much more than mere political parties: they are the American electoral machine itself. It is impossible to win the presidency without being the candidate of one of the two, that's why Trump also didn't go as an independent either. ..."
"An impeachment trial in the Senate would be a disaster for the Democrats.
I can not see why the Democrats would want to fall into such a trap. House leader Nancy
Pelosi is experienced enough to not let that happen."
The real reason in my opinion that Pelosi went along with impeachment was that she saw
Bernies message getting through, and even though the DNC pushed all the conserva-dem
candidates they could into the race, Bernie is still doing well and gaining. An impeachment
trial would require Bernie to attend the hearings rather that campaigning. Also Wall Streets
best friend Obama has just stated that Bernie is not a Democrat and that would require Obama
to get on the speaking circuit to campaign against him - you know for the sake of the
corporations - and those 500k speaking thank you gigs. They would rather elect Trump than
Bernie - that is why I think Pelosi would go along with an impeachment trial in the Senate -
Bernie is the greater threat.
The idea to censure Trump and move on has been aired since mid 2017. The latest was
Forbes.com billwhalen 26 September 2019
Link
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."
With interest (even among Democrats) in the impeachment process sliding, the House
Judiciary Committee is set to take over the impeachment probe of President Trump next week,
scheduling a Dec. 4 hearing.
As The Hill reports, behind Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the committee
will hear from legal scholars as Democrats weigh whether the evidence turned up in their
weeks-long impeachment inquiry warrants the drafting of articles aimed at removing the
president from office.
The hearing, scheduled for next Wednesday, will focus on the definition of an
impeachable offense and the formal application of the impeachment process. The panel
will invite White House lawyers to attend and participate.
Ahead of the hearing, Nadler wrote to Trump requesting his participation - or
that of White House counsel - as part of ensuring "a fair and informative process."[.]
Trump will take a page from the other president who campaigned on the "do nothing
congress"
and now Obama weighs in to warn against the real danger to the democrats, Bernie Sanders.
that's who they have to beat, and Gabbard. They don't give much of a damn about beating
Trump.
b, there seems to be a critical flaw in your analysis--you seem to base it on a premise that
the goal of the Democratic establishment is to win elections/gain power/govern. It's not,
it's to ensure the continuing enrichment of themselves and their oligarch peers, financial
industry, military, pharma, etc.
The question people like Pelosi (worth $100 million or so btw along with her husband whose
business she enriches via her position) are pondering isn't "Will doing x, y, z help Trump
win?" It's "Will doing x, y, z ensure Bernie Sanders doesn't win?"
This pretty much confirms my and many others here hypothesis that the Dems are
fighting a "war on two fronts": one against Trump nationalist capitalism and the other
against the "democratic socialists" who have been flocking to their party machine since
2014.
Of all the things that the Democrats could impeach President Trump over, the one thing they
seized upon was the issue that had the most potential to blow back on them and destroy Joe
Biden's chances of reaching the White House. Whoever had that brilliant idea and put it as
the long straw in a cylindrical prawn-chip can along with all the other straws for pulling
out, sure didn't think of all the consequences that could have arisen. That speaks for the
depth (or lack thereof) of the thinking among senior Democrats and their worker bee analysts,
along with a narrow-minded outlook, sheer hatred of a political outsider and a fanatical zeal
to match that hatred and outlook.
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.
Impeachment takes Sanders out of the campaign and that opens things up for the
CIA/establishment's "Identity Politics Candidate #3" , Mayor Butt-gig.
That said, since "Everyone who doesn't vote for our candidate is a deplorable
misogynist!" didn't work as expected, I wonder what makes them think "Everyone who
doesn't vote for our candidate is a deplorable homophobe!" will work any better?
Lots of agreement here with the overall situation becoming clearer with Bloomberg's entrance
and the outing of Obama's plans. I just finished writing my response to Putin's speech before the annual
United Russia Party Congress on the Open Thread and suggest barflies take 10 minutes to
read it and compare what he espouses a political party's deeds & goals ought to be versus
those of the West and its vassals.
Clearly, the goal is to prevent the US Polity from clawing back power from the 10% and
enacting policies to their benefit. Meanwhile, a new form of Transnational Nationalism
continues to take shape that will soon present a serious threat to the Financialized
Globalizers and their Cult of Debt. Too many seem to laugh off the entire situation by
dismissing it as Kabuki Theatre, which I see as self-serving and shortsighted since there're
several very real crises we're in up to our collective armpits.
A full blown impeachment trial that exposes the entire
Russia-gate/Ukraine-gate/Whatever-gate sham is what this country needs.
Obviously, a sufficient number of secure Republican representatives are needed to vote in
favor of impeachment to allow this circus to continue to its bizarrely entertaining,
Democratic Party destroying end.
The MSM will declare Trump guilty - that is, he has earned impeachment for Ukrainegate.
There are Democrats still under the illusion that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the
election. Dems tell us that Trump *obstructed* the Mueller investigation thus Trump could not
be nailed, nonetheless Trump is guilty of collusion until proven innocent.
Back to Ukrainegate. Bet the MSM sells Ukrainegate this way: Trump is guilty in
Ukrainegate and should be impeached, but Democrats are moving on to focus on the election.
And besides, Dems will tell us, the dastardly Republicans in the Senate will corruptly block
Trump's impeachment.
Tulsi
Gabbard Tweet not specifically about impeachment but begs numerous questions:
"My personal commitment is to always treat you and all Americans with respect. Working
side-by-side, we can defeat the divisiveness of Donald Trump, and usher in a 21st century of
peace, human dignity, & true equality. Working side by side, we can make Dr. King's dream
our reality ." [My Emphasis]
Questions: Is Trump divisive, or is it the D-Party and Current Oligarchy that make him so;
and which is more important to defeat? Which party "usher[ed] in the 21st century" with
several wars and abetted the next two? How did Obama, Slick Willie or his wife advance "human
dignity & true equality"? How does her last sentence differ from "Hope you can believe
in"? Hasn't her D-Party worked tirelessly for decades to circumvent the goals she espouses?
Wouldn't Gabbard have a better chance running as an Enlightened Republican than as a Renegade
Democrat if her goal's to defeat Trump?
American Democracy is political professional wrestling, Kabuki Theater, and mediocre Reality
TV all rolled into. by: AK74 @ 4 <= binary divide <=conducted by the USA, is not about
America, Americans or making America great again, its about the welfare of [the few<=
which most Americans would not call fellow Americans].
Sasha.@ 23 I don't understand where you are coming from.. thank Korlof1 @18 for posting
that Putin talk alert. excerpts from the talk.. => The priority [of United Russia has
been] the protection of the people's interests, the interests of [the] Motherland, and
..responsible [approach] to ..country, its security, stability and people's lives in the
long-term perspective.
The party.. offered a unifying agenda based on freedom and well being, patriotism,
..traditional values, a strong civil society and a strong state. The key issue in the party's
work .being together with the people, Karlof1@18 <=this talk suggest change in Russian
leadership that are not congruent with your [Sasha] comment @23. I hope you will make more
clear what you spent sometime writing ( and for that effort I thank you) but it is not yet
clear what you mean.. .
Re: Brenda Lawrence talking about censure rather than impeachment:
That is what they call a "trial balloon." If there isn't too much of a freakout among
the true-believer base, and I don't think there is, it'll be an option they will at least
take seriously. Not that I'm encouraging anyone to bet on rational thinking at this point.
Anyway I agree it's the best move for congressional Democrats.
Yet another other option is to continue the investigation indefinitely. I'm going to say
it is their default move actually. In that case, the House Judiciary Committee would spend a
few weeks putting on their own show, then say they would like more evidence to be really
sure, returning matters to the House Intelligence Committee, and we repeat the cycle.
I am liking all the commenters here that understand that there is only one empire party
with two mythical faces. I think this kabuki is necessary if you don't have a major WAR to
keep the masses focused on or otherwise distracted from the underlying R2P which I translate
to Rape2Protect.
It is sad to see us all talking about which of the lesser of horrible evils will continue
the leadership of American faced empire.....I hope it crashes soon and takes the global elite
down with it.....how many barflies are ready to stand up and say NO to the owners of the
Super-Priority derivatives that will say they own the world because of their casino (no skin
in the game) bets that are currently "legal" in America when the crash comes?
American "Democracy" is a mask for the American Empire and its capitalist
system--including especially the American Military and its Intelligence apparatus (aka The
Deep State). If the American people don't identify with these institutions, you would see
much greater hostility to -- if not outright rebellion against--the American military and
spooks.
Instead, you see the very opposite: the American people saluting, glorifying, "thanking
for their service," and politically fellating the US military and spy agencies every chance
they get. That should tell you all you need to know about Americans.
If this show should teach people in the US anything (again), it is how both US parties
descend like vultures onto countries where they manage to take over the government. Five
billion poured into Ukraine with the requisite murder and mayhem, and who knows how many
billions come pouring back out. It's a real jackpot for those in the right positions to scoop
it into their pockets.
The average people in the US don't even have a genuine safety net. Important for all
those productive resources to go to pedophile islands and sinecures for coke head sons of
politicians, obviously.
Re: #3 Allen – well said. The GOP is the party of the rich. The Democrats are the
party the rich pay to keep the left at bay when the Republicans lose.
The problem with this prediction is that the MSM has been breathlessly pronouncing that THIS
IS EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE!!!! pretty much every day and after every witness testimony.
So if you are a member of the public who gets their "information" from the MSM (and, be
honest, that is most of the people in the USA) then you have been force-fed is that Trumps
defense against these allegations has already been shredded, and that his guilt has already
been established beyond any reasonable doubt.
How can those opinion-makers then turn around and say "Nah, it'll be fine" and settle for
a mere censure?
Wouldn't the Sheeple respond with a fully-justified "Hey, hang on! What gives?"
The Democrats has leapt on a Tiger. Nobody made them do it, but now they are there I don't
think they are going to be able to leap off.
Some of the first-term nobodies, maybe, but not the Schiffs and the Pelopis and the
Nadlers.
Hang on for dear life and hope for a miracle is probably their only option now.
And, who knows, that trio may be so incompetent that they actually think they are going to
win.
james, the deck is stacked even more against independents than it is against actual
mildly leftist candidates who run as democrats. there are a substantial number of people who
think the only way to change the country is to take over the democratic party. frankly, that
isn't going to happen, and nobody is going to win as an independent candidate with all the
procedural rules making it so hard to even get on the ballot, while the state government,
which is invariably controlled by one of the two parties, throws every roadblock, legal and
illegal, in the way. my gut feeling is things are going to have to get quite a bit worse
before the citizenry starts to explode, and there's no telling how that process will work
out, and no way to control it once it reaches critical mass.
The US is a one party State-- Pepsi _Pepsi Lite. Both parties are capitalist. It is rather
humorous the attention paid to a Dim vs Repug argument. Small thinking for small minds---
As I posted at the beginning of the impeachment process, the Dems would be foolish to hang it
all on the arcane shenanigans in Ukraine but rather should impeach Trump on the numerous more
serious breaches and crimes that he has committed. I also worried that the Democratic Party
leaders would blow the opportunity to demonstrate that Trump and the Republican Party are
rotten to the core and harmful to the country. And so they have blown it. What an inept pack
of asses.
I would think that even censure is still going to be a hot potato for the Democrats. Looking
at the procedure as far as wikipedia describes it, it hasn't done anything of significance
when it comes to being used against a president, especially as the Democrats won't want
to censure Trump for matters in which they themselves are equally complicit, as has been
discussed here.
That means they would be censuring on the same shaky grounds that they would have
impeached him, which only prolongs attention upon the dubious claims of the indictment. It
seems to me Trump will, rather than be shamed by the process, only be saying 'Make my day',
and hopefully have his Attorney General come forward with exonerating revelations on that
issue in the judicial proceeding that it was my contention the impeachment effort had been a
last ditch one to forestall such.
Wishful thinking on that, I know - but at least that probe has merit.
Thanks for your reply! And thanks for linking the Keen video! Made a comment on that
thread.
As I wrote when the possibility of Trump's impeachment arose almost as soon as he was
inaugurated, the entire charade reminds me of Slick Willie's impeachment, trial and
exoneration--the Articles of Impeachment utilized were such that he'd avoid conviction just
as they will be for Trump.
Allen @ 3 said; "The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist
to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly
bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential
service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere
existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and
this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a
"democracy."
With very few exceptions, you nailed it..Your description of the Dem. party is sad, but
true.....
Not having much time to watch the show trial it appears to me the Democrats still have a set
of very weak candidates. Anyone who knows Biden knows he in not now and never will be able to
handle a campaign against Trump.
Trump is up against an entrenched powerful bureaucracy and people who buy ink by the
55 gallon barrel. The democrats need to take a hard turn towards Mayor Pete and Tulsi. The
rank and file Democrats are tired of the elite political class in the same fashion that
the rank and file Republicans were tired of the political establishment which caused then to
turn to Trump.
Is the Democrat political establishment smart enough to take a few steps back and push
forward some outsiders? I doubt that but they would not lose much if they did. Any new
leaders would have the same stable of bureaucrats to pick from which will still be there long
after they are gone.
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.
He could lay out his story about how the American People never got to hear the full
story because of house dems, and how the Senate would fully investigate the 2016 election,
Russiagate, Ukraine, and whatever else they want. Maybe even make Hillary testify. Heads
would explode and his base would love it.
The...***The***...core takeaway, the battle at the heart of Russiagate/Ukrainegate, is that
it does not matter who the People elect as President and what platform he was elected on the
Deep State will decide foreign policy.
democrats republicans makes no difference both teams are managed by self serving scum who
refuse to allow "what the people want" to distract them from the big one. "what can I
steal?".
People meed to appreciate two things about both the dems and the rethugs. The first is
they supply a much-needed insight into: "How low can I go as a worthless hang off the wagon
by me fingernails, careerist. The second? That every hack must understand that eventually
every talking head is seen for the ugly sellout which they are.
There is no 'honourable way through this mess', one either quietly resigns pulling the pin
on the worst of us all, or one accepts the previously unacceptable, that we are most likely
both musically n functionally illiterate but it never matters what-u-say, what really counts
is what you do.
Whoever it was the Democrats should shun that person before it creates more damage to
their party.
I would disagree here. If the Democrats continue they will destroy themselves hopefully
leading to Mutually Assured Destruction as they would need to do something very drastic to
destroy the Republicans in return e.g. expose 9/11, Iraq etc, let the swamp / Deep State go
M.A.D. and from the political ashes parties and politicians can rise who are actually working
for the betterment of the USA and its people.
To the people here clamoring for Bernie Sanders to go independent: The American
electoral system is very unique. The two parties -- GOP and Dems -- are much more than mere
political parties: they are the American electoral machine itself. It is impossible to win
the presidency without being the candidate of one of the two, that's why Trump also didn't go
as an independent either.
Bernie Sanders is different from all other independent presidential candidates in American
History because he was the first to really want to win. That's why he penetrated the
Democratic machine, even though he became senator many times as an independent. He read the
conjuncture correctly and, you have to agree, he's been more influential over American
political-ideological landscape than all the other independents put together (not considering
Eugene Debs as an independent).
American "Democracy" is a mask for the American Empire and its capitalist
system--including especially the American Military and its Intelligence apparatus (aka The
Deep State). If the American people don't identify with these institutions, you would see
much greater hostility to--if not outright rebellion against--the American military and
spooks.
Instead, you see the very opposite: the American people saluting, glorifying, "thanking
for their service," and politically fellating the US military and spy agencies every chance
they get.
That should tell you all you need to know about Americans. by: AK74 @ 34
<= No not yet do I agree with you.. The American young people are forced into the
military in order to afford to be educated, and in order to have access to health care and
good-level workforce entry jobs especially the military is default for children of struggling
parents that cannot fund a college education or for the kids who are not yet ready to become
serious students.
The USA has not always discounted America or denied Americans. When I grew up, a college
education was very affordable, health care was available to even the most needy at whatever
they could afford, most of us could work our way through the education and find decent entry
level jobs if we were willing to dedicate ourselves to make the opportunity of a job into a
success (education, degrees, licenses were not needed, just performance was enough).
Unfortunately third party private mind control propaganda was used to extend into fake space,
the belief that the USA provides a valuable service to American interest. As time went on,
the USA had to hid its activities in top secret closets, it then had to learn to spy on
everyone, and it had to prosecute those (whistle blowers) who raised a question. Hence the
predicament of the awaken American dealing with friends that still believe the USA is good
for America.. Others hope the good times will return but the USA tolerance for descent is
dissipating. After the 16th amendment and the federal reserve act in 1913 the USA began to
edge America out in favor of international globalization.
Most of the really important parts of what made the USA great for Americans has been sold
off [privatized] and the protections and umpiring and refereeing that the USA used to provide
to keep the American economic space highly competitive and freely accessible to all
competitors has not only ceased, but now operates as a monopoly factory, churning out laws,
rules and establishing agencies that make the wealthy and their corporate empires wealthier,
richer and more monopolistic at the expense of everyday Americans.
The USA began to drop America from its sights after WWII. The USA moved its efforts and
activities from American domestic concerns to global concerns in 1948, neglected its advance
and protect American ideology; it imposed the continental shelf act in 1954 and the EPA act
in 1972, in order to force American industry out of America (the oil business to Saudi Arabia
and OPEC); by 1985-95 most businesses operating in America were either forced to close or
forced to move to a cheap third world labor force places.. .<=the purpose is now clear, it
was to separate Americans from their industrial and manufacturing know-how and to block
American access to evolving technology . At first most Americans did not notice.
Many Americans are only now waking to the possibility that things topside have changed and
some are realizing just how vulnerable the US constitution has made the USA to outside
influence. .. thanks to the USA very little of good ole America remains. but the humanity
first instinct most Americans are born with remains mostly unchanged, even though the
globalist have decimated religious organizations, most Americans still believe their maker
will not look favorably on those who deny justice, democracy or who abuse mankind. The USA
has moved on, it has become a global empire, operating in a global space unknown to most
Americans. The USA has created a world of its own, it no longer needs domestic America, it
can use the people and resources of anyone anywhere in the world for its conquest.
The last two political campaigns for President were "Change=Obama" and "Make America Great
Again=Trump"; neither of these two would have succeeded if Americans did not feel the
problem.
"... As Mark Hemingway wrote for The Federalist, these people were mortified by the fact that Trump administration policy was made by Trump. In the words of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, Trump's Ukraine policy was "inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency" -- that is, the interagency process of which Vindman was a part. Yet as Hemingway added tartly, "Nobody elects an 'interagency consensus.'" ..."
"... The Washington Examiner ..."
"... Vindman's perspective "is a classic bureaucrat's view of government and the world." York then added, speaking of the fabled interagency process: ..."
"... okay, having heard these second- and third-hand allegations, I now agree we should impeach Trump. ..."
Still, it is possible to look back at the hearings and assess what went wrong for Team
Impeach. In a nutshell, House Democrats gambled that a procession of witnesses, most of them
careerists -- or, if one prefers, foreign service and military officers, yet still careerists
-- would deliver a knockout blow to Trump. Yet what emerged from their testimony was that,
well, they were bureaucrats .
As Mark
Hemingway wrote for The Federalist, these people were mortified by the fact that Trump
administration policy was made by Trump. In the words of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman,
Trump's Ukraine policy was "inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency" -- that
is, the interagency process of which Vindman was a part. Yet as Hemingway added tartly, "Nobody
elects an 'interagency consensus.'"
Indeed, as Byron
York of The Washington Examiner pointed out, Vindman's perspective "is a classic
bureaucrat's view of government and the world." York then added, speaking of the fabled
interagency process:
Needless to say, Trump does not do that sort of thing. The president is remarkably
freewheeling, unbureaucratic, and certainly not always consistent when it comes to making
policy. But he generally has a big goal in mind, and in any event, he is the president of the
United States. He, not the interagency, sets U.S. foreign policy.
In the words of Harry Truman, "The buck stops here ." Here, that is, at the desk of
the commander-in-chief, not in the cubicles of bureaucratic functionaries.
So now we begin to see how the Democrats made their mistake. Having gotten their inspiration
in the first place from that Deep State whistleblower, they then assumed they could carry on
their "investigation," relying on still more Deep Statists. But these individuals don't
typically make for good witnesses -- at least up to the level of convincing people to think,
okay, having heard these second- and third-hand allegations, I now agree we should impeach
Trump.
On November 25, Congressman Matt Gaetz poured
acid on the political effectiveness of the Democrats' chosen witnesses:
In the State Department people think there's only one way to do things. That they have to
do it through their precise diplomatic channels & only in the way they all learned going
to the same schools & working at the same think tanks.
Thus we can see a wide cleft here, between the delicate and precise culture of the
bureaucracy and the churning and heaving culture of the anti-bureaucracy, led by you-know-who.
For their part, the Democrats made the mistake of siding with the bureaucrats -- and when was
the last time a bureaucrat won an election, to say nothing of a national election?
In fact, if we peer down into that wide cleft, between bureaucratic super-ego and
presidential id, we see something even deeper than the Deep State -- we see the fundamental
workings of the human brain.
... ... ...
So lotsa luck, Democrats, if you pass impeachment in the House. That Senate trial, dominated
by Trumpy right-brained Republicans, won't be in the least bit woke, but it sure will be
lit.
James P. Pinkerton is a contributor to the Fox News Channel and a regular panelist on the
Fox "News Watch" show, the highest-rated media-critique show on television. He is a former
columnist for Newsday, and is the editor of SeriousMedicineStrategy.org. He has written for
publications ranging from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post,
The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, National Review, The New Republic, Foreign Affairs, Fortune,
The Huffington Post , and The Jerusalem Post . He is the author of What Comes
Next: The End of Big Government--and the New Paradigm Ahead (Hyperion: 1995). He worked in
the White House domestic policy offices of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and in
the 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1992 presidential campaigns. In 2008 he served as a senior adviser to
the Mike Huckabee for President Campaign. Married to the former Elizabeth Dial, he is a
graduate of Stanford University.
"... Authored by John Solomon via JohnSolomonReports.com, ..."
"... Daily intelligence reports from March through August 2019 on Ukraine's new president Volodymyr Zelensky and his relationship
with oligarchs and other key figures. ..."
"... State Department memos on U.S. funding given to the George Soros-backed group the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. ..."
"... The transcripts of Joe Biden's phone calls and meetings with Ukraine's president and prime minister from April 2014 to January
2017 when Hunter Biden served on the board of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... All documents from an Office of Special Counsel whistleblower investigation into unusual energy transactions in Ukraine. ..."
"... All FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and State Department documents concerning possible wrongdoing at Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... All documents from 2015-16 concerning the decision by the State Department's foreign aid funding arm, USAID, to pursue a joint
project with Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... All cables, memos and documents showing State Department's dealings with Burisma Holding representatives in 2015 and 2016.
..."
"... All contacts that the Energy Department, Justice Department or State Department had with Vice President Joe Biden's office
concerning Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden or business associate Devon Archer. ..."
"... All memos, emails and other documents concerning a possible U.S. embassy's request in spring 2019 to monitor the social media
activities and analytics of certain U.S. media personalities considered favorable to President Trump. ..."
"... All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning efforts by individual Ukrainian government officials to exert influence on
the 2016 U.S. election, including an anti-Trump Op-Ed written in August 2016 by Ukraine's ambassador to Washington or efforts to publicize
allegations against Paul Manafort. ..."
"... All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning contacts with a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa
and her dealings with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington or other Ukrainian figures. ..."
There are still wide swaths of documentation kept under wraps inside government agencies like the State Department that could
substantially alter the public's understanding of what has happened in the U.S.-Ukraine relationships now at the heart of the impeachment
probe.
As House Democrats mull whether to pursue impeachment articles and the GOP-led Senate braces for a possible trial, here are 12
tranches of government documents that could benefit the public if President Trump ordered them released, and the questions these
memos might answer.
Daily intelligence reports from March through August 2019 on Ukraine's new president Volodymyr Zelensky and his relationship
with oligarchs and other key figures. What was the CIA, FBI and U.S. Treasury Department telling Trump and other agencies
about Zelensky's ties to oligarchs like Igor Kolomoisky, the former head of Privatbank, and any concerns the International Monetary
Fund might have? Did any of these concerns reach the president's daily brief (PDB) or come up in the debate around resolving Ukraine
corruption and U.S. foreign aid?
CNBC ,
Reuters and
The Wall Street
Journal all have done recent reporting suggesting there might have been intelligence and IMF concerns that have not been fully
considered during the impeachment proceedings.
State Department memos detailing conversations between former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and former Ukrainian Prosecutor
General Yuriy Lutsenko . He says Yovanovitch raised the names of Ukrainians she did not want to see prosecuted during their first
meeting in 2016. She calls Lutsenko's account fiction. But State Department officials admit the U.S. embassy in Kiev did pressure
Ukrainian prosecutors not to target certain activists. Are there contemporaneous State Department memos detailing these conversations
and might they illuminate the dispute between Lutsenko and Yovanovitch that has become key to the impeachment hearings?
State Department memos on U.S. funding given to the George Soros-backed group the Anti-Corruption Action Centre.
There is documentary evidence that State provided funding to this group, that Ukrainian prosecutor sought to investigate whether
that aid was spent properly and that the U.S. embassy pressured Ukraine to stand down on that investigation. How much total did
State give to this group? Why was a federal agency giving money to a Soros-backed group? What did taxpayers get for their money
and were they any audits to ensure the money was spent properly? Were any of Ukrainian prosecutors' concerns legitimate?
The transcripts of Joe Biden's phone calls and meetings with Ukraine's president and prime minister from April 2014 to
January 2017 when Hunter Biden served on the board of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings. Did Burisma or Hunter Biden
ever come up in the calls? What did Biden say when he urged Ukraine to fire the prosecutor overseeing an investigation of Burisma?
Did any Ukrainian officials ever comment on Hunter Biden's role at the company? Was any official assessment done by U.S. agencies
to justify Biden's threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. aid if Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin wasn't fired?
All documents from an Office of Special Counsel whistleblower investigation into unusual energy transactions in Ukraine.
The U.S. government's main whistleblower office
is investigating allegations from a U.S Energy Department worker of possible wrongdoing in U.S.-supported Ukrainian energy
business. Who benefited in the United States and Ukraine from this alleged activity? Did Burisma gain any benefits from the conduct
described by the whistleblower?
OSC has concluded there is a "substantial likelihood of wrongdoing" involved in these activities.
All FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and State Department documents concerning possible wrongdoing at Burisma Holdings.
What did the U.S. know about allegations of corruption at the Ukrainian gas company and the efforts by the Ukrainian prosecutors
to investigate? Did U.S., Latvian, Cypriot or European financial authorities flag any suspicious transactions involving Burisma
or Americans during the time that Hunter Biden served on its board? Were any U.S. agencies monitoring, assisting or blocking the
various investigations? When Ukraine reopened the Burisma investigations in March 2019, what did U.S. officials do?
All documents from 2015-16 concerning the decision by the State Department's foreign aid funding arm, USAID, to pursue
a joint project with Burisma Holdings. State official
George Kent has testified he stopped this joint project because of concerns about Burisma's corruption reputation. Did Hunter
Biden or his American business partner Devon Archer have anything to do with seeking the project? What caused its abrupt end?
What issues did Kent identify as concerns and who did he alert in the White House, State or other agencies?
All cables, memos and documents showing State Department's dealings with Burisma Holding representatives in 2015 and 2016.
We now know that Ukrainian authorities escalated their investigation of Burisma Holdings in February 2016 by raiding the home
of the company's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Soon after, Burisma's American representatives
were pressing the State Department to help end the corruption allegations against the gas firm, specifically invoking Hunter
Biden's name. What did State officials do after being pressured by Burisma? Did the U.S. embassy in Kiev assist Burisma's efforts
to settle the corruption case against it? Who else in the U.S. government was being kept apprised?
All contacts that the Energy Department, Justice Department or State Department had with Vice President Joe Biden's office
concerning Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden or business associate Devon Archer. We now know that multiple State Department
officials believed Hunter Biden's association with Burisma created the appearance of a conflict of interest for the vice president,
and at least one official tried to contact Joe Biden's office to raise those concerns. What, if anything, did these Cabinet agencies
tell Joe Biden's office about the appearance concerns or the state of the various Ukrainian investigations into Burisma?
All memos, emails and other documents concerning a possible U.S. embassy's request in spring 2019 to monitor the social
media activities and analytics of certain U.S. media personalities considered favorable to President Trump. Did any such
monitoring occur? Was it requested by the American embassy in Kiev? Who ordered it? Why did it stop? Were any legal concerns raised?
All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning efforts by individual Ukrainian government officials to exert influence
on the 2016 U.S. election, including an anti-Trump Op-Ed written in August 2016 by Ukraine's ambassador to Washington or efforts
to publicize allegations against Paul Manafort. What did U.S. officials know about these efforts in 2016, and how did they
react? What were these federal agencies' reactions to a Ukrainian court decision in December 2018 suggesting some Ukrainian officials
had improperly meddled in the 2016 election?
All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning contacts with a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra
Chalupa and her dealings with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington or other Ukrainian figures. Did anyone in these U.S. government
agencies interview or have contact with Chalupa during the time the Ukraine embassy in Washington says she was seeking dirt in
2016 on Trump and Manafort?
"... 38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another 31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night. Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to scale back U.S. involvement overall. ..."
"... The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more support for negotiations and non-intervention: ..."
"... With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons ..."
"... There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they want. It is long past time that Washington started listening. ..."
he Eurasia Group Foundation's new survey of public
opinion on U.S. foreign policy finds that support for greater restraint continues to rise:
Americans favor a less aggressive foreign policy. The findings are consistent across a
number of foreign policy issues, and across generations and party lines.
The 2019 survey results show that most Americans support a more restrained foreign policy,
and it also shows an increase in that support since last year. There is very little support for
continuing the war in Afghanistan indefinitely, there is virtually no appetite for war with
Iran, and there is a decline in support for a hawkish sort of American exceptionalism. There is
still very little support for unilateral U.S. intervention for ostensibly humanitarian reasons,
and support for non-intervention has increased slightly:
In 2018, 45 percent of Americans chose restraint as their first choice. In 2019, that has
increased to 47 percent. Only 19 percent opt for a U.S.-led military response and 34 percent
favor a multilateral, UN-led approach to stop humanitarian abuses overseas.
38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another
31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of
Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that
there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night.
Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to
scale back U.S. involvement overall.
The report's working definition of American exceptionalism is a useful one: "American
exceptionalism is the belief that the foreign policy of the United States should be
unconstrained by the parochial interests or international rules which govern other countries."
This is not the only definition one might use, but it gets at the heart of what a lot of hawks
really mean when they use this phrase. While most Americans still say they subscribe to
American exceptionalism either because of what the U.S. represents or what it has done, there
is less support for these views than before. Among the youngest respondents (age 18-29), there
is now a clear majority that rejects this idea.
The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with
its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran
has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been
nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to
elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this
year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more
support for negotiations and non-intervention:
A strong majority of both Republicans and Democrats continue to seek a diplomatic
resolution involving either sanctions or the resumption of nuclear negotiations. This year,
there was an increase in the number of respondents across party lines who would want
negotiations to resume even if Iran is a nuclear power in the short term, and a bipartisan
increase in those who believe outright that Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons to
defend itself. So while Republicans might be more likely than Democrats to believe Iran
threatens peace in the Middle East, voters in neither party are eager to take a belligerent
stand against it.
With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against
Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons, and it
isn't doing that. It may be that the failure of the "maximum pressure" campaign has also
weakened support for sanctions. Support for the sanctions option dropped by almost 10 points
overall and plunged by more than 20 points among Republicans. In 2018, respondents were evenly
split between war and sanctions on one side or negotiations and non-intervention on the other.
This year, support for diplomacy and non-intervention in response to this imaginary nuclear
weapons program has grown to make up almost 60% of the total. If most Americans favor diplomacy
and non-intervention in this improbable scenario, it is safe to assume that there is even more
support for those options with the real Iranian government that isn't pursuing nuclear
weapons.
There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and
avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant
constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right
now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they
want. It is long past time that Washington started listening.
"... Despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, such people now enthusiastically whitewash the decades preceding Trump to turn it into a paragon of human liberty, justice and economic wonder. You don't have to look deep to understand that resistance liberals are now actually conservatives, brimming with nostalgia for the days before significant numbers of people became wise to what's been happening all along. ..."
"... Lying to yourself about history is one of the most dangerous things you can do. If you can't accept where we've been, and that Trump's election is a symptom of decades of rot as opposed to year zero of a dangerous new world, you'll never come to any useful conclusions ..."
"... Irrespective of what you think of Bernie Sanders and his policies, you can at least appreciate the fact his supporters focus on policy and real issues ..."
"... An illiberal democracy, also called a partial democracy, low intensity democracy, empty democracy, hybrid regime or guided democracy, is a governing system in which although elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties; thus it is not an "open society". There are many countries "that are categorized as neither 'free' nor 'not free', but as 'probably free', falling somewhere between democratic and nondemocratic regimes". This may be because a constitution limiting government powers exists, but those in power ignore its liberties, or because an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties does not exist. ..."
From a big picture perspective, the largest rift in American politics is between those
willing to admit reality and those clinging to a dishonest perception of a past that never
actually existed. Ironically, those who most frequently use "post-truth" to describe our
current era tend to be those with the most distorted view of what was really happening during
the Clinton/Bush/Obama reign.
Despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, such people now enthusiastically
whitewash the decades preceding Trump to turn it into a paragon of human liberty, justice and
economic wonder. You don't have to look deep to understand that resistance liberals are now
actually conservatives, brimming with nostalgia for the days before significant numbers of
people became wise to what's been happening all along.
They want to forget about the bipartisan coverup of Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11, all
the wars based on lies, and the indisputable imperial crimes disclosed by Wikileaks, Snowden
and others. They want to pretend Wall Street crooks weren't bailed out and made even more
powerful by the Bush/Obama tag team, despite ostensible ideological differences between the
two. They want to forget Epstein Didn't Kill Himself.
Lying to yourself about history is one of the most dangerous things you can do. If you can't
accept where we've been, and that Trump's election is a symptom of decades of rot as opposed to
year zero of a dangerous new world, you'll never come to any useful conclusions. As such, the
most meaningful fracture in American society today is between those who've accepted that we've
been lied to for a very long time, and those who think everything was perfectly fine before
Trump. There's no real room for a productive discussion between such groups because one of them
just wants to get rid of orange man, while the other is focused on what's to come. One side
actually believes a liberal world order existed in the recent past, while the other
fundamentally recognizes this was mostly propaganda based on myth.
Irrespective of what you think of Bernie Sanders and his policies, you can at least
appreciate the fact his supporters focus on policy and real issues. In contrast, resistance
liberals just desperately scramble to put up whoever they think can take us back to a
make-believe world of the recent past. This distinction is actually everything. It's the
difference between people who've at least rejected the status quo and those who want to rewind
history and perform a do-over of the past forty years.
A meaningful understanding that unites populists across the ideological spectrum is the
basic acceptance that the status quo is pernicious and unsalvageable, while the status
quo-promoting opposition focuses on Trump the man while conveniently ignoring the worst of his
policies because they're essentially just a continuation of Bush/Clinton/Obama. It's the most
shortsighted and destructive response to Trump imaginable. It's also why the Trump-era alliance
of corporate, imperialist Democrats and rightwing Bush-era neoconservatives makes perfect
sense, as twisted and deranged as it might seem at first. With some minor distinctions, these
people share nostalgia for the same thing.
This sort of political environment is extremely unhealthy because it places an intentional
and enormous pressure on everyone to choose between dedicating every fiber of your being to
removing Trump at all costs or supporting him. This anti-intellectualism promotes an ends
justifies the means attitude on all sides. In other words, it turns more and more people into
rhinoceroses.
Eugène Ionesco's masterpiece, Rhinoceros, is about a central European town where
the citizens turn, one by one, into rhinoceroses. Once changed, they do what rhinoceroses do,
which is rampage through the town, destroying everything in their path. People are a little
puzzled at first, what with their fellow citizens just turning into rampaging rhinos out of
the blue, but even that slight puzzlement fades quickly enough. Soon it's just the New
Normal. Soon it's just the way things are a good thing, even. Only one man resists the siren
call of rhinocerosness, and that choice brings nothing but pain and existential doubt, as he
is utterly profoundly alone.
A political environment where you're pressured to choose between some ridiculous binary of
"we must remove Trump at all costs" or go gung-ho MAGA, is a rhinoceros generating machine. The
only thing that happens when you channel your inner rhinoceros to defeat rhinoceroses, is you
get more rhinoceroses. And that's exactly what's happening.
The truth of the matter is the U.S. is an illiberal democracy in practice,
despite various myths to the contrary.
An illiberal democracy, also called a partial democracy, low intensity democracy, empty
democracy, hybrid regime or guided democracy, is a governing system in which although
elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who
exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties; thus it is not an "open society".
There are many countries "that are categorized as neither 'free' nor 'not free', but as
'probably free', falling somewhere between democratic and nondemocratic regimes". This may be
because a constitution limiting government powers exists, but those in power ignore its
liberties, or because an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties does not
exist.
It's not a new thing by any means, but it's getting worse by the day. Though many of us
remain in denial, the American response to various crises throughout the 21st century was
completely illiberal. As devastating as they were, the attacks of September 11, 2001 did
limited damage compared to the destruction caused by our insane response to them. Similarly,
any direct damage caused by the election and policies of Donald Trump pales in comparison to
the damage being done by the intelligence agency-led "resistance" to him.
So are we all rhinoceroses now?
We don't have to be. Turning into a rhinoceros happens easily if you're unaware of what's
happening and not grounded in principles, but ultimately it is a choice. The decision to
discard ethics and embrace dishonesty in order to achieve political ends is always a choice. As
such, the most daunting challenge we face now and in the chaotic years ahead is to become
better as others become worse. A new world is undoubtably on the horizon, but we don't yet know
what sort of world it'll be. It's either going to be a major improvement, or it'll go the other
way, but one thing's for certain -- it can't stay the way it is much longer.
If we embrace an ends justifies the means philosophy, it's going to be game over for a
generation. The moment you accept this tactic is the moment you stoop down to the level of your
adversaries and become just like them. It then becomes a free-for-all for tyrants where
everything is suddenly on the table and no deed is beyond the pale. It's happened many times
before and it can happen again. It's what happens when everyone turns into rhinoceroses.
* * *
If you enjoyed this, I suggest you check out the following 2017 posts. It's never been more
important to stay conscious and maintain a strong ethical framework.
Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade, and Tuesday's testimony before Adam's Schiff
Show by former NSC official Tim Morrison is just such an occasion. In spades!
In his opening statement, this paranoid moron uttered the following lunacy, and it's all
you need to know about what is really going on down in the Imperial City.
"I continue to believe Ukraine is on the front lines of a strategic competition
between the West and Vladimir Putin's revanchist Russia. Russia is a failing power, but it
is still a dangerous one. The United States aids Ukraine and her people so they can fight
Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here.
Folks, that just plain whacko. The Trump-hating Dems are so feverishly set on a POTUS
kill that they have enlisted a veritable posse of Russophobic, right-wing neocon cretins
– Morrison, Taylor, Kent, Vindman, among others – to finish off the
Donald.
But in so doing they have made official Washington's real beef against Trump crystal
clear; and it's not about the rule of law or abuse of presidential power or an impeachable
dereliction of duty.
To be sure, foolish politicians like Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the Clintonista
apparatus at the center of the Dem party are so overcome with inconsolable grief and anger
about losing the 2016 election to Trump that their sole purpose in life is to drive the
Donald from office. But that just makes them "useful idiots" or compliant handmaids of the
Deep State, which has a far more encompassing and consequential motivation.
To wit, whether out of naiveté, contrariness or just plain common sense, the Donald
has declined to embrace the War Party's Russian bogeyman and demonization of Putin. He
thereby threatens the Empire's raison d'être to the very core.
Indeed, that's the real reason for the whole concerted attack on Trump from the Russian
Collusion hoax, through the Mueller Investigation farce to the present UkraineGate and
impeachment inquisition. The Deep State deeply and profoundly fears that if Trump remains in
office – and especially if he is elected with a new mandate in 2020 – he might
actually make peace with Russia and Putin.
So in Part 1 we advert to the basics. Without the demonization of Russia, Ukraine would
be the no count failed state and cesspool of corruption it actually is, and not a purported
"front line" buffer against Russian aggression.
Likewise, it would not have been a recipient of vast US and western military and economic
aid – a condition that turned it into a honeypot for the kind of Washington influence
peddling which ensnared the Bidens, induced its officials to meddle in the 2016 US election,
and, in return, incited Trump's justifiable quest to get to the bottom of the malignancy that
has ensued.
So the starting point is to identify Russia for what it actually is: Namely, a
kleptocratic state sitting atop an aging, Vodka-chugging population and third-rate economy
with virtually zero capacity to project 21st century offensive military power beyond its own
borders.
That truth, of course, shatters the whole foundation of the Warfare State. It renders NATO
an obsolete relic and eviscerates the case for America's absurd $900 billion defense and
national security budget. And with the latter's demise, the fairest part of Washington's
imperial self-importance and unseemly national security spending-based prosperity would also
crumble.
But in their frenzied pursuit of the Donald's political scalp, the Dems may be
inadvertently sabotaging their Deep State masters. That's because the neocon knuckleheads
they are dragging out of the NSC and State Department woodwork are such bellicose simpletons
– just maybe their utterly preposterous testimony about the Russkie threat and
Ukrainian "front line" will wake up the somnolent American public to the absurdity of the
entire Cold War 2.0 campaign.
Indeed, you almost have to ask whether the bit about fighting the Russkies in the
Donbas rather than on the shores of New Jersey from Morrison's opening statement quoted above
was reprinted in the New York Times or The Onion ?
The fact is, the fearsome Russian bogeyman cited by Morrison yesterday – and
Ambassador Taylor, George Kent and Lt. Colonel Vindman previously – is a complete
chimera; and the notion that the cesspool of corruption in Ukraine is a strategic buffer
against Russian aggression is just plain idiocy.
Russia is actually an economic and industrial midget transformed beyond recognition by
relentless Warfare State propaganda. It is actually no more threatening to America's homeland
security than the Siberian land mass that Sarah Palin once espied from her front porch in
Alaska a decade ago.
After all, how could it be? The GDP of the New York City metro area alone is about $1.8
trillion, which is well more than Russia's 2018 GDP of $1.66 trillion. And that, in turn, is
just 8% of America's total GDP of $21.5 trillion.
Moreover, Russia' dwarf economy is composed largely of a vast oil and gas patch; a
multitude of nickel, copper, bauxite and vanadium mines; and some very large swatches of
wheat fields. That's not exactly the kind of high tech industrial platform on which a war
machine capable of threatening the good folks in Lincoln NE or Worchester MA is likely to be
erected.
And especially not when the Russian economy has been heading sharply south in dollar
purchasing terms for several years running.
GDP of Russia In Millions of USD
Indeed, in terms of manufacturing output, the comparison is just as stark. Russia's annual
manufacturing value added is currently about $200 billion compared to
$2.2 trillion for the US economy.
And that's not the half of it. Not only are Russia's vast hydrocarbon deposits and mines
likely to give out in the years ahead, but so are the livers of its Vodka-chugging work
force. That's a problem because according to a recent Brookings study, Russia's working age
population – even supplemented by substantial in-migration and guest worker programs
– is heading south as far into the future as the eye can see.
Even in the Brookings medium case projection shown below, Russia's working age population
will be nearly 20% smaller than today by 2050. Yet today's figure of about 85 million is
already just a fraction of the US working age population of 255 million.
Russia's Shrinking Work Force
Not surprisingly, Russia's pint-sized economy can not support a military establishment
anywhere near to that of Imperial Washington. To wit, its $61 billion of
military outlays in 2018 amounted to less than 32 days of Washington's current
$750 billion of expenditures for defense.
Indeed, it might well be asked how Russia could remotely threaten homeland security in
America short of what would be a suicidal nuclear first strike.
That's because the 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons on each side represent a continuation
of mutual deterrence (MAD) – the arrangement by which we we got through 45-years of
cold war when the Kremlin was run by a totalitarian oligarchy committed to a hostile
ideology; and during which time it had been armed to the teeth via a forced-draft allocation
of upwards of 40% of the GDP of the Soviet empire to the military.
By comparison, the Russian defense budget currently amounts to less than 4% of the
country's anemic present day economy – one shorn of the vast territories and
populations of Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and all the Asian "stans"
among others. Yet given those realities we are supposed to believe that the self-evidently
calculating and cautious kleptomaniac who runs the Kremlin is going to go mad, defy MAD and
trigger a nuclear Armageddon?
Indeed, the idea that Russia presents a national security threat to America is laughable.
Not only would Putin never risk nuclear suicide, but even that fantasy is the extent of what
he's got. That is, Russia's conventional capacity to project force to the North American
continent is nonexistent – or at best, lies somewhere between nichts and nothing.
For example, in today's world you do not invade any foreign continent without massive sea
power projection capacity in the form of aircraft carrier strike groups. These units consist
of an armada of lethal escort ships, a fleet of aircraft, massive suites of electronics
warfare capability and the ability to launch hundreds of cruise missiles and other smart
weapons.
Each US aircraft carrier based strike group, in fact, is composed of roughly 7,500
personnel, at least one cruiser, a squadron of destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air
wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. A carrier strike group also sometimes includes submarines and
attached logistics ships.
The US has eleven such carrier strike groups. Russia has zero
modern carrier strike groups and one beat-up, smoky old (diesel) aircraft carrier that the
Israeli paper, Haaretz, described as follows when it recently entered the
Mediterranean:
Russia's only aircraft carrier, a leftover from the days of Soviet power, carries a
long history of mishaps, at sea and in port, and diesel engines which were built for Russia's
cold waters – as shown by the column of black smoke raising above it. It needs frequent
refueling and resupplies and has never been operationally tested.
Indeed, from our 19th floor apartment on the East River in NYC, even we could see this
smoke belcher coming up Long Island Sound with an unaided eye – with no help needed at
all from the high tech spyware of the nation's $80 billion intelligence apparatus.
Yet Morrison had the audacity to say before a committee of the U.S. House that we are
aiding Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russians on the banks of the East River or the
Potomac!
For want of doubt, just compare the above image of the Admiral Kuznetsov belching smoke in
the Mediterranean with that of the Gerald R. Ford CVN 48 next below.
The latter is the US Navy's new $13 billion aircraft carrier and is the most
technologically advanced warship ever built.
The contrast shown below serves as a proxy for the vastly inferior capability of the
limited number of ships and planes in Russia's conventional force. What it does have
numerical superiority in is tanks – but alas they are not amphibious nor
ocean-capable!
Likewise, nobody invades anybody without massive airpower and the ability to project it
across thousands of miles of oceans via vast logistics and air-refueling capabilities.
On that score, the US has 6,100 helicopters to Russia's 1,200 and 6,000 fixed wing
fighter and attack aircraft versus Russia's 2,100. More importantly, the US has 5,700
transport and airlift aircraft compared to just 1,100 for Russia.
In short, the idea that Russia is a military threat to the US homeland is ludicrous.
Russia is essentially a landlocked military shadow of the former Soviet war machine. Indeed,
for the world's only globe-spanning imperial power to remonstrate about an aggressive threat
from Moscow is a prime facie case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Moreover, the canard that Washington's massive conventional armada is needed to defend
Europe is risible nonsense. Europe can and should take care of its own security and
relationship with its neighbor on the Eurasian continent.
After all, the GDP of NATO Europe is $18 trillion or 12X greater than that of Russia, and
the current military budgets of European NATO members total about $280 billion or 4X more
than that of Russia.
More importantly, the European nations and people really do not have any quarrel with
Putin's Russia, nor is their security and safety threatened by the latter. All of the
tensions that do exist and have come to a head since the illegal coup in Kiev in February
2014 were fomented by Imperial Washington and its European subalterns in the NATO
machinery.
Then again, the latter is absolutely the most useless, obsolete, wasteful and dangerous
multilateral institution in the present world. But like the proverbial clothes-less emperor,
NATO doesn't dare risk having the purportedly "uninformed" amateur in the Oval Office
pointing out its buck naked behind.
So the NATO subservient think tanks and establishment policy apparatchiks are harrumphing
up a storm, but for crying out loud most of Europe's elected politicians are in on the joke.
They are fiscally swamped paying for their Welfare States and are not about to squeeze their
budgets or taxpayers to fund military muscle against a nonexistent threat.
Finally an American president has woken up to the fact that World War II, not to mention
the cold war, is over: there's no need for US troops to occupy Germany. Vladimir Putin
isn't going to march into Berlin in a reenactment of the Red Army taking the Fuehrer-bunker
– but even if he were so inclined, why won't Germany defend itself?
Exactly. If their history proves anything, Germans are not a nation of pacifists, meekly
willing to bend-over in the face of real aggressors. Yet they spent the paltry sum of
$43 billion on defense during 2018, or barely 1.1% of Germany's $4.0 trillion
GDP, which happens to be roughly three times bigger than Russia's.
In short, the policy action of the German government tells you they don't think Putin is
about to invade the Rhineland or retake the Brandenburg Gate.
And this live action testimonial also trumps, as it were, all of the risible alarms that
have emanated from the beltway think tanks and the 4,000 NATO bureaucrats talking their own
book in behalf of their plush Brussels sinecures.
And as we will outline in Part 2, that's what Washington's Ukraine intervention is all
about, and why the Donald's efforts to get to the bottom of that cesspool has brought on the
final Deep State assault against his presidency.
Part 2
In Part 1 we dispatched UkraineGater Tim Morrison's preposterous suggestion that
Washington is helping Kiev subdue the Donbas so we won't have Russkies coming up the East
River.
Yet his related claim that Ukraine is a victim of Russian aggression is even more
ludicrous. The actual aggression in that godforsaken corner of the planet came from
Washington when it instigated, funded, engineered and recognized the putsch on the streets of
Kiev during February 2014, which illegally overthrew the duly elected President of Ukraine on
the grounds that he was too friendly with Moscow.
Thus, Morrison risibly asserted that,
Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty has been a bipartisan
objective since Russia's military invasion in 2014. It must continue to be.
The fact is, when the Maidan uprising occurred in February that year there were no
uninvited Russian troops anywhere in Ukraine. Putin was actually sitting in his box on the
viewing stand, presiding over the Winter Olympics in Sochi and basking in the limelight of
global attention that they commanded .
It was only weeks later – when the Washington-installed ultra-nationalist
government with its neo-Nazi vanguard threatened the Russian-speaking populations of Crimea
and the Donbas – that Putin moved to defend Russian interests on his own doorstep. And
those interests included Russia's primary national security asset – the naval base at
Sevastopol in Crimea which had been the homeport of the Russian Black Sea Fleet for centuries
under czars and commissars alike, and on which Russia had a long-term lease.
We untangle the truth of the crucial events which surrounded the Kiev putsch in greater
detail below, but suffice it here to note the whole gang of neocon apparatchiks which have
been paraded before the Schiff Show have proffered the same Big Lie as did Morrison in the
"invasion" quote cited above.
As the ever perspicacious Robert Merry observed regarding the previous testimony of
Ambassador Bill Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, the Washington
rendition of the Maidan coup and its aftermath amounts to a blatant falsehood:
The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that
dominates thinking within elite circles. Taylor's rendition of recent events in Ukraine was
so one-sided and selective as to amount to a falsehood.
As he had it, Ukraine's turn to the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his
first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an extent that he
tried to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence,
whereupon protests emerged in Kyiv that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country
in 2014. Then Putin invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point of Russian army
rifles." Putin sent military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed
formations and puppet governments." And so the West extended military assistance to
Ukraine.
"It is this security assistance," he said, "that is at the heart of the [impeachment]
controversy that we are discussing today."
Taylor's right that this narrative is at the center of UkraineGate, but there is not a
shred of truth to it. Nevertheless, defense of this false narrative, and the inappropriate
military and economic aid to Ukraine which flowed from it, is the real reason this posse of
neocon stooges took exception to the Donald's legitimate interest in investigating the Bidens
and the events of 2016.
As Morrison put it Tuesday and Vindman said last week, their interest was in protecting
not the constitution and the rule of law, but the bipartisan political consensus on Capitol
Hill in favor of their proxy war on Putin and the Ukraine aid package through which it was
being prosecuted.
As I stated during my deposition, I feared at the time of the call on July 25 how its
disclosure would play in Washington's political climate. My fears have been realized.
Not surprisingly, the entire Washington establishment has been sucked into this scam. For
instance, the insufferably sanctimonious Peggy Noonan used her Wall Street Journal
platform to idolize these liars.
As she portrayed it, bow-tie bedecked George P. Kent appeared to be the very picture of
the old-school American foreign service official. And West Pointer Bill Taylor – with a
military career going back to (dubious) Vietnam heroism – was redolent of the
blunt-spoken American military men who won WW II and the cold war which followed.
As Robert Merry further noted,
She saw them as "the old America reasserting itself." They demonstrated "stature and
command of their subject matter." They evinced "capability and integrity."
Oh, puleeze!
What they evinced was nothing more than the self-serving groupthink that has turned
Ukraine into a beltway goldmine. That is, a cornucopia of funding for all the think tanks,
NGOs, foreign policy experts, national security contractors and Warfare State agencies
– from DOD through the State Department, AID, the National Endowment for Democracy, the
Board for International Broadcasting and countless more – which ply their trade in the
Imperial City.
But Robert Merry got it right. These cats are not noble public servants and heroes;
they're apparatchiks and payrollers aggrandizing their own power and pelf – even as
they lead the nation to the brink of disaster:
But these men embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous. Perhaps no serious blame should accrue to them, since it is the same
geopolitical outlook embraced and enforced by pretty much the entire foreign policy
establishment, of which these men are mere loyal apparatchiks. And yet they are playing
their part in pushing a foreign policy that is directing America towards a very possible
disaster.
Neither man manifested even an inkling of an understanding of what kind of game the
United States in playing with Ukraine. Neither gave even a nod to the long, complex
relationship between Ukraine and Russia. Neither seemed to understand either the substance
or the intensity of Russia's geopolitical interests along its own borders or the likely
consequences of increasing U.S. meddling in what for centuries has been part of Russia's
sphere of influence.
They obviously didn't get it, but we must. So let us summarize the true Ukraine story,
starting with the utterly stupid and historically ignorant reason for Washington's February
2014 coup.
Namely, it objected to the decision of Ukraine's prior government in late 2013 to align
itself economically and politically with its historic hegemon in Moscow rather than the
European Union and NATO. Yet the fairly elected and constitutionally legitimate government of
Ukraine then led by Viktor Yanukovych had gone that route mainly because it got a better deal
from Moscow than was being demanded by the fiscal torture artists of the IMF.
Needless to say, the ensuing US sponsored putsch arising from the mobs on the street of
Kiev reopened deep national wounds. Ukraine's bitter divide between Russian-speakers in the
east and Ukrainian nationalists elsewhere dates back to Stalin's brutal rein in Ukraine
during the 1930s and Ukrainian collusion with Hitler's Wehrmacht on its way to Stalingrad and
back during the 1940s.
It was the memory of the latter nightmare, in fact, which triggered the fear-driven
outbreak of Russian separatism in the Donbas and the 96% referendum vote in Crimea in March
2014 to formally re-affiliate with Mother Russia.
In this context, even a passing familiarity with Russian history and geography would
remind that Ukraine and Crimea are Moscow's business, not Washington's.
In the first place, there is nothing at stake in the Ukraine that matters. During the last
800 years it has been a meandering set of borders in search of a country.
In fact, the intervals in which the Ukraine existed as an independent nation have been few
and far between. Invariably, its rulers, petty potentates and corrupt politicians made deals
with or surrendered to every outside power that came along.
These included the Lithuanians, Poles, Ruthenians (eastern Slavs), Tartars, Turks,
Muscovites, Austrians and Czars, among manifold others.
At the beginning of the 16th century, for instance, the territory of today's Ukraine was
scattered largely among the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia (light brown area), the
Kingdom of Poland (dark brown area), Muscovy (bright yellow area) the Crimean Khanate (light
yellow area).
The latter was the entity which emerged when some clans of the Golden Horde (Tartars)
ceased their nomadic life on the Asian steppes and occupied the light yellow stripped areas
of the map north of the Black Sea as their Yurt (homeland).
From that cold start, the tiny Cossack principality of Ukraine (blue area below), which
had emerged by 1654, grew significantly over the subsequent three centuries. But as the map
also makes clear, this did not reflect the organic congealment of a nation of kindred volk
sharing common linguistic and ethnic roots, but the machinations of Czars and Commissars for
the administrative convenience of efficiently ruling their conquests and vassals.
Thus, much of modern Ukraine was incorporated by the Russian Czars between 1654 and 1917
per the yellow area of the map and functioned as vassal states. These territories were
amalgamated by absolute monarchs who ruled by the mandate of God and the often brutal sword
of their own armies.
In particular, much of the purple area was known as "Novo Russia" (Novorossiya) during the
18th and 19th century owing to the Czarist policy of relocating Russian populations to
the north of the Black Sea as a bulwark against the Ottomans. But after Lenin seized power in
St. Petersburg in November 1917 amidst the wreckage of Czarist Russia, an ensuing civil war
between the so-called White Russians and the Red Bolsheviks raged for several years in these
territories and elsewhere in the chaotic regions of the former western Russian Empire.
At length, Lenin won the civil war as the French, British, Polish and American contingents
vacated the postwar struggle for power in Russia. Accordingly, in 1922 the new Communist
rulers proclaimed the Union of Soviet Social Republics (USSR) and incorporated Novo Russia
into one of its four constituent units as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR)
– along with the Russian, Belarus and Transcaucasian SSRs.
Thereafter the border and political status of Ukraine remained unchanged until the
infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Pursuant thereto
the Red Army and Nazi Germany invaded and dismembered Poland, with Stalin getting the blue
areas (Volhynia and parts of Galicia) as consolation prizes, which where then incorporated
into the Ukrainian SSR.
Finally, when Uncle Joe Stalin died and Nikita Khrushchev won the bloody succession
struggle in 1954, he transferred Crimea (red area) to the Ukraine SSR as a reward to his
supporters in Kiev. That, of course, was the arbitrary writ of the Soviet Presidium, given
that precious few Ukrainians actually lived in what had been a integral part of Czarist
Russia after it was purchased by Catherine the Great from the Turks in 1783.
In a word, the borders of modern Ukraine are the handiwork of Czarist emperors and
Communist butchers. The so-called international rule of law had absolutely nothing to
do with its gestation and upbringing.
It's a pity, therefore, that none of the so-called conservative Republicans attending
Adam's Schiff Show saw fit to ask young Tim Morrison the obvious question.
To wit, exactly why is he (and most of the Washington foreign policy establishment) so
keen on expending American treasure, weapons and even blood in behalf of the "territorial
integrity and sovereignty" of this happenstance amalgamation of people subdued by some of
history's most despicable tyrants?
Needless to say, owing to this very history, the linguistic/ethnic composition of today's
Ukraine does not reflect the congealment of a "nation" in the historic sense.
To the contrary, central and western Ukraine is populated by ethnic Ukrainians who speak
Ukrainian (dark red area), whereas the two parts of the country allegedly the victim of
Russian aggression and occupation – Crimea (brown area) and the eastern Donbas region
(yellow area with brown strips) – are comprised of ethnic Russians who speak Russian
and ethnic Ukrainians who predominately speak-Russian, respectively.
And much of the rest of the territory consists of admixtures and various Romanian,
Moldovan, Hungarian and Bulgarian minorities.
Did the Washington neocons – led by Senator McCain and Assistant Secretary Victoria
Nuland – who triggered the Ukrainian civil war with their coup on the streets of Kiev
in February 2014 consider the implications of the map below and its embedded, and often
bloody, history?
Quite surely, they did not.
Nor did they consider the rest of the map. That is, the enveloping Russian state all
around to which the parts and pieces of Ukraine – especially the Donbas and Crimea
– have been intimately connected for centuries. Robert Merry thus further noted,
As Nikolas K. Gvosdev of the US Naval War College has written, Russia and Ukraine
share a 1,500-mile border where Ukraine "nestles up against the soft underbelly of the
Russian Federation." Gvosdev elaborates: "The worst nightmare of the Russian General Staff
would be NATO forces deployed all along this frontier, which would put the core of Russia's
population and industrial capacity at risk of being quickly and suddenly overrun in the
event of any conflict." Beyond that crucial strategic concern, the two countries share
strong economic, trade, cultural, ethnic, and language ties going back centuries. No
Russian leader of any stripe would survive as leader if he or she were to allow Ukraine to
be wrested fully from Russia's sphere of influence.
And yet America, in furtherance of the ultimate aim of pulling Ukraine away from
Russia, spent some $5 billion in a campaign to gin up pro-Western sentiment there,
according to former assistant secretary of state for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who
spearheaded much of this effort during the Obama administration. It was clearly a blatant
effort to interfere in the domestic politics of a foreign nation – and a nation
residing in a delicate and easily inflamed part of the world.
Indeed, Ukraine is a tragically divided country and fissured simulacrum of a nation.
Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard called Ukraine "a cleft country, with two distinct
cultures" causing Robert Merry to rightly observe that,
Contrary to Taylor's false portrayal of an aggressive Russia trampling on eastern
Ukrainians by setting up puppet governments and manufacturing a bogus referendum in Crimea,
the reality is that large numbers of Ukrainians there favor Russia and feel loyalty to what
they consider their Russian heritage. The Crimean public is 70 percent Russian, and its
Parliament in 1992 actually voted to declare independence from Ukraine for fear that the
national leadership would nudge the country toward the West. (The vote was later rescinded
to avoid a violent national confrontation.) In 1994, Crimea elected a president who had
campaigned on a platform of "unity with Russia."
In short, in modern times Ukraine largely functioned as an integral part of Mother Russia,
serving as its breadbasket and iron and steel crucible under czars and commissars alike.
Given this history, the idea that Ukraine should be actively and aggressively induced to join
NATO was just plain nuts, as we will amplify further in Part 3 (to come).
"... "US Officials" say the Bidens are pure in heart and deed? Hah! Is it not clear that The Borg (foreign policy establishment) hate Donald Trump and will say anything possible to injure him? ..."
"... "Debunked," "Discredited," "Conspiracy theories?" Trickery in the press is the real truth , trickery intended to protect the only viable candidate in the Democratic Party field. ..."
"... Lutsenko has had a pretty sketchy career, including charges of abuse of power, forgery and embezzlement among other things. https://heavy.com/news/2019/11/yuriy-lutsenko/ It's telling that Democrats and the mainstream media choose to cite such a character as their primary source for evidence that the Bidens did nothing wrong. Reminds me of Mark Twains old adage: "An honest politician is one who, once he's been bought, stays bought." More recently it seems that his loyalties have shifted, accusing Yovanovitch of giving him a list of people who should be protected. ..."
"... It's not really that complicated an inquiry to decide whether there is a need to go further; two questions: what did Hunter Biden do for the money; and Joe, did you get the Ukrainian prosecutor fired as you bragged you did, and why? Maybe throw in a third if the answer is "I did", what or who made you think that you could do that? ..."
"Graham's conspiracy theory-based investigation is rooted in the
baseless allegation that Biden pressured Ukraine to remove a corrupt prosecutor in 2016
as a way to protect Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, against a corruption probe. Biden's
son Hunter was previously a board member with Burisma until April this year.
There is no evidence to support allegations that Biden acted improperly in calling for the
prosecutor general in charge of the Burisma probe to be ousted, and both Ukrainian and U.S.
officials have said there is no merit to the claim. As many have since noted, the Burisma
investigation was in fact dormant when the prosecutor general was forced out on accusations
he was slow-walking corruption probes, among other things.
Trump brought up that debunked conspiracy during a July 25 call with Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelenskiy, asking the Ukrainian government to investigate Biden as well as a
baseless conspiracy involving the Democratic National Committee servers."
"Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality
of belief. Much debate in epistemology centers on four areas:
(3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and
(4) the criteria for knowledge and justification.
Epistemology addresses such questions as: "What makes justified beliefs justified?" " What
does it mean to say that we know something? ", and fundamentally "How do we know that we
know?"
~ wiki on epistemology
-------------
As in the example above from the "American Independent," the MSM and online projects like
the American Independent incessantly insist that the simple fact that Hunter Biden and his dear
old dad, a "Union Man," solicited money in Ukraine and in China for services not rendered
proves nothing, that nothing has been proven against them and that any mention of these
occurrences is evidence of harsh partisan rhetoric based on fantasy and equivalent to belief in
the Loch Ness Monster.
Well, pilgrims I want to know who and what investigation or investigations cleared the
Bidens of anything.
It is obvious that Hunter is qualified for employment as a bag man and not much else. He has
a law degree? So what? As in the matter of the qualifications of doctors, not all learn much in
medical or law school.
"US Officials" say the Bidens are pure in heart and deed? Hah! Is it not clear that The Borg
(foreign policy establishment) hate Donald Trump and will say anything possible to injure
him?
"Debunked," "Discredited," "Conspiracy theories?" Trickery in the press is the real truth , trickery intended to protect the only viable
candidate in the Democratic Party field.
The article highlighted here, typically, is a lie. As documented in Moon of Alabama's
timeline (
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/11/a-timeline-of-joe-bidens-intervention-against-the-prosecutor-general-of-ukraine.html),
Shokin was actively investigating Zlochevsky in February 2016, when Shokin seized his luxury
car. Barely two weeks later, Biden was on the phone to Poroshenko demanding Shokin's firing.
While this doesn't prove that Biden was motivated primarily by a desire to protect his son's
employer, it is certainly consistent with that possibility.
John Solomon has been very much in the lead on reporting from Ukraine which furthers what the
MSM calls "conspiracy theories".
While he earlier reported, or opined, from The Hill,
now he evidently has been bumped (my opinion) from that perch,
and now has own blog John Solomon Report : https://johnsolomonreports.com/
It is tragic, IMO, how the MSM ignores the facts that Solomon documents in his
columns.
It is possible that JS is a mouthpiece for corrupt elements in Ukraine,
but I think his points deserve more attention than they have been getting.
There are two sides to this story, not only one as Col. Lang pointed out in his root
piece.
I recall that the Russiagate conspiracy theory was "proven" factual as well, and by many of
the same people who claim that Biden's corruption has been "debunked". Even though it was
absurd on its face and had been debunked numerous times, many people in fact continue to
insist otherwise.
Seriously....who would think Biden's son taking a highly paid position with a company in a
foreign country that Biden was representing the US in wasn't a conflict of interest? Even the
'appearance' of a conflict of interest should be avoided in such situations.
I find Biden and his political 'career', greased by his 'good old Joe act' disgusting in so
many ways it would take too long to describe them here.
The media really seems to be testing the limits of disinformation. More and more, the media
wants to convince people that black is white and up is down. Fortunately, I don't think their
plan is working all that well.
In the case of Hunter Biden, we are told that "There is no evidence to support allegations
that Biden acted improperly".
Okay, that's one way to look at things, but I have found that even among my liberal
friends, the fetid smell of corruption emitting from this case, is overpowering. And while
most people might have a hard time sinking their teeth into a "quid pro quo", they do have a
pretty good grasp of old fashioned influence peddling, which is what we are talking
about.
So why has the media chosen to defend the crooked goings-on of public officials who were
obviously up to no good? Don't they care about their credibility at all?
Was the American Independent quote lifted from The NY Times? It sure sounds like it!
For some time I've been wondering how exactly Biden got cleared. Was there any formal
investigation? Who conducted it? And how reliable are the facts when they come from a place
like Ukraine, where anything, including the 'truth,' can be laundered?
What's become painfully obvious is how eagerly America's major news outlets, including the
journals of record, participate in the laundering of truth.
Of course, that should have been obvious from the yellow journalism preceding the war in
Iraq.
What's really scary are reports that "intelligence" services get most of their 'facts'
from the very same truth laundering sources.
I always got the impression the "wild, debunked conspiracy theory pushed by right wing nuts"
was always referring to the Crowdstrike DNC computer investigation hoax that Trump tried to
re-open.
They would never specifically refer to the Crowdstrike favor Trump specifically asked for
in the phone call, instead they would substitute Trump asked about some "debunked, wild right
wing conspiracy".
So they never explained how the Crowdstrike investigation hoax was debunked either.
To me this is far more interesting missing debunked conspiracy link - since it shows
incredible coordination between the DNC, the "leak" of their DNC computer data, Ukrainian
Crowdstrike, and finally the Mueller Report who used the DNC Crowdstrike investigation
conclusoin hook line and sinker to reach their own official conclusions which is now "proven"
operating dogma. Without ever doing an independent investigation themselves. How often does
that happen?
To me the Crowdstrike connection begs further investigation - why would a Russian hating
Ukrainian who was running Crowdstrike point the finger at the Russians and claim they
"hacked" the DNC computers, but not let anyone else touch those same computers to corroborate
that conclusion?
And then parlay this into Trump supporting Russian interference in the 2016 election. All
too tidy for me. Feels like dark forces are still at work, and subverting language to achieve
their ends.
Whatever happened to Joe Biden's taped boast, at the Council on Foreign Relations, that he
gave President Poroshenko 6 hours to fire Prosecutor Shokin -- or else lose $1 Billion of US
aid ?
How was this taped confession of QUID-PRO-QUO debunked ?
The media (approx. 99% of them) have been in the tank for Democrats since at least the
Vietnam war.
Roger Ailes said why he didn't read the NY Times:
"You cover the bad news about America. You do. But you don't get up in the morning hating
your country."
Eight days later Joe Biden launched an intense pressure campaign to get rid of Shokin. He
personally calls Poroshenko on Feb 12, 18 and 19 to press for firing Shokin.
To think that this is unrelated is not reasonable.
The rest of the
timeline shows further Biden influence in the case.
(I should update that timeline as a lot of additional evidence of Burisma lobbying State
at that time has since come in.)
There are tons of additional dirt. The U.S. has control over the National Anti-Corruption
Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and uses it to push all such investigations to its favor. NABU has
itself been involved in serious corruption.
There is also a USAID/Soros paid NGO that has a similar function and is equally corrupt.
These organizations are used as weapons to put all Ukrainian assets into the hands of
those that the U.S. embassy likes.
Lutsenko was the guy who was appointed as Prosecutor General after Biden got the previous
one fired. IOW Lutsenko owed his job to Biden.
Lutsenko has had a pretty sketchy career, including charges of abuse of power, forgery and
embezzlement among other things. https://heavy.com/news/2019/11/yuriy-lutsenko/ It's telling that Democrats and the mainstream media choose to cite such a character as
their primary source for evidence that the Bidens did nothing wrong. Reminds me of Mark Twains old adage: "An honest politician is one who, once he's been
bought, stays bought." More recently it seems that his loyalties have shifted, accusing
Yovanovitch of giving him a list of people who should be protected.
The only thing I can conclude is that Lutsenko is probably just trying to survive the
shifting tides in the Ukrainian swamp and will say or do whatever it takes.
"American Independent" is David Brock's Clinton / Soros linked Shareblue disinfo and troll
brigade rebranded. It will obviously tell every lie going to protect the corrupt Corporate Dem Establishment,
the Globalists and the Deep State. https://twitter.com/Ian56789/status/1198338991814250497
It's not really that complicated an inquiry to decide whether there is a need to go further;
two questions: what did Hunter Biden do for the money; and Joe, did you get the Ukrainian
prosecutor fired as you bragged you did, and why? Maybe throw in a third if the answer is "I
did", what or who made you think that you could do that?
"... She warned Republicans that legitimizing an unsubstantiated theory that Kyiv undertook a concerted campaign to interfere in the election – a claim the president pushed repeatedly for Ukraine to investigate – played into Russia's hands. ..."
"... "In the course of this investigation," Dr. Hill testified before the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment hearings, "I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests." ..."
"... government investigators examining secret records have found Manafort's name, as well as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr. Manafort's main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych. ..."
"... Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau . Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials. ..."
"... In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies .. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin. ..."
"... Mr. Manafort's involvement with moneyed interests in Russia and Ukraine had previously come to light. But as American relationships there become a rising issue in the presidential campaign – from Mr. Trump's favorable statements about Mr. Putin and his annexation of Crimea to the suspected Russian hacking of Democrats' emails – an examination of Mr. Manafort's activities offers new details of how he mixed politics and business out of public view and benefited from powerful interests now under scrutiny by the new government in Kiev. ..."
"... Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country. ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race .. ..."
"... But Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another's elections. ..."
"... While it's not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between governments and reporters, one of the more damaging Russia-related stories for the Trump campaign – and certainly for Manafort – can be traced more directly to the Ukrainian government. ..."
"... Needless to say, Fiona Hill is among the worst of the neocon warmongers, and has made a specialty of demonizing Russia and propagating over and over flat out lies about what happened in Kiev during 2014 and after. Thus, in one recent attack she claimed, ..."
"... "In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation's embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian empire." ..."
"... On April 26, 1954. The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR ..Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR . ..."
"... NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the expansion countries lying east of Germany. As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in NATO either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security. ..."
"... True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, to respond favorably to Western financial blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine, renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official status to the Russian language. These actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations aimed at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater economic ties to Russia, pro-Western Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria Nuland gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia. ..."
"... Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian coup, she shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position, demonstrating the influence that enables US meddling in foreign countries. ..."
"... That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine (the so-called Donbass in the country's east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated a plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly the "sham referendum" described by Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward. ..."
"... The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in the center of Eurasia – the global "heartland," in the view of the famous British geographic scholar Halford Mackinder – renders it always a potential threat. Its vulnerability to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands. Its national temperament seems to include a natural tendency towards authoritarianism. Any sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind. ..."
"... But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia, the Alliance has been the more aggressive player – aggressive when it pushed for NATO's eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the US government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the encirclement of Russia; aggressive when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian orbit with economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected Ukrainian government; and aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood. ..."
"... George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues and leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well. ..."
"... David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He's the author of three books, ..."
"... . He also is founder of David Stockman's Contra Corner and David Stockman's Bubble Finance Trader . ..."
It's beginning to seem like an assault by the Zulu army of American politics – they
just never stop coming.
We are referring to the Russophobic neocon Deep Staters who have trooped before Adam's
Schiff Show to pillory POTUS for daring to look into the Ukrainian stench that engulfs the
Imperial City – a rank odor that is owing to their own arrogant meddling in the the
internal affairs of that woebegone country.
This time it was Dr. Fiona Hill who sanctimoniously advised the House committee that there
is nothing to see on the Ukraine front that involved any legitimate matter of state; it was
just the Donald and his tinfoil hat chums jeopardizing the serious business of protecting the
national security by injecting electioneering into relations with Ukraine.
She warned Republicans that legitimizing an unsubstantiated theory that Kyiv undertook
a concerted campaign to interfere in the election – a claim the president pushed
repeatedly for Ukraine to investigate – played into Russia's hands.
"In the course of this investigation," Dr. Hill testified before the House Intelligence
Committee's impeachment hearings, "I would ask that you please not promote politically
driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests."
Folks, we are getting just plain sick and tired of this drumbeat of lies, misdirection and
smug condescension by Washington payrollers like Fiona Hill. No Ukrainian interference in the
2016 US election?
Exactly what hay wagon does she think we fell off from?
Or better still, ask Paul Manafort who will spend his golden years in the Big House owing
to an August 2016 leak to the New York Times about an alleged "black book"
which recorded payments he had received from his work as an advisor to the Ukrainian
political party of former president Yanakovych. As we have seen, the latter had been removed
from office by a Washington instigated coup in February 2014.
By its own admission, this story came from the Ukrainian government and the purpose was
clear as a bell: Namely, to undermine the Trump presidential campaign and force Manafort out
of his months-old role as campaign chairman – a role that had finally brought some
professional management to the Donald's helter-skelter campaign for the nation's highest
office.
In the event, this well-timed bombshell worked, and in short order Manafort resigned,
leaving the disheveled Trump campaign in the lurch:
government investigators examining secret records have found Manafort's name, as well
as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was
used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr.
Manafort's main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr.
Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012,
according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau . Investigators
assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients
also included election officials.
In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies
.. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million
deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort
and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin.
Mr. Manafort's involvement with moneyed interests in Russia and Ukraine had previously
come to light. But as American relationships there become a rising issue in the presidential
campaign – from Mr. Trump's favorable statements about Mr. Putin and his annexation
of Crimea to the suspected Russian hacking of Democrats' emails – an examination of
Mr. Manafort's activities offers new details of how he mixed politics and business out of
public view and benefited from powerful interests now under scrutiny by the new government in
Kiev.
The bolded lines in the NYT story above tell you exactly where this was coming
from. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau had been set up by an outfit called "AntAC", which
was jointly funded by George Soros and the Obama State Department. And there can be little
doubt that the Donald's accurate view at the time – that Crimea's reunification with
Mother Russia after a 60 year hiatus which had been ordered by the former Soviet Union's
Presidium – was unwelcome in Kiev and among the Washington puppeteers who had put it in
power.
For want of doubt that the Poroshenko government was in the tank for Hillary Clinton, the
liberal rag called Politico spilled the beans a few months later. In a January
11, 2017 story it revealed that the Ukrainian government had pulled out all the stops
attempting to help Clinton, whose protégés at the State Department had been the
masterminds of the coup which put them in office. Thus, Politico concluded,
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by
officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a
top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to
back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information
on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in
Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race ..
But Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the
race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from
engaging in one another's elections.
While it's not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between
governments and reporters, one of the more damaging Russia-related stories for the Trump
campaign – and certainly for Manafort – can be traced more directly to the
Ukrainian government.
Documents released by an independent Ukrainian government agency – and publicized
by a parliamentarian – appeared to show $12.7 million in cash payments that were
earmarked for Manafort by the Russia-aligned party of the deposed former president,
Yanukovych.
The New York Times , in the August story revealing the ledgers'
existence, reported that the payments earmarked for Manafort were "a focus" of an
investigation by Ukrainian anti-corruption officials, while CNN reported days later that the
FBI was pursuing an overlapping inquiry.
Yet Fiona Hill sat before a House committee and under oath insisted that all of the above
was a Trumpian conspiracy theory, thereby reminding us that the neocon Russophobes are so
unhinged that they are prepared to lie at the drop of a hat to keep their false narrative
about the Russian Threat and Putin's "invasion" of Ukraine alive.
Needless to say, Fiona Hill is among the worst of the neocon warmongers, and has made a
specialty of demonizing Russia and propagating over and over flat out lies about what
happened in Kiev during 2014 and after. Thus, in one recent attack she claimed,
Russia today poses a greater foreign policy and security challenge to the United States
and its Western allies than at any time since the height of the Cold War. Its annexation of
Crimea, war in Ukraine's Donbas region, and military intervention in Syria have upended
Western calculations from Eastern Europe to the Middle East. Russia's intervention in Syria,
in particular, is a stark reminder that Russia is a multi-regional power ..
There is not a single true assertion in that quotation, of course, but we cite it for a
very particular reason. Shifty Schiff & his impeachment tribunal have brought in Hill
– and Lt. Colonel Vindman, Ambassador Taylor, George Kent and Tim Morrison previously
– in order to created an echo chamber.
That's right. The Dems are parroting the neocon lies – whether they believe them or
not – in order to propagate the impression that the Donald is undermining national
security in his effort to take a different posture on Russia and Ukraine, and is actually
bordering on treason.
Thus, Adam Schiff repeated the false neocon narrative virtually word for word at the opening
of the public hearings:
"In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation's
embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian
empire."
That's pure rubbish. It's based on the Big Lie that the overwhelming vote of the Russian
population of Crimea in March 2014 was done at the gun point of the Russian Army. And that
event, in turn, is the lynch-pin of the hoary canard that Putin is seeking to rebuild the
Soviet Empire.
So it is necessary to review the truth once again about how Russian Crimea had been
temporarily appended to the Ukrainian SSR during Soviet times.
The allegedly "occupied" territory of Crimea, in fact, was actually purchased from the
Ottomans by Catherine the Great in 1783, thereby satisfying the longstanding quest of the
Russian Czars for a warm-water port. Over the ages Sevastopol then emerged as a great naval
base at the strategic tip of the Crimean peninsula, where it became home to the mighty Black
Sea Fleet of the Czars and then the Soviet Union, too.
For the next 171 years Crimea was an integral part of Russia (until 1954). That span
exceeds the 170 years that have elapsed since California was annexed by a similar thrust of
"Manifest Destiny" on this continent, thereby providing, incidentally, the United States Navy
with its own warm-water port in San Diego.
While no foreign forces subsequently invaded the California coasts, it was most definitely
not Ukrainian and Polish rifles, artillery and blood which famously annihilated The Charge Of
The Light Brigade at the Crimean city of Balaclava in 1854; they were Russians defending the
homeland from Turks, French and Brits.
And the portrait of the Russian "hero" hanging in Putin's office is that of Czar Nicholas
I – whose brutal 30-year reign brought the Russian Empire to its historical zenith. Yet
despite his cruelty, Nicholas I is revered in Russian hagiography as the defender of Crimea,
even as he lost the 1850s war to the Ottomans and Europeans.
At the end of the day, security of its historic port in Crimea is Russia's Red Line, not
Washington's. Unlike today's feather-headed Washington pols, even the enfeebled Franklin
Roosevelt at least knew that he was in Soviet Russia when he made port in the Crimean
city of Yalta in February 1945.
Maneuvering to cement his control of the Kremlin in the intrigue-ridden struggle for
succession after Stalin's death a few years later, Nikita Khrushchev allegedly spent 15
minutes reviewing his "gift" of Crimea to his subalterns in Kiev.
As it happened, therefore, Crimea became part of the Ukraine only by writ of one of the
most vicious and reprehensible states in human history – the former Soviet Union:
On April 26, 1954. The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet
transferring the Crimea Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian
SSR ..Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial
proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the
Ukrainian SSR .
That's right. Washington's hypocritical and tendentious accusations against Russia's
re-absorption of Crimea imply that the dead-hand of the Soviet presidium must be defended at
all costs – as if the security of North Dakota depended upon it!
In fact, the brouhaha about "returning" Crimea is a naked case of the hegemonic arrogance
that has overtaken Imperial Washington since the 1991 Soviet demise.
After all, during the long decades of the Cold War, the West did nothing to liberate the
"captive nation" of Ukraine – with or without the Crimean appendage bestowed upon it in
1954. Nor did it draw any red lines in the mid-1990's when a financially desperate Ukraine
rented back Sevastopol and the strategic redoubts of the Crimea to an equally pauperized
Russia.
In short, in the era before we got our Pacific port in 1848, and even during the 170-year
interval since then, America's national security has depended not one whit on the status of
Russian-speaking Crimea. That the local population has now chosen fealty to the Grand Thief
in Moscow over the ruffians and rabble who have seized Kiev amounts to a giant: So what!
The truth is, when it comes to Ukraine there really isn't that much there, there. Its
boundaries have been morphing for centuries among the quarreling tribes, peoples, potentates,
Patriarchs and pretenders of a small region that is none of Washington's damn business..
Still, it was this final aggressive drive of Washington and NATO into the internal affairs
of Russia's historic neighbor and vassal, Ukraine, that largely accounts for the demonization
of Putin. Likewise, it is virtually the entire source of the false claim that Russia has
aggressive, expansionist designs on the former Warsaw Pact states in the Baltics, Poland and
beyond.
The latter is a nonsensical fabrication. In fact, it was the neocon meddlers from
Washington who crushed Ukraine's last semblance of civil governance when they enabled
ultra-nationalists and crypto-Nazis to gain government positions after the February 2014
putsch.
As we indicated above, in one fell swoop that inexcusable stupidity reopened Ukraine's
blood-soaked modern history. The latter incepted with Stalin's re-population of the eastern
Donbas region with "reliable" Russian workers after his genocidal liquidation of the kulaks
in the early 1930s.
It was subsequently exacerbated by the large-scale collaboration by Ukrainian nationalists
in the west with the Nazi Wehrmacht as it laid waste to Poles, Jews, gypsies and other
"undesirables" on its way to Stalingrad in 1942-43. Thereafter followed an equal and opposite
spree of barbaric revenge as the victorious Red Army marched back through Ukraine on its way
to Berlin.
So it may be fairly asked. What beltway lame brains did not chance to understand that
Washington's triggering of "regime change" in Kiev would reopen this entire bloody history of
sectarian and political strife?
Moreover, once they had opened Pandora's box, why was it so hard to see that an outright
partition of Ukraine with autonomy for the Donbas and Crimea, or even accession to the
Russian state from which these communities had originated, would have been a perfectly
reasonable resolution?
Certainly that would have been far preferable to dragging all of Europe into the lunacy of
the current anti-Putin sanctions and embroiling the Ukrainian factions in a suicidal civil
war. The alleged Russian threat to Europe, therefore, was manufactured in Imperial
Washington, not the Kremlin.
In fact, in 1989 and 1990, the George H. W. Bush administration assured Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev that if he accepted German unification, the West would not seek to exploit
the situation through any eastward expansion – not even by "one inch," as
then-secretary of state James Baker assured Gorbachev. But Bill Clinton reneged on that
commitment, moving to expand NATO on an eastward path that eventually led right up to the
Russian border.
So Robert Merry said it well in his excellent piece on the entire neocon Ukraine Scam that
is being paraded before the Schiff Show.
That is, what is being desperately defended on Capitol Hill is not the rule of law,
national security or fidelity to the Constitution of the United States., but a giant Neocon
Lie that is needed to keep the Empire in business, and the world moving ever closer to an
utterly unnecessary Cold War 2.0 between nation's each pointing enough nuclear warheads at
the other to destroy the planet.
NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the
expansion countries lying east of Germany. As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued
stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in NATO
either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security.
True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their
elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, to respond favorably to Western financial
blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine,
renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official
status to the Russian language. These actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but
they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations aimed
at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater
economic ties to Russia, pro-Western Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged
street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria Nuland
gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia.
Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely
Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey
Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian coup, she
shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position,
demonstrating the influence that enables US meddling in foreign countries.
That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to
protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine (the so-called Donbass in the country's
east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated a
plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly
the "sham referendum" described by Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass
Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward.
The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in
the center of Eurasia – the global "heartland," in the view of the famous British
geographic scholar Halford Mackinder – renders it always a potential threat. Its
vulnerability to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands.
Its national temperament seems to include a natural tendency towards authoritarianism. Any
sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind.
But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia,
the Alliance has been the more aggressive player – aggressive when it pushed for NATO's
eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the US
government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the
encirclement of Russia; aggressive when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for
Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian orbit with
economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected
Ukrainian government; and aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge
Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood.
George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this
aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon
its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues and
leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well.
"... America was feared by many intellectuals, both in the United States and Britain of the 1940s and 1950s, and their fears were not unwarranted. ..."
"... Big, brawny America – its power establishment – very much was inclined towards dominating the world after WWII. The whole tone of the American press and speeches of major political figures in the period was actually quite frightening. Any highly intelligent, sensitive type would be concerned by it. ..."
"... America wanted a monopoly on nuclear weapons, so that it would be in an unassailable position as it built its imperial apparatus after WWII, the time effectively it "took over" as world imperial power with so many potential competitors flattened. ..."
"... Later, the Pentagon actually planned things like an all-out first strike on the Soviets – it did that more once as well as doing so later for China – so there were indeed plenty of dark intentions in Washington. ..."
"... Spies and ex-spies often put disinformation into their books. Sometimes officials even insist they do so. ..."
The motives for so many Western spies serving the Soviet Union – and in the 1940s and
1950s the Soviets had the best "humint" on earth – were rather idealistic. This was
largely true for the Cambridge Circle in Britain. They were concerned that America was going
to "lord it over" the Russians and everyone else.
America was feared by many intellectuals, both in the United States and Britain of the
1940s and 1950s, and their fears were not unwarranted.
Big, brawny America – its power establishment – very much was inclined
towards dominating the world after WWII. The whole tone of the American press and speeches of
major political figures in the period was actually quite frightening. Any highly intelligent,
sensitive type would be concerned by it.
You certainly did not have to be a communist to feel that way, but being one assisted with
access to important Soviet contacts. They sought you out.
America wanted a monopoly on nuclear weapons, so that it would be in an unassailable
position as it built its imperial apparatus after WWII, the time effectively it "took over"
as world imperial power with so many potential competitors flattened.
It made little secret of its desire to keep such a monopoly, so brilliant people like
Oppenheimer would be well aware of something they might well regard as ominous.
Later, the Pentagon actually planned things like an all-out first strike on the
Soviets – it did that more once as well as doing so later for China – so there
were indeed plenty of dark intentions in Washington.
A hugely important general like MacArthur was unblinkingly ready in 1950 to use atomic
weapons in the Korean War to destroy North Korea's connections with China.
I read several major biographies of Oppenheimer, and there is little to nothing concerning
Soviet intelligence work. When I came across the Sudoplatov book with its straightforward
declaration of Oppenheimer's assistance, it was difficult to know how to weigh the claim.
Spies and ex-spies often put disinformation into their books. Sometimes officials even
insist they do so.
Judging by what is suggested here, if Oppenheimer did help, it was in subtle ways like
letting Klaus Fuchs, a fellow scientist and a rather distinguished one (but a Soviet spy),
look at certain papers. But the scientific community always has some considerable tendency to
share information, a tendency having nothing to do with spying.
In general, it should be understood, that Oppenheimer, despite all his brilliance, was a
rather disturbed man all his life. Quite early on, as just one example, he attempted to
poison someone he did not like. Only pure luck prevented the man's eating a lethally-laced
apple. There were other disturbing behaviors too.
Later they believed that equality of superpower status for the Soviet Union would
contribute to world peace.
How dumb were these "scientists". Everyone knows that once Soviet Union fell, peace and
freedom and democracy are flowering all over the world and United States are not waging any
wars anymore.
"... It could be argued, perhaps, that an expansion of Russian influence in Ukraine could affect the vital interests of the rest of Europe, though that would hardly be inevitable. But cannot Europe handle any such threat vis-a-vis Russia, given that the EU has a population of 512 million and a GDP of $18 trillion -- compared to Russia's population of 145 million and GDP of $1.6 trillion? ..."
"... The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that dominates thinking within elite circles. Taylor's rendition of recent events in Ukraine was so one-sided and selective as to amount to a falsehood. As he had it, Ukraine's turn to the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an extent that he tried to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence, whereupon protests emerged in Kyiv that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country in 2014. Then Putin invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point of Russian army rifles." Putin sent military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed formations and puppet governments." And so the West extended military assistance to Ukraine. ..."
"... Thumbs up on the article - the valiant Ukraine facing perfidious Russia is a gross oversimplification. And as noted, the US is involved in this mess up to its eyeballs. ..."
"... Russia is associated with the image of the USSR which developed an alternative model to financial capitalism. Financial capitalism is collapsing for objective and totally unavoidable reasons. The search for an alternative will continue drawing more attention to Russia as a country that is, in principle, capable of offering an alternative development model. ..."
"... The disagreement IS over Ukraine policy, not this argument about what Trump may or may not have done. DC is full of corruption of all kinds, including in foreign policy, but no one is ever punished. So we know that is not the issue. ..."
"... I believe Stratfor, no friend of Russia and close to the neocon faction in American politics, described the 2014 coup as "the most blatant coup in history". ..."
"... This article is very good in detail, but they could also add that the first Minister of Finance in Ukraine's post-Maidan government was a literal US State Department official who was only then granted Ukrainian citizenship. Not surprisingly she also made Ukraine accept IMF loans, getting Ukraine into the IMF predatory lending/austerity scam. ..."
"... This is the legacy of careerism within the Foreign Service. People get positions in which they live comfortably, attending all the right parties and getting a sophisticated world view and seldom have any loyalty or accountability to the Commander in Chief. ..."
"... When Vindman claimed he was disturbed by what he heard, instead of following the chain of command, which he invokes almost as often as his rank, he lawyers up. ..."
he Wall Street Journal 's Peggy Noonan liked what she saw when U.S. diplomats George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr. went
before the House Intelligence Committee to give testimony as part of the ongoing impeachment drama. She saw them as "the old America
reasserting itself." They demonstrated "stature and command of their subject matter." They evinced "capability and integrity."
All true. Kent, with his bow tie and his family tradition of public service, appeared to be the very picture of the old-school
American foreign service official. And Taylor, with his exemplary West Point career, his Vietnam heroism, and his longtime national
service, seemed a throwback to the blunt-spoken American military men who gave us our World War II triumph and our rise to global
dominance.
But these men embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and dangerous. Perhaps no serious blame should accrue
to them, since it is the same geopolitical outlook embraced and enforced by pretty much the entire foreign policy establishment,
of which these men are mere loyal apparatchiks. And yet they are playing their part in pushing a foreign policy that is directing
America towards a very possible disaster.
Neither man manifested even an inkling of an understanding of what kind of game the United States in playing with Ukraine. Neither
gave even a nod to the long, complex relationship between Ukraine and Russia. Neither seemed to understand either the substance or
the intensity of Russia's geopolitical interests along its own borders or the likely consequences of increasing U.S. meddling in
what for centuries has been part of Russia's sphere of influence.
Both Taylor and Kent declared that America's vital national interest is wrapped up in Ukraine, though neither sought to explain
why in any substantive way. Spin out all the potential scenarios of Ukraine's fate and then ask whether any of them would materially
affect America's vital interests. Any affirmative answer would require elaborate contortions.
It could be argued, perhaps, that an expansion of Russian influence in Ukraine could affect the vital interests of the rest of
Europe, though that would hardly be inevitable. But cannot Europe handle any such threat vis-a-vis Russia, given that the EU has
a population of 512 million and a GDP of $18 trillion -- compared to Russia's population of 145 million and GDP of $1.6 trillion?
The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that dominates thinking within elite circles. Taylor's
rendition of recent events in Ukraine was so one-sided and selective as to amount to a falsehood. As he had it, Ukraine's turn to
the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an
extent that he tried to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence, whereupon protests emerged in Kyiv
that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country in 2014. Then Putin invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point
of Russian army rifles." Putin sent military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed formations and puppet governments."
And so the West extended military assistance to Ukraine.
"It is this security assistance," he said, "that is at the heart of the [impeachment] controversy that we are discussing today."
In contrast to this misleading rendition, here are the facts, with appropriate context.
In 1989 and 1990, the George H. W. Bush administration assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that if he accepted German unification,
the West would not seek to exploit the situation through any eastward expansion -- not even by "one inch," as then-secretary of state
James Baker assured Gorbachev. But Bill Clinton reneged on that commitment, moving to expand NATO on an eastward path that eventually
led right up to the Russian border.
NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the expansion countries lying east of Germany.
As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in
NATO either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security.
As Nikolas K. Gvosdev of the U.S. Naval War College has written, Russia and Ukraine share a 1,500-mile border where Ukraine "nestles
up against the soft underbelly of the Russian Federation." Gvosdev elaborates: "The worst nightmare of the Russian General Staff
would be NATO forces deployed all along this frontier, which would put the core of Russia's population and industrial capacity at
risk of being quickly and suddenly overrun in the event of any conflict." Beyond that crucial strategic concern, the two countries
share strong economic, trade, cultural, ethnic, and language ties going back centuries. No Russian leader of any stripe would survive
as leader if he or she were to allow Ukraine to be wrested fully from Russia's sphere of influence.
And yet America, in furtherance of the ultimate aim of pulling Ukraine away from Russia, spent some $5 billion in a campaign to
gin up pro-Western sentiment there, according to former assistant secretary of state for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who spearheaded
much of this effort during the Obama administration. It was clearly a blatant effort to interfere in the domestic politics of a foreign
nation -- and a nation residing in a delicate and easily inflamed part of the world.
But Ukraine is a tragically divided nation, with many of its people drawn to the West while others feel greater ties to Russia.
The late Samuel Huntington of Harvard called Ukraine "a cleft country, with two distinct cultures." Contrary to Taylor's false portrayal
of an aggressive Russia trampling on eastern Ukrainians by setting up puppet governments and manufacturing a bogus referendum in
Crimea, the reality is that large numbers of Ukrainians there favor Russia and feel loyalty to what they consider their Russian heritage.
The Crimean public is 70 percent Russian, and its Parliament in 1992 actually voted to declare independence from Ukraine for fear
that the national leadership would nudge the country toward the West. (The vote was later rescinded to avoid a violent national confrontation.)
In 1994, Crimea elected a president who had campaigned on a platform of "unity with Russia."
True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their elected president, Viktor Yanukovych,
to respond favorably to Western financial blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine,
renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official status to the Russian language. These
actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations
aimed at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater economic ties to Russia, pro-Western
Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria
Nuland gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia.
Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she
declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian
coup, she shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position, demonstrating the influence that
enables U.S. meddling in foreign countries.
That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine
(the so-called Donbass in the country's east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated
a plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly the "sham referendum" described by
Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward.
The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in the center of Eurasia -- the global "heartland,"
in the view of the famous British geographic scholar Halford Mackinder -- renders it always a potential threat. Its vulnerability
to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands. Its national temperament seems to include a natural
tendency towards authoritarianism. Any sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind.
But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia, the Alliance has been the more aggressive
player -- aggressive when it pushed for NATO's eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the
U.S. government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the encirclement of Russia; aggressive
when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian
orbit with economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected Ukrainian government; and
aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood.
George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze
Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues
and leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well.
American diplomacy is rather reminiscent of German diplomacy in 1917, in that expanding NATO into Ukraine and the Baltics is as
stupidly provocative to Moscow as the Zimmerman Telegram was to the US. Zimmerman's offer was incredibly stupid since it provoked
a US declaration of war but Germany had absolutely no way to provide Mexico any material assistance. Neither will NATO be providing
any real assistance to Ukraine or the Baltic states if the balloon goes up -- today's Bundeswehr is not your grandfathers Wehrmacht.
True. The stupidity of US policy toward Russia can only be defeated by stupidity of the limitrophus of Eastern Europe, like Poland
or the Baltic states. If "balloon goes up" they will be first to evaporate.
Thumbs up on the article - the valiant Ukraine facing perfidious Russia is a gross oversimplification. And as noted, the US is
involved in this mess up to its eyeballs. The first person to speak out publicly was the former diplomat (and godfather of "Containment")
George Kennan. In his last public comment, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times warning against pushing NATO to the East as
a policy guaranteed to cause Russian fear and resentment. In the early years of the century, Mikhail Gorbachev - no friend of
Putin's - accused the West of trying to treat Russia like a third rate nation. It is sad that the "deep state" maneuvers against
Trump (up and running early enough to destroy Paul Manafort) derailed Trump's plans to talk openly with Putin and thus earn him
the blind hatred of John Brennan. The rest is history.
You need a foreign policy update. Ukraine and Europe are not longer our problems. They have grown ideologically distant and opposed
to US interests, which is self interest and transactional foreign policy now. The days of "altruistic" foreign policy are over
with. Marshall died long ago.
This is totally inaccurate. The current Russian system is not socialist, and it certainly has problems with corruption, but it
is opposed to the Western establishment and it is promoting a traditional Christian and nationalist outlook as opposed to the
liberal globalism of the Western elites. It is better than the alternative at the moment, and in a sense Putin, especially
his foreign policy , is executing the will of the people in Russia. Conservatives opposed Russia up until Trump because both
sides are controlled by the same Western establishment, which has been pursuing an anti-Russian agenda for a long time. They do
not want any resistance to their liberal world order.
"Democracy" is a lie and a fraud, Plato knew this 4,000 years ago, and "class consciousness" is only real in the sense that
the current situation in the West has an elite that is going against the interests of the people. I don't see how defending Russia
is "undermining class conscientious," actually arguing against the anti-Russian warmongering is a good thing. What "Russian state
attacks" are you talking about?
"To see US conservatives defending an autocracy reflects they have embraced those fascistic principles."
Do you even know how conservatism and the terms right and left wing originated? Conservatism and the right wing are terms that
are from the French Revolution, used to describe supporters of the Catholic French Monarchy of the Bourbons while the liberals
or the left were the revolutionaries. Historically Conservatives defended European Christian monarchies while the liberals always
wanted to overthrow throne and altar to replace them with secular democratic republics. In fact there is nothing more conservative
than autocracy, namely a Church-anointed monarchy. Americanism, or the ideology of the American founding fathers, was inherently
liberal. They were in revolt against the monarchy of their time. There is nothing conservative about democracy, it's quite to
the contrary. Autocracy is not "fascistic," that term is completely irrelevant in this historical context.
"Seeing similar headlines from opposite political poles exposes a 'horseshoe' phenomenon of left/right ideologies in which
the two poles are close together in significant contexts."
Are you really going to be so grug brained as to unironically bring up the horseshoe theory? Looks like we have a big brained
intellectual centrist over here. Not even worth giving an in depth analysis on this one.
Good comment. The Monarchists sat on the right side of the French assembly and the revolutionaries sat on the left. That is how
the modern spectrum morphed into Fascism (corporate state) on the right and Communism (revolutionary) on the left.
I've actually been to Russia, twice in the last year and a half, and I had a chance to meet and to converse with, and to hear
from, Russians of all sorts: academics, students, politicians, government employees, businessmen, environmentalists, scientists,
and journalists.
Based on what I saw and heard, I categorically reject your statement that Russians "are not all that free to express their
opinion."
I heard from people who are well known in Russia who disagree with Putin. I heard criticisms of the government from people
who are not well known, or who are just average people. People note that corruption is still a problem, at many levels of society
and government, but they did not seem at all reticent to make that point.
No one displayed any fear or reluctance to express his views. At the same time, Russians acknowledge a great deal of improvement
since the tragedy of the Yeltsin years.
And while there are people who criticize the government's domestic policies, they tend to be much more in support of what the
government under Putin has accomplished in terms of foreign policy. And that seems to me to be a very rational reaction.
First off I am Russian myself. Most people are in favour of an authoritarian government, nobody cares about or wants democracy.
Monarchist restoration would be ideal but Putin is good enough for now. Free press and elections are a fraud and a lie, as I said.
First of all, show me one single state on the planet today which is pro working class. Secondly, juxtaposing the concepts of working
class and fascism is just a demonstration of how badly you know the history. Suffice it to say that the set of political views
deriving from the ideas of Mussolini are called right-wing socialism. Hence, your ignorance of history logically begets that of
today's politics. No, Trump and Putin cannot be called truly pro working class. But they're at least are not so blatantly anti
working class as neolibs who oppose them.
Russia is associated with the image of the USSR which developed an alternative model to financial capitalism. Financial capitalism
is collapsing for objective and totally unavoidable reasons. The search for an alternative will continue drawing more attention
to Russia as a country that is, in principle, capable of offering an alternative development model.
Except that isn't what this is about. The disagreement IS over Ukraine policy, not this argument about what Trump may or may not
have done. DC is full of corruption of all kinds, including in foreign policy, but no one is ever punished. So we know that is
not the issue.
But we do know from the testimonies that they oppose Trump BECAUSE he changed Ukraine policy away from the policy of confrontation
with Russia, or tried to. They are all against that and against Trump doing that, as they said. The entire establishment has opposed
Trump on this since he got elected. So let's not be disingenuous. This charade has gone on long enough. The elites want their
proxy war with Russia.
1. From my perspective, the article is saying that our Ukraine policy is immoral, not that the impeachment is not founded.
2. Further to 1. above, your pizza analogy doesn't hold up. If pizza is bad for you, eating pizza harm nobody but the eater
and the eater's insurers.
By contrast, our Ukraine policy is the support of actual live Nazis and has resulted in the deaths of numerous innocents, not
to mention the economic destruction of Ukraine.
This is more like providing one pizza company weapons and support, knowing full well that they will use those weapons and cash
to murder rivals and customers who order from those rivals.
The good news is that the influence of apparatchiks like Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor will be at an end within a few years. America
thought the blood of hundreds of thousands of foreign children was a "fair price" to pay for the dollar's continued role as a
reserve currency (Madeleine Albright's words) and cheaper gas at the pump. The effort was a bust. Endless trillion-dollar-a-year
deficits will come to an end quickly. There isn't that much liquidity in the private sphere to sop up at the price the U.S. Gov
can afford.
Americans have forgotten how much money a billion dollars is, much less a trillion: to wit, the Democrats future plans are
priced in dozens of trillions of dollars. Is it even possible to count that high (given that no one has any real idea how the
economy will react)?
Boomers destroyed the country. It only took one "me" generation to introduce such deep structural instability that there is
no recovery. Really, does anyone think a trillion dollars a year of demand can ever be pulled out of the economy? No. Does anyone
really think a trillion dollars a year will magically appear for free, from nowhere, for a decade or more? The intelligentsia
will reap the fruit of its effort within a few years. And it will be dried cat food for dinner. Bless them!
What "actual bloody invasion" of Ukraine and Georgia. Georgia attacked South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008, and got a bloody nose
for their trouble. They didn't lose any territory however, which is odd, if Russia were the attacker.
If Russia had actually invaded Ukraine, the Ukrainian clown army would be obliterated in days or hours. Note how there are
some 500 miles of open border between Donbass and Sumskaya Oblast - but no fighting? Do you think that the Russian military doesn't
know the geography of their own border?
Ukraine was already devided before it separated from USSR. People from western Ukraine called Russians and eastern Ukrainians
moskali. Eastern Ukraine spoke mostly Russian, western Ukraine spoke mostly Ukrainian. I believe tension escalated after Russia
was about to loose access to the Black Sea and its navy there. Sorry. That was a big mistake to even think that it would happen
easy. Russia annexed Crimea from Ottoman Empire in 18th century. Since then it was part of Russia. Khrushchev transferred it to
Ukrainian republic in 1954. You seriously believe that Russia would easy let it go after almost 2 centuries of its presence there?
Big chunk of Russian history associated with Black Sea Fleet.
The invasions were in response to them trying to acquire NATO memberships and NATO egging then on to do this and provoke Russia.
If they remain in the Russian sphere than that would not be a problem.
NATO goes where it was warned not to go, provokes the response it knew it would get, and claims that this is "aggression."
What a joke.
There was no "Russian meddling", that was debunked. There is no evidence that the DNC was hacked and the so called troll farm
had no connection to the Russian government and was merely a business marketing firm selling advertising space on their social
media pages.
Russia doesn't poison dissidents in foreign countries, if you are referring to the Skripal case, that narrative has fallen
apart, multiple journalists have written lengthy pieces about all of the inconsistencies and contradictions in the UK government's
narrative. Not to mention Yulia Skripal said she's still wants to go back to Russia, so clearly she doesn't think Russia poisoned
her.
We do have evidence to the show the opposite. The only ones who examined the DNC servers are a firm that was caught lying about
Russian hacking before and is owned by a Ukrainian millionaire that donated to the Clinton Foundation. Can't get more damning
than that.
What are you even talking about? The DNC refused to allow the server to be examined because they know there was no Russian hacking,
and why would Trump privately ask Zelensky to investigate Ukraine's role in all of this if he knew he were guilty? The point is
there is no evidence to prove Russian hacking, and the only claims come from a firm that is owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who
has been caught lying about Russian hacking before and donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.
How much mental gymnastics are you going to use to try to pretend like you don't understand?
Which is more aggressive, do you think -- invading one's neighbors, or "dangling the prospect of NATO membership" for them?
The US engineered and supported a coup in Ukraine to overthrow the constitutional government. Is this aggression? It seems
so to me. It certainly preceded any Russian response. As far as NATO membership for Ukraine, polls of Ukrainian opinion long before
the Maidan showed very strong feeling against Ukraine joining NATO.
I believe, when all facts fail, that the way through to some would be pointing out the absurdities of what they hear therefore
think. It might make them think twice before publicly embarassing themselves.
The Western actions are more aggressive, because they actually happened...
Russia's annexation of the Crimea was bloodless, and doubtless spared it the carnage that the regime in Kiev wrought in Donbass.
America's movements since the end of the Cold War have been consistently offensive in nature, and Russia's consistently defensive
in nature.
That defense has included counterattacks, feints, and opportunistic thrusts. In every 'attack' it made, Russia was reacting,
not taking the initiative.For their part the liberal hegemonists know what they're doing. Good PR is priceless, and they know it's essential for offensive
movements to not appear that way.
Problem is, you liberals are still unable to prove a single allegation of those you uttered in your comment.
How come the previous Ukrainian government didn't manage to beg one single satellite pic of, say, Russian tanks crossing their
border from the CIA or the DIA, given the purported "bloody invasion"? Russian armored vehicles have some cloaking devices or
what?
How come the Mueller's so-called "investigation" turned out to be such a pathetic juridical failure, given the purported "direct
meddling"?
What a naive poor dear one has to be to believe in poisonings with radioactive substances (as dangerous to the poisoner as
to his victim) in a world where poisons causing deaths looking like those from natural causes exist and are available to all secret
services (and even to private citizens having talents in chemistry)?
Plus, careful with (ab)using upper case. "Democratical countries" with a capital "D" reads like "countries, whose governments
are proxies of the Democratic Party". Blame Freud and his slips.
I love people like you. I mean since we were invaded by Germany, Napoleon, Charles the Tenth of Sweden, the Teutonic Knights,
the Golden Horde (Ghengis Khan started this), at the cost of countless millions of lives lost, I sense that we- as Americans-
have every need to push our frontiers to Russia's doorstep.
You demonstrate a phenomenal ignorance of Historical perspective: exactly the cannon fodder the establishment's looking for.
Nice and sober account. One detail that might be significant. Until 1954, Crimea was part of the Russian Federation (the Russian
State has wrestled that territory from the Tatars/Mongols and Ottomans more than 200 years before and fought for it against the
united Europe in 1850s). And Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian, had bestowed Crimea in an unsanctioned administrative decision to
the then Ukrainian Socialist Republic in 1954.
Ukraine as a state is pretty much a creation of Russia and instead of being grateful for their extensive statehood, elements
in Ukraine would rather bite the hand that made them.
Lots of people all over the world get up and go to work. They do it in democracies, autocracies, and countries that are somewhere
in between. In fact, the United States is losing its position as global economic hegemon in large part because the Chinese (no
democracy there) are harder working than Americans.
The United States currency has value for two reasons - inside the United States, it's the only way you can pay taxes. Outside
the United States, the gulfie tyrannies only accept dollars for international sales of oil.
$5 billion thrown down the Ukraine rat hole. It is too bad that the money wasn't spent providing better care for our wounded veterans.
Watch the video "Delay, Deny, Hope They Die". As one of the very few, perhaps only, commentater who has criticized Victoria Nuland's
role in the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, I have made many of the same points in recent days.
You know that is dishonest. This has nothing to do with what Trump tried to tell Zelensky, and anyway the US and Ukraine do in
fact have a treaty from 1998 that mandates them to cooperate on law enforcement matters. DC is full of corruption but none of
it is ever punished, so we know that is not the issue.
This is all about Trump's desire to end the proxy war with Russia. That is all this is about ultimately. Looking at the big
picture, that is a large part of the reason why the establishment wants to delegitimization him or remove Trump from office. This
phone call scandal is nothing more than the latest tactical move to get there. If you don't see that, and you genuinely think
that this is merely about Trump asking Zelensky to investigate something and get caught up in the minutiae of that, you are simply
naive and don't understand the true nature of politics. Think about the big picture.
A proxy war is nice cover for weapons smuggling. I've postulated for awhile now that Benghazi is the key to Deep State. Ask yourself
why the Obama administration allowed Stevens and his cohorts to die when there was ample air and naval power nearby. What did
he stumble upon? I think it was a vast smuggling operation designed to support Muslim Bros. and Al Shabbab-both of whom later
attacked US assets and who continue to worry the region with their raids of kidnappings, rapes and mass murders that go largely
unreported in the US press. There's a reason why so many liberals her and abroad claim to support open borders and it has nothing
to do with humanitarian goals and everything to do with an organized global crime group who is using sievelike borders to allow
drugs, fake licensed products, fake pharmaceuticals, weapons and even humans to become trade goods. People should really ask why
Democrats refuse to stop this. Europeans should ask who is getting rich off of unchecked migration of indigent people.
1. The military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify their exorbitant budgets.
2. The spooks need a Big Enemy to justify Big Brother and also their increasingly open interference in domestic politics.
3. The people who run things need a distraction, lest the masses start to demand the sorts of reforms that would take money
out of rich people's pockets. A Big Enemy does this just fine.
Russia makes a better Big Enemy than does China, for US business is already too intertwined with China and its supply chains
reach deeply into that country. Any disruption to those links would cost a lot of money.
TAC has been doing great work covering the Ukraine.
Even so-called conservatives play along with the mainstream media's and establishment's narrative, with the likes of NRO's
warmongering neocons, such as the Jay Nordlinger, constantly banging-on about poor little Ukraine being a "struggling democracy"
in need, rather than a deeply divided and failed state that perhaps should never have existed in its present borders as a "sovereign
nation." The best solution for the Ukraine would probably be to split it into two, with Eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula
perhaps just becoming part of Greater Russia.
I believe Stratfor, no friend of Russia and close to the neocon faction in American politics, described the 2014 coup as "the
most blatant coup in history".
Exactly. This article is very good in detail, but they could also add that the first Minister of Finance in Ukraine's post-Maidan
government was a literal US State Department official who was only then granted Ukrainian citizenship. Not surprisingly she also
made Ukraine accept IMF loans, getting Ukraine into the IMF predatory lending/austerity scam.
FYI, the advocates for intervening in the Ukraine are the ones accusing Pres Putin
1. with invading Crimea -- false
2. interfering with US elections -- sabotage an offense that certainly means war -- unfounded
3. that the Russians and the President operated in as collaborators in sabotaging US election also false
this president in response signed a document that the Russians did spy and further implemented the worst sanctions to date
against Russia despite the lack of evidence
as it is that Pres. Putin is certainly not being excused -- ;laugh - not even from things he has not been proved to have done
:Laugh ---
It's like when the police say you did something but can't prove it so they get some others to say you did it because they know
you did it
-even there's no evidence you did.
If you don't understand just review the SP Mueller investigation and the subsequent impeachment inquiry -- this is not new
game for anyone familiar with prosecutor methods.
This is true, all of this could have easily been avoided if the US stopped meddling and withdrew its troops from the former USSR.
People like Taylor and Kent show there is an agenda to start a war with Russia. Hopefully the upcoming Ukraine-Russia peace summit
can settle this conflict.
1. The military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify their exorbitant budgets.
2. The spooks need a Big Enemy to justify Big Brother and also their increasingly open interference in domestic politics.
3. The people who run things need a distraction, lest the masses start to demand the sorts of reforms that would take money
out of rich people's pockets. A Big Enemy does this just fine.
Russia makes a better Big Enemy than does China, for US business is already too intertwined with China and its supply chains
reach deeply into that country. Any disruption to those links would cost a lot of money.
TAC has been doing great work covering the Ukraine.
Even so-called conservatives play along with the mainstream media's and establishment's narrative, with the likes of NRO's
warmongering neocons, such as the Jay Nordlinger, constantly banging-on about poor little Ukraine being a "struggling democracy"
in need, rather than a deeply divided and failed state that perhaps should never have existed in its present borders as a "sovereign
nation." The best solution for the Ukraine would probably be to split it into two, with Eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula
perhaps just becoming part of Greater Russia.
FYI, the advocates for intervening in the Ukraine are the ones accusing Pres Putin
1. with invading Crimea -- false
2. interfering with US elections -- sabotage an offense that certainly means war -- unfounded
3. that the Russians and the President operated in as collaborators in sabotaging US election also false
this president in response signed a document that the Russians did spy and further implemented the worst sanctions to date
against Russia despite the lack of evidence
as it is that Pres. Putin is certainly not being excused -- ;laugh - not even from things he has not been proved to have done
:Laugh ---
It's like when the police say you did something but can't prove it so they get some others to say you did it because they know
you did it
-even there's no evidence you did.
If you don't understand just review the SP Mueller investigation and the subsequent impeachment inquiry -- this is not new
game for anyone familiar with prosecutor methods.
That's a strawman and there's nothing to refute, the article is correct. Because the US government and CFR globalist thinkers
like Zbigniew Brzezinski, George Friedman, and George Soros have talked about the geopolitical importance of Ukraine since the
1990s -- read Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard from 1996, where talks about the need for the US to take control of Ukraine from Russia
to prevent Russia from becoming a great power that can challenge US global hegemony, or Soros' admission on a 60 Minutes interview
from 1998 that he has invested billions in Ukraine, particularly in the Ukrainian military. As Brzezinski says, the US was quick
to recognise the geopolitical importance of an independent Ukrainian state, and became one of Ukraine's strongest backers in the
1990s for this reason. Globalist plans for Ukraine go back many years.
Polls before the Maidan show most Ukrainians had a very positive image of Russia as well, and increasingly people in Ukraine
are getting tired of the war, which is why they voted massively for Zelensky over Poroshenko.
When I look at our foreign policy, before Trump, you have to go back to Reagan to have any semblance of policy based in reality.
While Trump is kinda of a bull in a china shop, at least he highlights some of the asinine policies the 'experts' have been pursuing.
Russia's objection to US and EU interference into Ukrainian politics makes as much sense as US objection. would if Russia were
in Mexico attempting to draw them into a confederation with Moscow.
He may be as immoral as hell. Most of them, R or D, are, in case you haven't noticed. The fact is, there's still no factual evidence
he committed any impeachable in this specific case.
So, if the employees of the government who are involved in international affairs do not agree with the President, the President
is accused of an impeachable offense? These two are not patriots in the usual sense. Nor are they public servants. They see themselves
as somehow above the Law. Above the Constitution. Applauded by those trying ever since the election to bring down a President.
Seditionists.
The last 30 years has been a complete disaster for US foreign diplomacy. We are being led by complete morons! Trump is a big step
in the right direction.
The fact is, it was a U.S. sponsored coup by the Obama administration that overthrew a democratically elected government in Ukraine.
Here is the Feb 2015 Obama CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria...note that Obama says 'Yanukovich fleeing AFTER we brokered a deal
to transition power in Ukraine'...incredible. Play
Hide
Why is it wrong and improper to know whether or not a presidential candidate's family was involved in corrupt dealings abroad?
But that's not even the question, because the issue of what Trump may or may not have done is not the real issue. DC is full of
corruption and none of it is ever punished, so we know that's not what they care about. What this is about is Trump's disagreement
with the establishment on Russia-Ukraine policy and the greater geopolitical picture. Thinking this is about some minutiae over
who said what on a phone call and what he mayor may not have really meant is naive and ignorant of the true nature of politics.
These situations are not compartmentalised, these have to be seen from the the big picture of geopolitics.
He sensible policy would be to Finlandize Ukraine and Byelorus. NATO would not have them as members and Russia would let them
pursue economic ties with Europe. This worked for Finland through put the Cold War and kept the region peaceful
This is the legacy of careerism within the Foreign Service. People get positions in which they live comfortably, attending all
the right parties and getting a sophisticated world view and seldom have any loyalty or accountability to the Commander in Chief.
That's a problem.
When Vindman claimed he was disturbed by what he heard, instead of following the chain of command, which he
invokes almost as often as his rank, he lawyers up. Why? Who is Vindman reporting to if not the President? Too many of these folks
act as if the change in administrations is merely a formality to which they can choose to embrace or not. Almost without exception,
we have seen testimony from people whose personal history is in the Russian/Ukraine theater and who have family and history there.
This is problematic. If anyone ever looked and sounded the part of a mole, it was Vindman today.
These maniacs are provoking nuclear war.
They fail to understand that, unlike 50 years ago when America had a decentralized industrial economy and banking system, 2
large nukes aimed at NYC and DC would destroy the country.
This is the only conservative site worth reading. I do love me some serious and deep analysis from Conservatives in important
geopolitical issues. God for a return to the days of Buckley. It would be glorious.
Fantastic analysis of the 3D chess game. But we are talking about Biden and Clinton so we need not overthink this. Obama gave
1 billion of taxpayer money to Ukraine. Ukraine gave Burisma some of that according the government of the UK. And once Burisma
was in receipt of our aid funds, millions flow through right back to the very same bad actors like Biden who directly controlled
the one billion in foreign aid. I wish this was more complicated. I wish it made Americans seem smarter. But to this old guy it
seems like a good old fashioned and very simple run of the mill scam . And in this scam the only person we know for fact cashed
the checks is Biden.
Come on Barr. It's time to do what we all know what needs to be done.
"But cannot Europe handle any such threat vis-a-vis Russia, given that
the EU has a population of 512 million and a GDP of $18
trillion -- compared to Russia's population of 145 million and GDP of $1.6
trillion?"
An excellent question. The cold war is over. We won. We don't need to keep fighting it. Russia is not that much of a threat
to us.
Think about it. Our State Department has been in operation for well over 100 years in some form or another. Are we ANY safer?
Fire them all. No pension for failure.
For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.
Putin is a serious strategist – on the premises of Russian history. Understanding US values and psychology are not his strong
suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point among US policymakers.
-- Henry A. Kissinger in 2014 at the start of the Ukraine crisis (writing in the Washington Post.)
I cannot believe that the State Department was unaware of the intertwined history of Russia and the Ukraine or rather given State's
rigid worldview I can believe it. The Russians knew perfectly well that the United States was pulling the strings of the so-called
Maidan revolution and that the end would be to plant Nato and the EU right on Russia's doorstep.
Previous attempts to push Nato into parts of the south of the former Soviet empire had been fought off. Nothing could be more
predictable than that the Kremlin would do everything it could to oppose what it saw as hostile interference in the Ukraine on
behalf of "reformers". The US plays by the same rules. Cuba and the earlier Monroe doctrine are prize exhibits.
Obama slotted temperamentally into the State Department worldview or maybe it was the other way round. It was a worldview that
got the Middle East profoundly wrong at every turn including misundertanding the Arab Spring, support for the deeply anti-Western
Muslim Brotherhood, the appeasement and promotion of Iran, the abandonment of the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran, the destruction
of Libya as a going concern and how to tackle Syria. If there was an opportunity to get something wrong, Obama and the bow ties
managed it. They left behind a trail of wreckage.
Worst of all, Obama, the great opponent of nuclear proliferation, turned out to be its greatest enabler but ensured that he
would be long out of office when it happened and the media started asking "who lost Iran?" If Obama achieved one thing, it was
finally to kill off nuclear non-proliferation as a viable ambition. A nuclear Iran isn't just a threat to its neighours. It is
a direct missile threat to the EU which has happily collaborated in advancing Iranian power.
Unsurprisingiy, Trump rejected all this and it is for this that he is vilified by the foreign police dinosaurs who try to delude
the nation into believing that even when what they do ends in manifest disaster, there is no alternative. There is hardly a word
leaked by the foreign policy to the willingly ignorant media that is not a lie. The mess is theirs and they hate Trump for wakening
Americans up to their self-serving, somnolent incompetence.
The usual response to posts like this is to accuse the writer of being a traitrous Putin lover. On the contrary, know thy enemy.
The maxim doesn't mean have a beer with him. It means understand him.
Excellent statement of the "Thucydides trap" argument for caution regarding Russia and its traditional sphere of concern. But
Merry leaves us with a cliffhanger: what is the sound US Russian policy given his concerns and cautions? Moreover, his rendition
is vulnerable to a counterargument, namely, that Putin's Russia has gone far beyond the seizure or control of "protective lands"
towards an encirclement or menacing of Europe. This can be seen unfolding in Russia's military presence on Syria's (and potentially
Libya's) Mediterranean coast, its sale of weapons to Turkey, its connivance with Iran's Middle Eastern proxy wars, and the potential
for petro-blackmail of its energy customers. Add to this the affirmative case for European interest in Poland, whose capital Warsaw
is exposed to attack from its eastern and southern flanks just as Moscow is immediately threatened from its western and southern
flanks. Perhaps all this just confirms how far down the path to the "Thucydides trap" the principal parties have traveled. Yet,
all the same, on what grounds do we rationalize Russian inroads into the Mediterranean? Free navigation of the seas?
I like this article but Russia is no longer a declining power technically. It's GDP is slowly rising again in the last few years.
They did take a hit from sanctions and low oil prices but they are staring to recover to some degree.
Russians like Putin because their economy is much better now than it was during the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The problem this country has with Russia is that they were a declining power and now are back on the rise. China is more of
a threat but the imbeciles in the establishment keep focusing on trying to undermine Russian security. They seem to really believe
Putin is their enemy without realizing the overwhelming majority of Russians have issues with our stupid foreign policy.
Google Russian GDP, especially through time, and you'll see what I mean.
Is it any wonder that the old foreign service establishment "embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous"?
The foreign service exam of that era (probably no better today) tested substantially on ones knowledge of fiction: novels and
such. Rather like choosing career foreign service officers based on a person's performance in the entertainment trivia night at
the local watering hole. It was a test of memory not logic or insightfulness or historical perspective. These folks are not latter-day
De Toquevilles or great historians, even if many came from colleges viewed as top drawer.
One thing that few appreciate is that US actions in the Ukraine in 2013/14 prompted Russian retaliation in the 2016 election.
The Russians had been playing by our rules. (Party of the Regions won a free and fair election in the Ukraine) and then we supported
a violent extra-constitutional takeover.The Obama administration wanted to see a repeat of the performance in Kiev, in Moscow
with Putin playing the part of Yanukovych. The Russian response was to attack the fault lines in American Society. Their ultimate
goal is to see the kind of rioting in the US that we had supported in Kiev in the Winter of 14.
American diplomacy has become dangerously simplistic and one-dimensional in outlook. Turkey bad, Kurds good. Iran bad, Israel
good. Russia bad, Ukraine and NATO good. You try talking with Russia, Iran or Turkey you'll be crucified in domestic politics.
Russia on the other hand doesn't have this simplistic view. They wisely recognize that the world is varying shades of gray.
Excellent piece. Bottom line: the Ukraine is within Russia's "sphere of influence", not ours. Not our problem. The last time a
major power attempted to insert itself within another country's sphere of influence was in 1962. Anybody remember the Cuban Missile
Crisis?
Mr. Merry is entitled to his point of view, but I find his remarks to be out of touch -- sort of like another "Chicken Kiev" speech
with the date "2019" slapped on it. Perhaps he would benefit from a couple of tours of duty in Kyiv, like George Kent and Bill
Taylor. Then he would appreciate the fact that the United States does have real interests in preserving Ukrainian sovereignty,
along with the independence of all the former Soviet states who have split off from Russia. He should also not be so quick to
characterize Kent's and Taylor's testimony. They were in Congress not to express a policy position on Russia, but to act as fact
witnesses to the potentially impeachable actions of the President and his circle. So, let's not get into conspiracy theories about
what "elites" believe. It's one short step from that to muttering darkly about the 'Deep State" and Comet Pizza.
Is it any wonder that the old foreign service establishment "embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous"?
The foreign service exam of that era (probably no better today) tested substantially on ones knowledge of fiction: novels and
such.
Rather like choosing career foreign service officers based on a person's performance in the entertainment trivia night at the
local watering hole. It was a test of memory not logic or insightfulness or historical perspective. These folks are not latter-day
De Toquevilles or great historians, even if many came from colleges viewed as top drawer.
Agreed. However, an addendum, you seem to have forgotten to mention Russia's aggressive
training whales to spy on Norway, crickets to drive the US embassy in Cuba nuts, weaponizing
Masha and the bear, using Pokemon to sow the seeds of discord, contemplating on freezing up a
few states, any many others the mere thought of gets one wound up.
It's beginning to seem like an assault by the Zulu army of American politics – they
just never stop coming.
We are referring to the Russophobic neocon Deep Staters who have trooped before Adam's
Schiff Show to pillory POTUS for daring to look into the Ukrainian stench that engulfs the
Imperial City – a rank odor that is owing to their own arrogant meddling in the the
internal affairs of that woebegone country.
This time it was Dr. Fiona Hill who sanctimoniously advised the House committee that there
is nothing to see on the Ukraine front that involved any legitimate matter of state; it was
just the Donald and his tinfoil hat chums jeopardizing the serious business of protecting the
national security by injecting electioneering into relations with Ukraine.
She warned Republicans that legitimizing an unsubstantiated theory that Kyiv undertook
a concerted campaign to interfere in the election – a claim the president pushed
repeatedly for Ukraine to investigate – played into Russia's hands.
"In the course of this investigation," Dr. Hill testified before the House Intelligence
Committee's impeachment hearings, "I would ask that you please not promote politically
driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests."
Folks, we are getting just plain sick and tired of this drumbeat of lies, misdirection and
smug condescension by Washington payrollers like Fiona Hill. No Ukrainian interference in the
2016 US election?
Exactly what hay wagon does she think we fell off from?
Or better still, ask Paul Manafort who will spend his golden years in the Big House owing
to an August 2016 leak to the New York Times about an alleged "black book"
which recorded payments he had received from his work as an advisor to the Ukrainian
political party of former president Yanakovych. As we have seen, the latter had been removed
from office by a Washington instigated coup in February 2014.
By its own admission, this story came from the Ukrainian government and the purpose was
clear as a bell: Namely, to undermine the Trump presidential campaign and force Manafort out
of his months-old role as campaign chairman – a role that had finally brought some
professional management to the Donald's helter-skelter campaign for the nation's highest
office.
In the event, this well-timed bombshell worked, and in short order Manafort resigned,
leaving the disheveled Trump campaign in the lurch:
government investigators examining secret records have found Manafort's name, as well
as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was
used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr.
Manafort's main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr.
Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012,
according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau . Investigators
assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients
also included election officials.
In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies
.. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million
deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort
and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin.
Mr. Manafort's involvement with moneyed interests in Russia and Ukraine had previously
come to light. But as American relationships there become a rising issue in the presidential
campaign – from Mr. Trump's favorable statements about Mr. Putin and his annexation
of Crimea to the suspected Russian hacking of Democrats' emails – an examination of
Mr. Manafort's activities offers new details of how he mixed politics and business out of
public view and benefited from powerful interests now under scrutiny by the new government in
Kiev.
The bolded lines in the NYT story above tell you exactly where this was coming
from. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau had been set up by an outfit called "AntAC", which
was jointly funded by George Soros and the Obama State Department. And there can be little
doubt that the Donald's accurate view at the time – that Crimea's reunification with
Mother Russia after a 60 year hiatus which had been ordered by the former Soviet Union's
Presidium – was unwelcome in Kiev and among the Washington puppeteers who had put it in
power.
For want of doubt that the Poroshenko government was in the tank for Hillary Clinton, the
liberal rag called Politico spilled the beans a few months later. In a January
11, 2017 story it revealed that the Ukrainian government had pulled out all the stops
attempting to help Clinton, whose protégés at the State Department had been the
masterminds of the coup which put them in office. Thus, Politico concluded,
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by
officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a
top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to
back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information
on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in
Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race ..
But Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the
race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from
engaging in one another's elections.
While it's not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between
governments and reporters, one of the more damaging Russia-related stories for the Trump
campaign – and certainly for Manafort – can be traced more directly to the
Ukrainian government.
Documents released by an independent Ukrainian government agency – and publicized
by a parliamentarian – appeared to show $12.7 million in cash payments that were
earmarked for Manafort by the Russia-aligned party of the deposed former president,
Yanukovych.
TheNew York Times, in the August story revealing the ledgers'
existence, reported that the payments earmarked for Manafort were "a focus" of an
investigation by Ukrainian anti-corruption officials, while CNN reported days later that the
FBI was pursuing an overlapping inquiry.
Yet Fiona Hill sat before a House committee and under oath insisted that all of the above
was a Trumpian conspiracy theory, thereby reminding us that the neocon Russophobes are so
unhinged that they are prepared to lie at the drop of a hat to keep their false narrative
about the Russian Threat and Putin's "invasion" of Ukraine alive.
Needless to say, Fiona Hill is among the worst of the neocon warmongers, and has made a
specialty of demonizing Russia and propagating over and over flat out lies about what
happened in Kiev during 2014 and after. Thus, in one recent attack she claimed,
Russia today poses a greater foreign policy and security challenge to the United States
and its Western allies than at any time since the height of the Cold War. Its annexation of
Crimea, war in Ukraine's Donbas region, and military intervention in Syria have upended
Western calculations from Eastern Europe to the Middle East. Russia's intervention in Syria,
in particular, is a stark reminder that Russia is a multi-regional power ..
There is not a single true assertion in that quotation, of course, but we cite it for a
very particular reason. Shifty Schiff & his impeachment tribunal have brought in Hill
– and Lt. Colonel Vindman, Ambassador Taylor, George Kent and Tim Morrison previously
– in order to created an echo chamber.
That's right. The Dems are parroting the neocon lies – whether they believe them or
not – in order to propagate the impression that the Donald is undermining national
security in his effort to take a different posture on Russia and Ukraine, and is actually
bordering on treason.
Thus, Adam Schiff repeated the false neocon narrative virtually word for word at the opening
of the public hearings:
"In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation's
embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian
empire."
That's pure rubbish. It's based on the Big Lie that the overwhelming vote of the Russian
population of Crimea in March 2014 was done at the gun point of the Russian Army. And that
event, in turn, is the lynch-pin of the hoary canard that Putin is seeking to rebuild the
Soviet Empire.
So it is necessary to review the truth once again about how Russian Crimea had been
temporarily appended to the Ukrainian SSR during Soviet times.
The allegedly "occupied" territory of Crimea, in fact, was actually purchased from the
Ottomans by Catherine the Great in 1783, thereby satisfying the longstanding quest of the
Russian Czars for a warm-water port. Over the ages Sevastopol then emerged as a great naval
base at the strategic tip of the Crimean peninsula, where it became home to the mighty Black
Sea Fleet of the Czars and then the Soviet Union, too.
For the next 171 years Crimea was an integral part of Russia (until 1954). That span
exceeds the 170 years that have elapsed since California was annexed by a similar thrust of
"Manifest Destiny" on this continent, thereby providing, incidentally, the United States Navy
with its own warm-water port in San Diego.
While no foreign forces subsequently invaded the California coasts, it was most definitely
not Ukrainian and Polish rifles, artillery and blood which famously annihilated The Charge Of
The Light Brigade at the Crimean city of Balaclava in 1854; they were Russians defending the
homeland from Turks, French and Brits.
And the portrait of the Russian "hero" hanging in Putin's office is that of Czar Nicholas
I – whose brutal 30-year reign brought the Russian Empire to its historical zenith. Yet
despite his cruelty, Nicholas I is revered in Russian hagiography as the defender of Crimea,
even as he lost the 1850s war to the Ottomans and Europeans.
At the end of the day, security of its historic port in Crimea is Russia's Red Line, not
Washington's. Unlike today's feather-headed Washington pols, even the enfeebled Franklin
Roosevelt at least knew that he was in Soviet Russia when he made port in the Crimean
city of Yalta in February 1945.
Maneuvering to cement his control of the Kremlin in the intrigue-ridden struggle for
succession after Stalin's death a few years later, Nikita Khrushchev allegedly spent 15
minutes reviewing his "gift" of Crimea to his subalterns in Kiev.
As it happened, therefore, Crimea became part of the Ukraine only by writ of one of the
most vicious and reprehensible states in human history – the former Soviet Union:
On April 26, 1954. The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet
transferring the Crimea Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian
SSR ..Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial
proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the
Ukrainian SSR .
That's right. Washington's hypocritical and tendentious accusations against Russia's
re-absorption of Crimea imply that the dead-hand of the Soviet presidium must be defended at
all costs – as if the security of North Dakota depended upon it!
In fact, the brouhaha about "returning" Crimea is a naked case of the hegemonic arrogance
that has overtaken Imperial Washington since the 1991 Soviet demise.
After all, during the long decades of the Cold War, the West did nothing to liberate the
"captive nation" of Ukraine – with or without the Crimean appendage bestowed upon it in
1954. Nor did it draw any red lines in the mid-1990's when a financially desperate Ukraine
rented back Sevastopol and the strategic redoubts of the Crimea to an equally pauperized
Russia.
In short, in the era before we got our Pacific port in 1848, and even during the 170-year
interval since then, America's national security has depended not one whit on the status of
Russian-speaking Crimea. That the local population has now chosen fealty to the Grand Thief
in Moscow over the ruffians and rabble who have seized Kiev amounts to a giant: So what!
The truth is, when it comes to Ukraine there really isn't that much there, there. Its
boundaries have been morphing for centuries among the quarreling tribes, peoples, potentates,
Patriarchs and pretenders of a small region that is none of Washington's damn business..
Still, it was this final aggressive drive of Washington and NATO into the internal affairs
of Russia's historic neighbor and vassal, Ukraine, that largely accounts for the demonization
of Putin. Likewise, it is virtually the entire source of the false claim that Russia has
aggressive, expansionist designs on the former Warsaw Pact states in the Baltics, Poland and
beyond.
The latter is a nonsensical fabrication. In fact, it was the neocon meddlers from
Washington who crushed Ukraine's last semblance of civil governance when they enabled
ultra-nationalists and crypto-Nazis to gain government positions after the February 2014
putsch.
As we indicated above, in one fell swoop that inexcusable stupidity reopened Ukraine's
blood-soaked modern history. The latter incepted with Stalin's re-population of the eastern
Donbas region with "reliable" Russian workers after his genocidal liquidation of the kulaks
in the early 1930s.
It was subsequently exacerbated by the large-scale collaboration by Ukrainian nationalists
in the west with the Nazi Wehrmacht as it laid waste to Poles, Jews, gypsies and other
"undesirables" on its way to Stalingrad in 1942-43. Thereafter followed an equal and opposite
spree of barbaric revenge as the victorious Red Army marched back through Ukraine on its way
to Berlin.
So it may be fairly asked. What beltway lame brains did not chance to understand that
Washington's triggering of "regime change" in Kiev would reopen this entire bloody history of
sectarian and political strife?
Moreover, once they had opened Pandora's box, why was it so hard to see that an outright
partition of Ukraine with autonomy for the Donbas and Crimea, or even accession to the
Russian state from which these communities had originated, would have been a perfectly
reasonable resolution?
Certainly that would have been far preferable to dragging all of Europe into the lunacy of
the current anti-Putin sanctions and embroiling the Ukrainian factions in a suicidal civil
war. The alleged Russian threat to Europe, therefore, was manufactured in Imperial
Washington, not the Kremlin.
In fact, in 1989 and 1990, the George H. W. Bush administration assured Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev that if he accepted German unification, the West would not seek to exploit
the situation through any eastward expansion – not even by "one inch," as
then-secretary of state James Baker assured Gorbachev. But Bill Clinton reneged on that
commitment, moving to expand NATO on an eastward path that eventually led right up to the
Russian border.
So Robert Merry said it well in his excellent piece on the entire neocon Ukraine Scam that
is being paraded before the Schiff Show.
That is, what is being desperately defended on Capitol Hill is not the rule of law,
national security or fidelity to the Constitution of the United States., but a giant Neocon
Lie that is needed to keep the Empire in business, and the world moving ever closer to an
utterly unnecessary Cold War 2.0 between nation's each pointing enough nuclear warheads at
the other to destroy the planet.
NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the
expansion countries lying east of Germany. As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued
stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in NATO
either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security.
True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their
elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, to respond favorably to Western financial
blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine,
renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official
status to the Russian language. These actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but
they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations aimed
at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater
economic ties to Russia, pro-Western Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged
street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria Nuland
gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia.
Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely
Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey
Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian coup, she
shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position,
demonstrating the influence that enables US meddling in foreign countries.
That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to
protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine (the so-called Donbass in the country's
east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated a
plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly
the "sham referendum" described by Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass
Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward.
The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in
the center of Eurasia – the global "heartland," in the view of the famous British
geographic scholar Halford Mackinder – renders it always a potential threat. Its
vulnerability to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands.
Its national temperament seems to include a natural tendency towards authoritarianism. Any
sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind.
But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia,
the Alliance has been the more aggressive player – aggressive when it pushed for NATO's
eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the US
government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the
encirclement of Russia; aggressive when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for
Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian orbit with
economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected
Ukrainian government; and aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge
Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood.
George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this
aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon
its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues and
leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well.
This is a replay of Vietnam Communist Domino Theory. May all those neocons rest in Eternal
Hell.
Notable quotes:
"... Now is not the time to retreat from our relationship with Ukraine, but rather to double down on it. As we sit here, Ukrainians are fighting a hot war on Ukrainian territory against Russian aggression. ..."
"... I went to the front line approximately 10 times during a hot war sometimes literally as we heard the impact of artillery, and to see how our assistance dollars were being put to use. ..."
"... Ukraine, with an enormous land mass and a large population, has the potential to be a significant force multiplier on the security side And now Ukraine is a battleground for great power competition with a hot war for the control of territory and a hybrid war to control Ukraine's leadership. ..."
"... She explained that the US-funded and fascist-led "Maidan Revolution" of 2014, which she and other State Department officials absurdly called the "Revolution of Dignity," was part of this conflict. "That's why they launched the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, demanding to be a part of Europe," she declared. ..."
"... Diplomat George Kent invoked the same theme in his testimony last Wednesday, saying: ..."
"... Ukraine's popular Revolution of Dignity in 2014 forced a corrupt pro-Russian leadership to flee to Moscow. After that, Russia invaded Ukraine, occupying seven percent of its territory, roughly equivalent to the size of Texas for the United States ..."
"... Since then, more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their territorial integrity and sovereignty from Russian aggression. American support in Ukraine's own de facto war of independence has been critical in this regard. ..."
"... Kent subsequently compared the role of the United States in the Ukrainian civil war to that of Spain and France in the American War of Independence. In that conflict, Spain and France were officially at war with Great Britain, including formal declarations of war in 1778 and 1779. ..."
"... If Kent's analogy is true, then the United States is in an undeclared war with Russia. ..."
"... But when has this war ever been discussed with the American people? Was there ever a congressional vote to authorize it? ..."
"... When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces," she said, threatening the "president, or anyone else, [who] impedes or subverts the national security of the United States. ..."
"... "In an otherwise divided Washington, one of the few issues of bipartisan agreement for the past six years has been countering Russian President Vladimir V. Putin's broad plan of disruption. That effort starts in Ukraine, where there has been a hot war underway in the east for five years " ..."
"... @wendy davis ..."
"... @jim p ..."
"... @lotlizard ..."
"... Mykola Zlochevsky, former employer of Hunter Biden and current partner of the Atlantic Council ..."
' Who decided the US should fight a "hot war" with Russia? ', 23 November 2019 . Andre Damon,
wsws
"There is a saying attributed to the banker J.P. Morgan: " A man always has two reasons
for what he does -- a good one and the real one ."
If the alleged "organized crime shakedown" by Trump was the "good" reason for the
impeachment inquiry, the "real" reason has emerged over two weeks of public congressional
hearings. The hearings have lifted the lid on a massive US conspiracy to spend billions of
dollars to overthrow the democratically elected government of Ukraine in 2014 and foment a
civil war that has led to the deaths of thousands of people.
The impeachment drive is itself the product of efforts by sections of the intelligence
agencies and elements within the State Department to escalate Washington's conflict with
Russia, with potentially world-catastrophic consequences.
On Thursday, Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell showed a photo of Ukrainian President
Zelensky in body armor on the "front lines" of the civil war in eastern Ukraine. He asked the
State Department witnesses "why it's so important that our hard-earned tax dollars help
President Zelensky and the men standing beside him fight Russia in this hot war?"
David Holmes, political counselor at the US embassy in Kiev, replied:
Now is not the time to retreat from our relationship with Ukraine, but rather to
double down on it. As we sit here, Ukrainians are fighting a hot war on Ukrainian territory
against Russian aggression.
Later in his testimony, Holmes pointed to the massive sums expended by the United States
and its European allies to fight this "hot war," saying the US had provided $5 billion and
its European allies $12 billion since 2014.
In her testimony last week, the former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovich recalled that
as ambassador:
I went to the front line approximately 10 times during a hot war sometimes literally
as we heard the impact of artillery, and to see how our assistance dollars were being put
to use.
She added:
Ukraine, with an enormous land mass and a large population, has the potential to be
a significant force multiplier on the security side And now Ukraine is a battleground for
great power competition with a hot war for the control of territory and a hybrid war to
control Ukraine's leadership.
She explained that the US-funded and fascist-led "Maidan Revolution" of 2014, which
she and other State Department officials absurdly called the "Revolution of Dignity," was
part of this conflict. "That's why they launched the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, demanding
to be a part of Europe," she declared.
Diplomat George Kent invoked the same theme in his testimony last Wednesday,
saying:
Ukraine's popular Revolution of Dignity in 2014 forced a corrupt pro-Russian
leadership to flee to Moscow. After that, Russia invaded Ukraine, occupying seven percent
of its territory, roughly equivalent to the size of Texas for the United States
Since then, more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their
territorial integrity and sovereignty from Russian aggression. American support in
Ukraine's own de facto war of independence has been critical in this regard.
Kent subsequently compared the role of the United States in the Ukrainian civil war to
that of Spain and France in the American War of Independence. In that conflict, Spain and
France were officially at war with Great Britain, including formal declarations of war in
1778 and 1779.
If Kent's analogy is true, then the United States is in an undeclared war with
Russia.
But when has this war ever been discussed with the American people? Was there ever a
congressional vote to authorize it? Does anyone believe that if the question, "Do you
want to spend billions of dollars to help Ukraine fight a war with Russia," were posed to the
American public, the percentage answering yes would be anything more than minuscule? Of
course, that question was never asked." [snip]
"But in the congressional hearings this week, government officials declared that any
questioning of this aid is virtually treasonous. In her testimony on Thursday, former
National Security Council officer Fiona Hill accused anyone who questions that "Ukraine is a
valued partner" of the United States of advancing "Russian interests. "
" When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces,"
she said, threatening the "president, or anyone else, [who] impedes or subverts the national
security of the United States. "
In 2017, Hill penned a blog post for the Brookings Institution calling Trump a
"Bolshevik," echoing statements made more than 60 years ago by John Birch Society leader
Robert W. Welch, who declared that President Eisenhower was a "communist."
Underlying the mad allegations of the Democrats that Trump is functioning as a "Russian
asset" is a very real content: The extremely dangerous drive by factions within the state for
a military confrontation between the United States and Russia, whose combined nuclear weapons
arsenals are capable of destroying all of humanity many times over.
There is no "peace" faction within the American political establishment. No credence can
be given to either one of the parties of US imperialism, which have, over the course of
decades, presided over the toppling of dozens of governments, the launching of countless wars
and the deaths of millions of people."
Patrick Martin from his Oct. 16, 2019 ' The Trump
impeachment and US policy in Ukraine '
"This utterly reactionary, pro-imperialist role was demonstrated Friday in the tribute
that Yovanovitch paid, in the course of her testimony, to Arsen Avakov, the Ukrainian
interior minister (head of the domestic police) under both the current president, Volodymyr
Zelensky, and his predecessor Petro Poroshenko. Avakov is a principal sponsor of fascist
militias such as the Azov Battalion , which glorify the Ukrainians who collaborated with the
Nazis during World War II against the Soviet Union. In other words, the State Department
officials being celebrated in the media for defending American democracy are actually working
with the fascists in Ukraine .
While Yovanovitch hailed Avakov, Kent cited as his heroes among immigrants who have
rallied to the defense of the United States Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger, two of
the biggest war criminals of the second half of the twentieth century ." [snip]
""The connection between the impeachment drive and differences on foreign policy was spelled
out Friday on the front page of the New York Times, in an analysis by the newspaper's senior
foreign policy specialist, David Sanger, a frequent mouthpiece for the concerns of the CIA,
State Department and Pentagon, under the headline, " For President, Case of Policy vs.
Obsession." [snip]
But Sanger goes on to spell out, in remarkably blunt terms, the real foreign policy issues
at stake in the Trump impeachment. He writes,
"In an otherwise divided Washington, one of the few issues of bipartisan agreement for
the past six years has been countering Russian President Vladimir V. Putin's broad plan of
disruption. That effort starts in Ukraine, where there has been a hot war underway in the
east for five years "
Trump, according to Sanger, has betrayed the anti-Russia policy outlined by his own
administration in a Pentagon strategic assessment which declared that the "war on terror" had
been superseded as the top US priority by "great-power competition," particularly directed at
China and Russia. He sacrificed this policy to his own personal, electoral interests, as
expressed in the comment by the US ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland:
"President Trump cares more about the investigation of Biden" than about the military
conflict between Ukraine and Russia."
They'll bust both your kneecaps and then fit you with cement overshoes and toss you into
the ocean. Trump is finding out the hard way that entrenched interests in the US government
wield vast veto power over anything a president wants to do.
He's his own worst enemy with his self-sabotaging Twitter rants, endless character
assassinations, hastily burnt bridges, and conflicting statements that change based upon
the last person he talked to. Trump doesn't inspire loyalty in those who work for him and
around him. OTOH, that doesn't excuse the Deep State, an unelected cabal secretly running
our government and risking our lives with endless wars and Russia baiting. If impeachment
has shown nothing else, it's that the Deep State is real and usually gets its way.
almost all the casualties are Russian speakers in the East. Back in the early coup days
there were 37 claims that Russian troops invaded Ukraine. Which turned out to be none. I
still remember when Pravda in New York had a blurred photo they claimed to be a Russ
officer (and how do you get blurring in the digital age) which turned out to be a Ukranian
officer facebook photo. They never explained how that happened.
great context. kent's number 13,000, and yes, they were likely all Novoroosians
, if he hadn't pulled that figure out of his ass, anyway. photos of 'little green men' in
ancient soviet uniforms, old tanks left over from the days of yore.
was kent counting the dead inside the trade unions massacre in odessa petrol-bombed by
the neo-nazis?
in depth reads for later, and thank you, miz lizard. funny that the Atlantic council (at
least one version) had chosen Zelenskiy based on promises to end corruption (read: so
ukraine could have the lucre to enter Nato). and yet, he'd kept 9as per the photo caption)
Mykola Zlochevsky, former employer of Hunter Biden and current partner of the Atlantic
Council in hi cabinet, isn't it?
be encouraged to read your stockman links to his 'The Ukrainian Influence Peddling Rings
– A Microcosm of How Imperial Washington Rolls', David Stockman,
November 13, 2019 , i'll offer a few excerpts. i rarely (if ever) call anything a 'must
read', but even you, voice, might want to dig into this one (part I of II, if i get his
drift).
i'm assumming his historical narrative is correct, as all the pieces i do know about are
there are well, but what he writes i hadn't known is key, of course. his language is also
colorful as all giddy-up, which i like, and good on him. he's lost me a bit in some
sections, as he names names, lobbying firms, and so on, but that's on me, not stockman.
"The latest dispatch from the Wall Street Journal on the stench wafting westward from
Kiev reveals more about the rotten foundation of UkraineGate than its authors probably
understood.
Burisma Holdings' campaign to clean up its image in the West reached beyond the 2014
hiring of Hunter Biden, son of the then-U.S. vice president, to include other
well-connected operatives in Washington, according to officials in both countries and
government records.
The Ukrainian company, owned by tycoon Mykola Zlochevsky, also hired a lobbyist with
close ties to then-Secretary of State John Kerry, as well as a consulting group founded
by top officials in the Clinton administration that specialized in preparing former
Soviet-bloc countries to join NATO (Blue Star Strategies).
Soon the efforts bore fruit. With the help of a New York-based lawyer, Mr.
Zlochevsky's U.S. consultants argued to Ukrainian prosecutors that criminal cases
against the company should be closed because no laws had been broken.
Burisma later became a sponsor of a Washington think tank, the Atlantic Council,
whose experts are often cited on energy and security policy in the former Soviet
Union.
Simple translation: Zlochevsky was an ally, officeholder (minister of ecology and
natural resources) and inner-circle thief in the ousted government of Viktor Yanukovych.
He therefore needed to powder the pig fast and thoroughly in order to hold onto his
ill-gotten billions.""
[longish snip of a who's who involvement]...................
"Finally, the Clinton wing of the Washington racketeering system had to be covered,
too – hence the above mentioned Blue Star Strategies. And the bolded sentence from
the WSJ story quoted below tells you all you need to know about its business, which was
to " .help former Soviet countries prepare for NATO consideration".
That's right. With the Soviet Union gone, its 50,000 tanks on the central front
melted-down for scrap and the Warsaw Pact disbanded, the rational order of the day was to
declare "mission accomplished" for NATO and effect its own disbandment.
The great parachuter and then US president, George Bush the Elder, could have actually
made a jump right into the giant Ramstein Air Base in Germany to effect its closure. At
that point there was no justification for NATO's continued existence whatsoever.
But the Clinton Administration, under the baleful influence of Washington busybodies
like Strobe Talbot and Madeleine Albright, went in just the opposite direction. In
pursuit of Washington's post-1991 quest for global hegemony as the world's only
superpower and putative keeper of the peace, they prepared the way for the entirety of
the old Warsaw Pact to join NATO.
So doing, however, they also laid the planking for a revival of the cold war with the
Kremlin. As the father of containment and NATO during the late 1940s, Ambassador George
Kennan, observed at the time, the Clinton Administration's policy of expanding NATO to
the very doorstep of Russia was a colossal mistake." [longish snip]
...............................
"So that's how the Imperial City rolls. People make policies which extend the Empire
while in office – as did these Clintonistas with the NATO expansion project –
and then cash-in afterwards by peddling influence in the corridors of the beltway on
behalf of Washington's newly acquired vassals and supplicants.
In this case, all roads lead to the Atlantic Council, which is the semi-official
"think tank" of NATO in Washington and is infested with Russophobes and Clinton/Biden
operatives. The latter, of course, make a handsome living peddling anti-Putin propaganda
– the better to grease the Washington purse strings for unneeded military spending
and foreign aid, security assistance and weapons sales to the "front line" states
allegedly in the path of Kremlin aggression."
thank you, miz lizard. love this title of his on the sidebar: ' Democrats Empower a Pack
of Paranoid Neocon Morons '. ; )
i'll grab part II and read it greedily when i have more time.
putting them in the context of the region's deeper past. The first two parts of a
series.
The Special Operations Detachment "Azov", often known as Azov Battalion, Azov
Regiment, or Azov Detachment, (Ukrainian: Полк
Азов) is a Ukrainian National Guard regiment,[1][2][3][4] based
in Mariupol in the Azov Sea coastal region.
In 2014, it gained notoriety after allegations emerged of torture and war crimes, as
well as neo-Nazi sympathies and usage of associated symbols by the regiment itself, as
seen in their logo featuring the Wolfsangel, one of the original symbols used by the
German Nazi Party. In 2014, around 10-20% of the unit were neo-Nazis.[9] In 2018, a
provision in an appropriations bill passed by the U.S. Congress blocked military aid to
Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology. [10] Members of the regiment come
from 22 countries and are of various backgrounds.[11]
On 13 April 2014 Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov [nb 1] issued a decree
authorizing creating new paramilitary forces from civilians up to 12,000.[22] The Azov
Battalion (using "Eastern Corps" as its backbone[20]) was formed on 5 May 2014 in
Berdiansk[23] by a white nationalist.[24] Many members of Patriot of Ukraine joined the
battalion.[20] Among the early patrons of the battalion were a member of the Verkhovna
Rada Oleh Lyashko, and an ultra-nationalist Dmytro Korchynsky and businessman Serhiy
Taruta and Avakov.[25][20] The battalion then received training near Kiev by instructors
with experience in the Georgian Armed Forces.[
In September 2014, the Azov battalion was expanded from a battalion to a regiment and
enrolled into the National Guard of Ukraine.[23][33] At about this time it started
receiving increased supplies of heavy arms.[33] The Azov battalion received funding from
the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and other sources (believed to be Ukrainian
oligarchs).
As of late March 2015, despite a second ceasefire agreement (Minsk II), the Azov
Battalion continued to prepare for war, with the group's leader seeing the ceasefire as
"appeasement".[33] In March 2015 Interior Minister Arsen Avakov announced that the Azov
Regiment would be among the first units to be trained by United States Army troops in
their Operation Fearless Guardian training mission.[44][45] US training however was
withdrawn on 12 June 2015, as US House of Representatives passed an amendment blocking
any aid (including arms and training) to the battalion due to its Neo-Nazi
background.[46] After the vote Congressman John Conyers thanked the House saying "I am
grateful that the House of Representatives unanimously passed my amendments last night to
ensure that our military does not train members of the repulsive neo-Nazi Azov Battalion,
along with my measures to keep the dangerous and easily trafficked MANPADs out of these
unstable regions."[45]
Since 2015 Azov is organising summer camps where children and teenagers receive
practice in civil defense and military tactics mixed with lectures on Ukrainian
nationalism.[48][20]
Since 2015 the Battalion has been upgraded to Regimental status and "Azov" is now
officially called "Special Operations Regiment" , with combat duties focused on
reconnaissance, counter-reconnaissance, EOD disposal, interdiction and special weapons
operations.
Foreign membership [edit]
According to The Daily Telegraph, the Azov Battalion's extremist politics and
professional English social media pages have attracted foreign fighters,[30] including
people from Brazil, Ireland, Italy, United Kingdom, France, America, Greece,
Scandinavia,[2][30] Spain, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Russia. [2][56][57] About 50
Russian nationals are members of the Azov regiment.[58]
According to Minsk Ceasefire Agreements, foreign fighters are not allowed to serve in
Ukraine's military:[66] since "Azov" Regiment was granted full military status, its
foreign volunteers were compelled either to take Ukrainian citizenship, or to leave the
Regiment.
Human rights violations and war crimes[edit]
Reports published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR) have connected the Azov Battalion to war crimes such as mass looting, unlawful
detention, and torture.[68][69] An OHCHR report from March 2016 stated that the
organisation had "collected detailed information about the conduct of hostilities by
Ukrainian armed forces and the Azov regiment in and around Shyrokyne (31km east of
Mariupol), from the summer of 2014 to date. Mass looting of civilian homes was
documented, as well as targeting of civilian areas between September 2014 and February
2015".[68] Another OHCHR report documented an instance of rape and torture
Rodnovery, symbolism and neo-Nazism [edit]
Emblem featuring a Wolfsangel and Black Sun
Most soldiers of Azov are followers of a Ukrainian nationalist type of Rodnovery (Slavic
Native Faith), wherefrom they derive some of their symbolism (such as a variation of the
swastika symbol kolovrat). They have also established Rodnover shrines for their
religious rites, including one in Mariupol dedicated to Perun.[70][71][72][unreliable
source] German ZDF television showed images of Azov fighters wearing helmets with
swastika symbols and "the SS runes of Hitler's infamous black-uniformed elite corps".[73]
Due to the use of such symbols, Azov has been considered to have connections with
neo-Nazism, with members wearing neo-Nazi and SS symbols and regalia and expressing
Neo-Nazi views.
The group's insignia features the Wolfsangel[78][79][80] and the Black
Sun,[78][81][82] two Nazi-era symbols adopted by neo-Nazi groups.
In 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision blocking any training of
Azov members by American forces, citing its neo-Nazi background. In previous years,
between 2014 and 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed amendments banning
support of Azov, but due to pressure from the Pentagon, the amendments were quietly
lifted.[87][88][89] This move has been protested by Simon Wiesenthal Center which stated
that the move highlights danger of Holocaust distortion in Ukraine.[89] On 26 June 2015,
the Canadian defence minister declared as well, that training by Canadian forces or
support would not be provided to Azov. [90]
While Azov Battalion troops have denied that the organization has any neo-Nazi or white
supremacist beliefs, journalists stated that "numerous swastika tattoos of different
members and their tendency to go into battle with swastikas or SS insignias drawn on
their helmets make it very difficult for other members of the group to plausibly deny any
neo-Nazi affiliations" .[85]
no more US training? dunno what to say to that. but i plugged '2018' into a bing search
of azov torchlight parades and found this from 2016 instead (although there were some
later, as well):
Ukrainian ultra-nationalist Azov battalion [as well as Right Sector' stages torch-lit
march in Kharkov (VIDEOS)], 12 Dec, 2016 , RT.com
really according to Eva
Bartlett who'd committed journalism in the donbass independent republics, zelenskiy
hasn't been able to control them (as promised) either.
it's a good time to remember all who'd invested in the ukraine who had interest in the
Maidan putsch, isn't it?
The Special Operations Detachment "Azov", often known as Azov Battalion, Azov
Regiment, or Azov Detachment, (Ukrainian: Полк
Азов) is a Ukrainian National Guard regiment,[1][2][3][4]
based in Mariupol in the Azov Sea coastal region.
In 2014, it gained notoriety after allegations emerged of torture and war crimes,
as well as neo-Nazi sympathies and usage of associated symbols by the regiment
itself, as seen in their logo featuring the Wolfsangel, one of the original symbols
used by the German Nazi Party. In 2014, around 10-20% of the unit were neo-Nazis.[9]
In 2018, a provision in an appropriations bill passed by the U.S. Congress blocked
military aid to Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology. [10] Members
of the regiment come from 22 countries and are of various backgrounds.[11]
On 13 April 2014 Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov [nb 1] issued a decree
authorizing creating new paramilitary forces from civilians up to 12,000.[22] The
Azov Battalion (using "Eastern Corps" as its backbone[20]) was formed on 5 May 2014
in Berdiansk[23] by a white nationalist.[24] Many members of Patriot of Ukraine
joined the battalion.[20] Among the early patrons of the battalion were a member of
the Verkhovna Rada Oleh Lyashko, and an ultra-nationalist Dmytro Korchynsky and
businessman Serhiy Taruta and Avakov.[25][20] The battalion then received training
near Kiev by instructors with experience in the Georgian Armed Forces.[
In September 2014, the Azov battalion was expanded from a battalion to a regiment
and enrolled into the National Guard of Ukraine.[23][33] At about this time it
started receiving increased supplies of heavy arms.[33] The Azov battalion received
funding from the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and other sources (believed
to be Ukrainian oligarchs).
As of late March 2015, despite a second ceasefire agreement (Minsk II), the Azov
Battalion continued to prepare for war, with the group's leader seeing the ceasefire
as "appeasement".[33] In March 2015 Interior Minister Arsen Avakov announced that the
Azov Regiment would be among the first units to be trained by United States Army
troops in their Operation Fearless Guardian training mission.[44][45] US training
however was withdrawn on 12 June 2015, as US House of Representatives passed an
amendment blocking any aid (including arms and training) to the battalion due to its
Neo-Nazi background.[46] After the vote Congressman John Conyers thanked the House
saying "I am grateful that the House of Representatives unanimously passed my
amendments last night to ensure that our military does not train members of the
repulsive neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, along with my measures to keep the dangerous and
easily trafficked MANPADs out of these unstable regions."[45]
Since 2015 Azov is organising summer camps where children and teenagers receive
practice in civil defense and military tactics mixed with lectures on Ukrainian
nationalism.[48][20]
Since 2015 the Battalion has been upgraded to Regimental status and "Azov" is now
officially called "Special Operations Regiment" , with combat duties focused on
reconnaissance, counter-reconnaissance, EOD disposal, interdiction and special
weapons operations.
Foreign membership [edit]
According to The Daily Telegraph, the Azov Battalion's extremist politics and
professional English social media pages have attracted foreign fighters,[30]
including people from Brazil, Ireland, Italy, United Kingdom, France, America,
Greece, Scandinavia,[2][30] Spain, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Russia. [2][56][57]
About 50 Russian nationals are members of the Azov regiment.[58]
According to Minsk Ceasefire Agreements, foreign fighters are not allowed to serve
in Ukraine's military:[66] since "Azov" Regiment was granted full military status,
its foreign volunteers were compelled either to take Ukrainian citizenship, or to
leave the Regiment.
Human rights violations and war crimes[edit]
Reports published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights (OHCHR) have connected the Azov Battalion to war crimes such as mass looting,
unlawful detention, and torture.[68][69] An OHCHR report from March 2016 stated that
the organisation had "collected detailed information about the conduct of hostilities
by Ukrainian armed forces and the Azov regiment in and around Shyrokyne (31km east of
Mariupol), from the summer of 2014 to date. Mass looting of civilian homes was
documented, as well as targeting of civilian areas between September 2014 and
February 2015".[68] Another OHCHR report documented an instance of rape and
torture
Rodnovery, symbolism and neo-Nazism [edit]
Emblem featuring a Wolfsangel and Black Sun
Most soldiers of Azov are followers of a Ukrainian nationalist type of Rodnovery
(Slavic Native Faith), wherefrom they derive some of their symbolism (such as a
variation of the swastika symbol kolovrat). They have also established Rodnover
shrines for their religious rites, including one in Mariupol dedicated to
Perun.[70][71][72][unreliable source] German ZDF television showed images of Azov
fighters wearing helmets with swastika symbols and "the SS runes of Hitler's infamous
black-uniformed elite corps".[73] Due to the use of such symbols, Azov has been
considered to have connections with neo-Nazism, with members wearing neo-Nazi and SS
symbols and regalia and expressing Neo-Nazi views.
The group's insignia features the Wolfsangel[78][79][80] and the Black
Sun,[78][81][82] two Nazi-era symbols adopted by neo-Nazi groups.
In 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision blocking any
training of Azov members by American forces, citing its neo-Nazi background. In
previous years, between 2014 and 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed
amendments banning support of Azov, but due to pressure from the Pentagon, the
amendments were quietly lifted.[87][88][89] This move has been protested by Simon
Wiesenthal Center which stated that the move highlights danger of Holocaust
distortion in Ukraine.[89] On 26 June 2015, the Canadian defence minister declared as
well, that training by Canadian forces or support would not be provided to Azov.
[90]
While Azov Battalion troops have denied that the organization has any neo-Nazi or
white supremacist beliefs, journalists stated that "numerous swastika tattoos of
different members and their tendency to go into battle with swastikas or SS insignias
drawn on their helmets make it very difficult for other members of the group to
plausibly deny any neo-Nazi affiliations" .[85]
It's great that Ukraine's revisionist far-right politics are at least getting some
attention in the press. But what you won't read in these reports is that the U.S.
government had recently sponsored a "cultural" exhibit that celebrated the Nazi
collaborator who is now getting his own street in Kiev. You can't make this stuff up!
But we have to help the Nazis because Putin's Russia is invading and we owe it to them
to.... blehh!
yasha levine commits good journalism, there too! i'd never even heard of Nil Khasevych
nor his Kil the Jews wood block prints. zelenskiy is not only jewish, but russian speaking,
ukrainian is his second language as i understand it.
imagine now living on Khasevych; wouldn't you be proud? i'd been on yasha's account
recently looking for his take (if any) on the intercept/NYT collaboration on the Iranaian
leaks. i'd figured his link to the history if U S meddling at the bottom would speak at
length about Pierre Omidyar's investments (centre UA, USAID, etc.) and maybe (then)
monsanto/billy gates.
thank you; a whoosh -worthy exposé. do you get his newsletter,
snoop?
p.s. on edit: i tried to subscribe, but it costs money. oh, well...
It's great that Ukraine's revisionist far-right politics are at least getting some
attention in the press. But what you won't read in these reports is that the U.S.
government had recently sponsored a "cultural" exhibit that celebrated the Nazi
collaborator who is now getting his own street in Kiev. You can't make this stuff
up!
But we have to help the Nazis because Putin's Russia is invading and we owe it to
them to.... blehh!
There is lots of good info on Twitter about the Ukraine system and corruption. Bibi
didn't have any problems dealing with the neo Nazis there either which threw me for a loop.
But then it was people in our country that made Hitler's war chest. Bush Sr., Ford and lots
of others thought Hitler's system should be implemented here. Oh yeah and of course the
banks..
Yasha Levine commits good journalism, there too! i'd never even heard of Nil
Khasevych nor his Kil the Jews wood block prints. zelenskiy is not only jewish, but
russian speaking, ukrainian is his second language as i understand it.
imagine now living on Khasevych; wouldn't you be proud? i'd been on yasha's account
recently looking for his take (if any) on the intercept/NYT collaboration on the
Iranaian leaks. i'd figured his link to the history if U S meddling at the bottom would
speak at length about Pierre Omidyar's investments (centre UA, USAID, etc.) and maybe
(then) monsanto/billy gates.
thank you; a whoosh -worthy exposé. do you get his newsletter,
snoop?
p.s. on edit: i tried to subscribe, but it costs money. oh, well...
especially with the editing. but it' like the game of telephone, isn't it? 'he told me
he overheard...', and someone told me s he heard..., yada, yada,
but just think if Pelosi hadn't limited the inquiry to One Phone call? 'as trump's
puppet, is zelenskiy's claiming 'no quid pro quo worth anything?'
There is lots of good info on Twitter about the Ukraine system and corruption. Bibi
didn't have any problems dealing with the neo Nazis there either which threw me for a
loop. But then it was people in our country that made Hitler's war chest. Bush Sr.,
Ford and lots of others thought Hitler's system should be implemented here. Oh yeah and
of course the banks..
Nah not so much. Numerous websites wrote about it back when it happened just like they
wrote about Hunter Biden and Burisma. But now I'm seeing the main stream media trying to
tell us that it didn't happen that way. Well here's one article that hasn't been scrubbed
yet.
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly
working to boost Clinton.
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by
officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating
a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to
back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging
information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National
Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to
expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to
people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's
resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to
Ukraine's foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally
directed than Russia's alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.
Ahh that good ole but. Yes what people in Ukraine did was bad, but.... and here's the
but.
Russia's effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved
the country's military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S.
intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the possibility that
Russian operatives might have compromising information on the president-elect. And at a
Senate hearing last week on the hacking, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
said " I don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to
interfere in our election process than we've seen in this case."
There's little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers
suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the
country -- not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia -- would render it unable to
pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country's election. And
President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in
Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race.
Yet Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the
race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from
engaging in one another's elections.
Well there you have it. People in Ukraine were digging up dirt on people in Trump's
campaign whilst Vlad only placed a few ads on FB and most of them were placed after the
election was over. Badder Russia.
That Ukraine was trying to get Hillary elected was well known in the Ukraine government,
but sure let's just say it never happened like that. Then of course there was Hillary
hiring people in another country to dig up dirt too, but that doesn't count. Why? Reasons
of course and because it was Hillary and the DNC doing it. See? Reasons.
Next paragraph starts with this.
Russia's meddling has sparked outrage from the American body politic. Lots of words
about how that outraged people here...and more blah blah blah stuff.
Next paragrap
Ukraine, on the other hand, has traditionally enjoyed strong relations with U.S.
administrations. Its officials worry that could change under Trump, whose team has
privately expressed sentiments ranging from ambivalence to deep skepticism about
Poroshenko's regime, while sounding unusually friendly notes about Putin's regime.
Poroshenko is scrambling to alter that dynamic, recently signing a $50,000-a-month
contract with a well-connected GOP-linked Washington lobbying firm to set up meetings
with U.S. government officials "to strengthen U.S.-Ukrainian relations."
Hmm hint of a quid pro quo there?
BTW. Lindsay Graham wants to investigate Hunter Biden and Joe says that he will regret
doing that for the rest of his life. Stay tuned for the fireworks.
Ahh yes Russia was the one that started that propaganda. Burisma and Biden was always on
the up and up so don't even think that they weren't. I really don't know how people who
believe everything about Russia Gate and now Ukraine Gate can keep their beliefs intact
when there is so much information showing that what they believe is wrong or didn't happen
the way they think it did.
Nah not so much. Numerous websites wrote about it back when it happened just like
they wrote about Hunter Biden and Burisma. But now I'm seeing the main stream media
trying to tell us that it didn't happen that way. Well here's one article that hasn't
been scrubbed yet.
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after
quietly working to boost Clinton.
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by
officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump
by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents
implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the
matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies
research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation
found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National
Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort
to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according
to people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's
resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to
Ukraine's foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or
centrally directed than Russia's alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic
emails.
Ahh that good ole but. Yes what people in Ukraine did was bad, but.... and here's
the but.
Russia's effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin,
involved the country's military and foreign intelligence services, according
to U.S. intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the
possibility that Russian operatives might have compromising information on the
president-elect. And at a Senate hearing last week on the hacking, Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper said " I don't think we've ever encountered a
more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process than we've
seen in this case."
There's little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers
suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the
country -- not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia -- would render it unable to
pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country's election. And
President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in
Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race.
Yet Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in
the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments
refrain from engaging in one another's elections.
Well there you have it. People in Ukraine were digging up dirt on people in Trump's
campaign whilst Vlad only placed a few ads on FB and most of them were placed after the
election was over. Badder Russia.
That Ukraine was trying to get Hillary elected was well known in the Ukraine
government, but sure let's just say it never happened like that. Then of course there
was Hillary hiring people in another country to dig up dirt too, but that doesn't
count. Why? Reasons of course and because it was Hillary and the DNC doing it. See?
Reasons.
Next paragraph starts with this.
Russia's meddling has sparked outrage from the American body politic. Lots of words
about how that outraged people here...and more blah blah blah stuff.
Next paragrap
Ukraine, on the other hand, has traditionally enjoyed strong relations with U.S.
administrations. Its officials worry that could change under Trump, whose team has
privately expressed sentiments ranging from ambivalence to deep skepticism about
Poroshenko's regime, while sounding unusually friendly notes about Putin's
regime.
Poroshenko is scrambling to alter that dynamic, recently signing a $50,000-a-month
contract with a well-connected GOP-linked Washington lobbying firm to set up meetings
with U.S. government officials "to strengthen U.S.-Ukrainian relations."
Hmm hint of a quid pro quo there?
BTW. Lindsay Graham wants to investigate Hunter Biden and Joe says that he will
regret doing that for the rest of his life. Stay tuned for the fireworks.
this morning intending to grab some of his quotes and links here: ' November
20, 2019 , Impeachment Circus - Today's Bombshell Is Another Dud one chris cilizza link
i'd given to linda wood to see if she or others might parse for me/us.
"The impeachment circus continued today with a refreshingly candid opening statement
from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU. Sondland was involved in diplomatic
efforts in Ukraine. Instead of stonewalling Sondland just let it all out:
'Gordon D. Sondland testified that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed off on the
pressure campaign, and that he told Vice President Mike Pence about an apparent link
between military aid for Ukraine and investigations of Democrats. Mr. Sondland
confirmed there was a "clear quid pro quo" for a White House meeting between President
Trump and Ukraine's president.'
The
anti-Trump media see this as another "bombshell" that will hurt him.
But it is more likely that Sondland's testimony will help President Trump and those
involved on his side.
Ahh yes Russia was the one that started that propaganda. Burisma and Biden was
always on the up and up so don't even think that they weren't. I really don't know how
people who believe everything about Russia Gate and now Ukraine Gate can keep their
beliefs intact when there is so much information showing that what they believe is
wrong or didn't happen the way they think it did.
Almost everything Americans have ever been told about US foreign policy is a lie. Almost
everything we think we know is still a lie.
The Democrat's immediate goal is to install Mike Pence as President as soon as
possible.
Everything depends on this. Pence is the continuation of Obama's Neocon policies in
Ukraine and throughout the world. Biden is the premier Neocon on the 2020 ticket. His job
is to lie himself into the nomination and pick-up a Neocon Vice President. If he loses to
Pence, it doesn't matter. The CFR wins either way. And we're off to war with Russia.
This is a must read for those who want to know what is happening to them. And happening
fast.
It will be hard to see the world the same way again.
as with a hella busy 3-day weekend, i hadn't intended to, but what with the smoke
coming out of my ears and all...
i'd long claimed that i'd want to go out in a first strike as well, and here we are
just east of the shit-head capital of bumfuck, CO (h/t ed abbey).
now there are a number of NORAD
sites , but most nations as i understand it still have No First Strike Rules, but
the US no longer does, iirc (meaning: don't count on it). our daughter and her family
live in el paso county, CO home of one or two, one an alt-site under cheyenne
mountain.
i've often been a bit glib as to: 'Who will stop the US Empire? Those who can...and
must.'
but i dunno who that might end up being, nor how including with nukes. but at this
point, i guess it's all philosophical to me, as we're all living on borrowed time, and
Live in the Moment when possible.
i do so wish i could help you ease your fears, my friend.
there's no way i can read anything that long, especially in the zero-hedge format. but i
found it at the duran, and an easier read on my eye-brain configuration at the
saker . strategic culture usually carries his columns, but not this one...yet.
even scanning at the zero hedge version, i hadn't spotted pence's name. in which part
(I-IV) was it? zuesse has always needed a good editor, imo. but yeah, Pentecostal Pence
gives me the shivers.
Almost everything Americans have ever been told about US foreign policy is a lie.
Almost everything we think we know is still a lie.
The Democrat's immediate goal is to install Mike Pence as President as soon as
possible.
Everything depends on this. Pence is the continuation of Obama's Neocon policies in
Ukraine and throughout the world. Biden is the premier Neocon on the 2020 ticket. His
job is to lie himself into the nomination and pick-up a Neocon Vice President. If he
loses to Pence, it doesn't matter. The CFR wins either way. And we're off to war with
Russia.
This is a must read for those who want to know what is happening to them. And
happening fast.
It will be hard to see the world the same way again.
i read the comments on the saker version, what was key was what zuesse hadn't written
(i.e. any mention of the CIA), and part IV at the duran,, withut elaborating, much of which
i disagreed with.
there's no way i can read anything that long, especially in the zero-hedge format.
but i found it at the duran, and an easier read on my eye-brain configuration
at the
saker . strategic culture usually carries his columns, but not this one...yet.
even scanning at the zero hedge version, i hadn't spotted pence's name. in which
part (I-IV) was it? zuesse has always needed a good editor, imo. but yeah, Pentecostal
Pence gives me the shivers.
@Pluto's Republic or New York for sure. There are a lot of other target rich areas
like Langley, the Silicon Valley area and certainly that big base in San Diego in
California, the possible list is long because this Country is littered with military
installations.
But I'd expect that if Russia had only two nukes to fire Washington DC and NY would be
the instant decision. DC is 'evil Central' to most of the world, and NY City's Wall Street
is its oxygen supply and without those two cities it's like chopping off the head of the
snake. (no offense to snakes intended)
It fills the soul with dread. There is no one left to fight the poisonous empire
from the inside. All have succumbed. They will be along soon enough to clean up these
fragments and send them down the memory hole. I'm going to dwell in the large-target
cities from now on. I intend to be vaporized in the first strike.
are brilliant and vital to understanding the Ukraine situation. I think Part 2 is most
important, even though I disagree with him on one point. He establishes how stupid and
moronic the Democrats' impeachment witnesses are to suggest we have to fight Russia in
Ukraine so we don't have to fight them here. He shows how minuscule Russia's conventional
weapons systems are compared to ours, especially with respect to sea and air power, and
then he states,
... Not surprisingly, Russia's pint-sized economy can not support a military
establishment anywhere near to that of Imperial Washington. To wit, its $61 billion of
military outlays in 2018 amounted to less than 32 days of Washington's current $750
billion of expenditures for defense.
Indeed, it might well be asked how Russia could remotely threaten homeland security in
America short of what would be a suicidal nuclear first strike.
That's because the 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons on each side represent a
continuation of mutual deterrence (MAD) – the arrangement by which we we got
through 45-years of cold war when the Kremlin was run by a totalitarian oligarchy
committed to a hostile ideology; and during which time it had been armed to the teeth via
a forced-draft allocation of upwards of 40% of the GDP of the Soviet empire to the
military.
By comparison, the Russian defense budget currently amounts to less than 4% of the
country's anemic present day economy – one shorn of the vast territories and
populations of Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and all the Asian
"stans" among others. Yet given those realities we are supposed to believe that the
self-evidently calculating and cautious kleptomaniac who runs the Kremlin is going to go
mad, defy MAD and trigger a nuclear Armageddon?
Indeed, the idea that Russia presents a national security threat to America is
laughable. Not only would Putin never risk nuclear suicide, but even that fantasy is the
extent of what he's got. That is, Russia's conventional capacity to project force to the
North American continent is nonexistent – or at best, lies somewhere between nichts
and nothing.
I agree with Stockman that in a conventional war with the U.S., we win. But that's just
exactly the problem. Russia can't have a conventional war with us or with NATO. It's
defense from us is ONLY nuclear assured destruction. So the problem is not whether or not
he's nuts. The problem is that we are nuts. Our government is nuts. Our government has a
first strike policy, meaning our government considers it rational to eliminate a portion of
the American people, which in our Nuclear Posture Review would be catastrophic, in order to
win a war with Russia.
... The NPR argues that additional low-yield options are "not intended to enable"
nuclear war-fighting "[n]or will it lower the nuclear threshold" (p. 54). But this
assertion ignores the fact that the stated purpose is to make their use "more credible"
in the eyes of U.S. adversaries , which means that they are meant to be seen as "more
usable."
The belief that a nuclear conflict could be controlled is dangerous thinking. The fog
of war is thick, the fog of nuclear war would be even thicker. Such thinking could also
have the perverse effect of convincing Russia that it could get away with limited nuclear
use without putting its survival at risk.
Many military targets are in or near urban areas. It has been estimated that the use
of even a fraction of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces could lead to the death of tens of
millions of people in each country. An all-out exchange would kill hundreds of millions
and produce catastrophic global consequences with adverse agricultural, economic, health,
and environmental consequences for billions of people.
No country should be preparing to wage a "limited nuclear war" that neither side can
guarantee would remain "limited." Rather, as Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail
Gorbachev declared in 1985, today's Russian and U.S. leaders should recognize that "a
nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."
and i agree: it's not the defense budget that matters. in this nation, the defense
industries are allowed to do 'cost over-runs', and russia's weapons of war and defensive
war are clearly superior. see how many are wanting russian man-pads missile defense, for
instance.
i'll take part two, but at anti-war.com to the café. commenter juliania loved
part I witless! i was sad to read that justin raimondo has already crossed over, may he
rest in power. one place i'd blogged for a time were outraged i tell you, Outraged, that a
libertarian wrote for antiwar.com. needless to say, i didn't last long at the
accursed dagblog.com.
are brilliant and vital to understanding the Ukraine situation. I think Part 2 is
most important, even though I disagree with him on one point. He establishes how stupid
and moronic the Democrats' impeachment witnesses are to suggest we have to fight Russia
in Ukraine so we don't have to fight them here. He shows how minuscule Russia's
conventional weapons systems are compared to ours, especially with respect to sea and
air power, and then he states,
... Not surprisingly, Russia's pint-sized economy can not support a military
establishment anywhere near to that of Imperial Washington. To wit, its $61 billion
of military outlays in 2018 amounted to less than 32 days of Washington's current
$750 billion of expenditures for defense.
Indeed, it might well be asked how Russia could remotely threaten homeland
security in America short of what would be a suicidal nuclear first strike.
That's because the 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons on each side represent a
continuation of mutual deterrence (MAD) – the arrangement by which we we got
through 45-years of cold war when the Kremlin was run by a totalitarian oligarchy
committed to a hostile ideology; and during which time it had been armed to the teeth
via a forced-draft allocation of upwards of 40% of the GDP of the Soviet empire to
the military.
By comparison, the Russian defense budget currently amounts to less than 4% of the
country's anemic present day economy – one shorn of the vast territories and
populations of Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and all the Asian
"stans" among others. Yet given those realities we are supposed to believe that the
self-evidently calculating and cautious kleptomaniac who runs the Kremlin is going to
go mad, defy MAD and trigger a nuclear Armageddon?
Indeed, the idea that Russia presents a national security threat to America is
laughable. Not only would Putin never risk nuclear suicide, but even that fantasy is
the extent of what he's got. That is, Russia's conventional capacity to project force
to the North American continent is nonexistent – or at best, lies somewhere
between nichts and nothing.
I agree with Stockman that in a conventional war with the U.S., we win. But that's
just exactly the problem. Russia can't have a conventional war with us or with NATO.
It's defense from us is ONLY nuclear assured destruction. So the problem is not whether
or not he's nuts. The problem is that we are nuts. Our government is nuts. Our
government has a first strike policy, meaning our government considers it rational to
eliminate a portion of the American people, which in our Nuclear Posture Review would
be catastrophic, in order to win a war with Russia.
... The NPR argues that additional low-yield options are "not intended to enable"
nuclear war-fighting "[n]or will it lower the nuclear threshold" (p. 54). But this
assertion ignores the fact that the stated purpose is to make their use "more
credible" in the eyes of U.S. adversaries , which means that they are meant to be
seen as "more usable."
The belief that a nuclear conflict could be controlled is dangerous thinking. The
fog of war is thick, the fog of nuclear war would be even thicker. Such thinking
could also have the perverse effect of convincing Russia that it could get away with
limited nuclear use without putting its survival at risk.
Many military targets are in or near urban areas. It has been estimated that the
use of even a fraction of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces could lead to the death of
tens of millions of people in each country. An all-out exchange would kill hundreds
of millions and produce catastrophic global consequences with adverse agricultural,
economic, health, and environmental consequences for billions of people.
No country should be preparing to wage a "limited nuclear war" that neither side
can guarantee would remain "limited." Rather, as Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail
Gorbachev declared in 1985, today's Russian and U.S. leaders should recognize that "a
nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."
"... "Yeah," Tulsi answers. "I point to two things. One is you have the foreign policy establishment and the military-industrial complex in Washington that carries such a huge amount of influence over both parties." ..."
"... She continues, "There are campaign contributions, the influence that these contractors have in this pay-to-play culture , this corrupt culture in Washington, but you also just have people who don't understand foreign policy and who lack the experience to make these critical decisions that impact our lives and the safety and security of the American people. This is so serious about what's at stake here." ..."
"... Democratic presidential primary debate, Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2019, in Atlanta, via the AP. ..."
In a rare moment with MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi
Gabbard explained why the leading figures in her party are war hawks. Far from days of the
Democrats feigning to have any semblance of an 'anti-war' platform (only convenient for Liberal
activism during the Bush years, but fizzling out under Obama), today's party attempts to
out-hawk Republicans at every turn.
"I'm looking at the Democratic establishment figures," Matthews introduced, "people I
normally like. John Kerry, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton. You go down the list. They all supported
the war in Iraq. Why were they hawks? " (Though we might ask, what do you mean, "
were ?"). "Why so many Democrats with a party that's not hawkish, why are so many of
their leaders hawks?" Matthews reiterated.
In the segment, Matthews heaps rare praise on Tulsi for being "out there all alone tonight
fighting against the neocons."
"Yeah," Tulsi answers. "I point to two things. One is you have the foreign policy
establishment and the military-industrial complex in Washington that carries such a huge amount
of influence over both parties."
She continues, "There are campaign contributions, the influence that these contractors
have in this pay-to-play culture , this corrupt culture in Washington, but you also just have
people who don't understand foreign policy and who lack the experience to make these critical
decisions that impact our lives and the safety and security of the American people. This is so
serious about what's at stake here."
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
The interview happened immediately after this week's fifth Democratic debate Wednesday night
in Atlanta, and after pundits have continued to complain that Gabbard is a 'single issue
candidate'.
However, is there any candidate in her party or in the GOP saying these things?
We find ourselves in a rare moment of agreement with MSNBC's Matthews: she is "out there all
alone tonight fighting against the neocons." Tags Politics
"... They don't need to convince activist Democrats that Trump needs to go. The most vocal have demanded it since 2016, even before inauguration. Others have joined them more recently. Polls show some independent voters are moving in their direction, fueled by an intense media campaign. So far, however, the numbers are not nearly enough to isolate Trump (as Nixon was isolated) or to convince two-thirds of the Senate to convict him. The upper chamber needs a lot more incriminating evidence and so does the public. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The best way to understand the speaker's true aim is to ask 'how would Pelosi, Schiff, and their allies act if their goal was really to remove Trump from office by impeachment?' ..."
"... It's not only that the current procedures are intensely partisan, that witnesses are interviewed in secret, that Pelosi has set ad hoc rules by fiat, or that Republicans have been entirely shut out of the process ..."
"... More damage is coming if impeachment reaches a House vote. Pelosi holds the speaker's gavel because centrists Democrats won in districts Trump carried three years ago. Their voters' central message was to work with Republicans and get things done. These newly elected officials couldn't accomplish that. The fault may not be theirs, but they still have nothing to show voters back home. If they lose next year, Pelosi could lose her gavel. ..."
"... This drama is building to a nasty climax: a dirty campaign from now until November 2020. Trump and his allies will run on a strong economy and against a 'do nothing' Congress controlled by 'radical socialists'. Democrats will run against a 'corrupt, erratic, self-dealing Trump and his spineless supporters.' ..."
The most important thing to know about Democrats' impeachment inquiry is this: it is
not about removing President Trump now; it is about damaging him now so he can be
defeated next year.
Impeachment normally seeks to remove the president (or a federal judge) from office. A
successful House vote is only the first step. The Senate needs strong evidence to convict, and
House leaders try to provide it with their investigation and public hearings. That's what we
learned in seventh-grade civics.
But Nancy Pelosi is not in middle school. She is teaching postgraduate courses, and she
knows a Republican Senate is very unlikely to convict Donald Trump without a lot more evidence
than has been brought to light along with a groundswell of public support. So, the House
speaker has a more realistic goal, and it's a purely political one. Her aim is to prevent
Trump's reelection. To do it, she has exerted tight, unilateral control over the process and
handed day-to-day investigation to her California protégé, Adam Schiff, who heads
the committee on intelligence. His secret hearings are in sharp contrast to the open ones held
for Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton by the House Judiciary Committee.
Schiff's closed-door sessions, his refusal to allow Republicans to call witnesses, and his
prohibition of White House participation are all clear indications of Pelosi's strategy. She
and Schiff are using the investigation as publicly funded opposition research, complete with
subpoena power, much like the probe that resulted in the second volume of Robert Mueller's
report.
They don't need to convince activist Democrats that Trump needs to go. The most vocal
have demanded it since 2016, even before inauguration. Others have joined them more recently.
Polls show some independent voters are moving in their direction, fueled by an intense media
campaign. So far, however, the numbers are not nearly enough to isolate Trump (as Nixon was
isolated) or to convince two-thirds of the Senate to convict him. The upper chamber needs a lot
more incriminating evidence and so does the public.
The Democrats have promised that material before but failed to deliver. Last year, Schiff
claimed he had proof of Trump's malfeasance, but he couldn't deliver. Jerry Nadler, chair of
the Judiciary Committee, tried to find something -- anything -- but failed and turned his
committee into a partisan food fight. The Democrats and their media allies had counted on
Robert Mueller, but that didn't work out, either. None of these failures means the Democrats,
Washington Post , or New York Times won't find more compelling evidence this
time, but the track record is not encouraging.
So far, all they've got is a questionable phone call from the president to his Ukrainian
counterpart, a pause in aid to Ukraine (which Kyiv didn't know about and had no practical
effect), and a hyperbolic, second-hand complaint from an anonymous CIA operative. The spy, who
worked with then-Vice President Biden, claimed whistleblower protection under suspiciously new
rules and worked with Schiff's staff to report it. (Schiff lied about this contact.) We don't
know the name of the whistleblower or who else he may have spoken with, aside from his
attorneys. We don't know which CIA officers at the White House passed along the information or
whether they will seek whistleblower protection to cover their unauthorized disclosures of
classified information.
The whistleblower allegations and Rudy Giuliani's ties to now-indicted Ukrainians raise
serious questions about the president's conduct. Polls show the public is concerned. But
'concerned' does not mean 'convinced'. Voters want clear-cut evidence of high crimes before
removing a duly-elected president from office, especially since they get to vote on him next
year. They also want evidence that impeachment is bipartisan, that it seeks to protect our
country and not just one party.
Pelosi knows she cannot provide it. She is not counting on an avalanche of damning new
evidence or a collapse of Trump's Republican support in the House or Senate. Instead, she's
counting on the damage she can do to Trump's chances in 2020. It's a risky strategy, one that
could sink the president but could also endanger the Democrats' House majority.
The best way to understand the speaker's true aim is to ask 'how would Pelosi, Schiff,
and their allies act if their goal was really to remove Trump from office by
impeachment?'
The short answer is that they would bend over backwards to show the whole process is fair,
open, and deliberate. They would use that impartial process to forge a broad, bipartisan
consensus that the president had committed 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and should be
removed. That's exactly what Democrats did during the Nixon impeachment. It's not what they are
doing now.
It's not only that the current procedures are intensely partisan, that witnesses are
interviewed in secret, that Pelosi has set ad hoc rules by fiat, or that Republicans have been
entirely shut out of the process . Nor is it only that Pelosi and her allies are
determined to rush a foregone conclusion through committee and avoid going to court if Trump
refuses to provide documents or witnesses. (Normally, federal courts would settle such a
standoff between the legislative and executive branches.) Schiff and Pelosi have announced that
they won't litigate these issues or give the White House due process. Instead, they will count
any refusal as evidence of obstruction. Their reason is simple: speed is more important than
judicial legitimacy.
All these are important points, but there is a bigger one. These streamlined, partisan
procedures are proof that House Democrats are not trying to win bipartisan support for
impeachment or set the stage for Senate conviction. They are building a case against Trump to
defeat him at the ballot box.
Politically, that strategy makes sense. Republican officeholders won't abandon Trump unless
he is badly weakened. Until then, they fear his clout; he has proven he can defeat enemies in
party primaries. Just ask the governors of Florida and Georgia.
Pelosi understands this terrain and the choice it poses. She can either drop the endless
investigations and face the wrath of her party base, or she can plunge ahead, call it
impeachment, and hope to defeat Trump next year. She has chosen the latter.
This impeach-and-be-damned strategy is risky. It is already hurting vulnerable, centrist
Democrats, and the damage could mount. Ukraine is the only plausible issue for impeachment, but
that focus has already knee-capped the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. His son,
Hunter, earned big money from a Ukrainian energy company without any qualifications beyond his
DNA. The more Democrats focus on Ukraine, the worse for Biden.
More damage is coming if impeachment reaches a House vote. Pelosi holds the speaker's
gavel because centrists Democrats won in districts Trump carried three years ago. Their voters'
central message was to work with Republicans and get things done. These newly elected officials
couldn't accomplish that. The fault may not be theirs, but they still have nothing to show
voters back home. If they lose next year, Pelosi could lose her gavel. That's one reason
she has postponed a floor vote to authorize the inquiry. But she can't delay forever or deliver
on the centrists' promise to pass significant, bipartisan legislation.
This drama is building to a nasty climax: a dirty campaign from now until November 2020.
Trump and his allies will run on a strong economy and against a 'do nothing' Congress
controlled by 'radical socialists'. Democrats will run against a 'corrupt, erratic,
self-dealing Trump and his spineless supporters.'
Unless the Democrats can find a clean, competent, center-left candidate to lead them, they
face a difficult task. They will need to sell the public on unpopular, brutally expensive new
Washington programs. That agenda doesn't just split the country, it splits the Democrats. What
unifies them is hating Trump and everything he stands for.
Pelosi's impeachment strategy is not separate from this electoral calculation. It's central
to it.
Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the
University of Chicago, where he founded the Program on International Politics, Economics, and
Security. This article was originally published on
RealClearPolitics .
"... Fiona Hill, a "respected Russia scholar" and former senior White House official, added a harsh critique during testimony on Thursday. She told some of Mr. Trump's fiercest defenders in Congress that they were repeating "a fictional narrative." She said that it likely came from a disinformation campaign by Russian security services, which also propagated it. ..."
"... In a briefing that closely aligned with Dr. Hill's testimony, American intelligence officials informed senators and their aides in recent weeks that Russia had engaged in a yearslong campaign to essentially frame Ukraine as responsible for Moscow's own hacking of the 2016 election, according to three American officials. The briefing came as Republicans stepped up their defenses of Mr. Trump in the Ukraine affair. ..."
"... The accusations of a Ukrainian influence campaign center on actions by a handful of Ukrainians who openly criticized or sought to damage Mr. Trump's candidacy in 2016. ..."
"... Just keep in mind that those claims are unfounded. The 'handful' of Ukrainians managed, with help from the Democratic National Council, to push Trump's campaign manager to resign. They even bragged about it. Ukrainians were also the biggest foreign donors to Hillary Clinton's foundation. ..."
"... Those are "unfounded claims about Ukrainian interference". Because Putin pointed them out. However, let me assure you that neither the Times nor the CIA would ever make unfounded claims of a Russian operation. It is Russia that is trying 'to sow discord'. It is not an unfounded Democratic impeachment inquiry that does that. ..."
Fiona Hill, a respected Russia scholar and former senior White House official, added a harsh
critique during testimony on Thursday. She told some of Mr. Trump's fiercest defenders in
Congress that they were repeating "a fictional narrative." She said that it likely came from
a disinformation campaign by Russian security services, which also propagated it.
In a briefing that closely aligned with Dr. Hill's testimony, American intelligence
officials informed senators and their aides in recent weeks that Russia had engaged in a
yearslong campaign to essentially frame Ukraine as responsible for Moscow's own hacking of
the 2016 election, according to three American officials. The briefing came as Republicans
stepped up their defenses of Mr. Trump in the Ukraine affair.
...
The revelations demonstrate Russia's persistence in trying to sow discord among its
adversaries -- and show that the Kremlin apparently succeeded, as unfounded claims about
Ukrainian interference seeped into Republican talking points.
So there was no Ukrainian meddling, no Ukrainian interference. Claims thereof are
unfounded! But just a few sentences later the piece curiously says something different:
The accusations of a Ukrainian influence campaign center on actions by a handful of
Ukrainians who openly criticized or sought to damage Mr. Trump's candidacy in 2016.
Just keep in mind that those claims are unfounded. The 'handful' of Ukrainians managed, with help from the Democratic National Council, to push
Trump's campaign manager to resign. They even bragged about it. Ukrainians were also the biggest
foreign donors to Hillary Clinton's foundation.
However, because Putin once pointed that out, those claims must be unfounded. They must be
Russian disinformation:
During a news conference in February 2017, Mr. Putin accused the Ukrainian government of
supporting Hillary Clinton during the previous American election and funding her candidacy
with friendly oligarchs.
It is not clear when American intelligence agencies learned about Moscow's campaign or
when precisely it began.
...
One target was the leak of a secret ledger disclosed by a Ukrainian law enforcement agency
that appeared to show that Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's onetime campaign chairman, had taken
illicit payments from Ukrainian politicians who were close to Moscow. He was forced to step
down from the Trump campaign after the ledger became public in August 2016, and the Russians
have since been eager to cast doubt on its authenticity, the former official said.
Those are "unfounded claims about Ukrainian interference". Because Putin pointed them
out. However, let me assure you that neither the Times nor the CIA would ever make
unfounded claims of a Russian operation. It is Russia that is trying 'to sow discord'. It is not an unfounded Democratic impeachment
inquiry that does that.
Posted by b on November 23, 2019 at 18:08 UTC | Permalink
Maybe the CIA has decided that they need to make the claims more obtuse so that even the
mentally competent have trouble explaining the 11 dimensional chess involved.
After all, if Trump singlehanded, as he claims, kept Xi from sending the troops into HK
then Putin assuredly can influence American politics.....if Putin only could make it all go
away.....what a waste of time, energy and money that could be spent on improving the lot of
the poor, living on the streets in the US
When and how will the private finance empire circus end?
At least the US has Bernie and Tulsi calling out the coup in Bolivia for what it
is.....maybe there is hope.
Manafort was managing campaigns of pro-Russian political parties/candidates in Ukraine for
7 years or so before being hired by Trump. My understanding is that Manafort was warned that
his work was undermining USA efforts in Ukraine.
Why did America First Trump bring on Flynn?
Flynn was known to be hated by the intelligence community for having told the world that
the Obama Administration made a "wilful decision" to support the rise of ISIS.
Why did America First Trump make pleas for Putin to release Hillary's emails via
Wikileaks?
It was already known that some of the emails contained top secret information. AFAIK, USA
would consider any publication a crime.
These were set-ups.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Why was "independent", "socialist true believer", supposed man-of-integrity Sanders
sheepdogging for Hillary ("enough with your damn emails")?
Why did Hillary, a seasoned campaigner with virtually unlimited resources, make so many
grievous mistakes in the 2016 election? She snubbed Sanders and his supporters; took the
black vote for granted; insulted whites as "deplorables"; chose not to campaign in the THREE
STATES that she know would decided the election. Why didn't she pull out all the stops to
win? For her beloved establishment? For her own aspirations as first women President? If she
failed because she was "over confident" as some have suggested, then why did she pay for the
Steele dossier as "insurance"? There was no need for insurance if she knew she would win and
if she were unsure of winning she should have done everything possible to win (as any real
candidate would have).
Why did America First Trump use British company Cambridge Analytica? We later
learned that facebook provided the same info to dozens of other companies (debunking the
initial excuse that Cambridge Analytica had special access to facebook info). Was it because
the Russiagate disinfo and CIA election meddling campaign was located in UK?
Why did Trump initiate Ukrainegate by talking about investigating Biden on a diplomatic
call? He's smart enough to know that such political machinations are handled behind the
scenes.
This Reality Show Presidency is all about kayfabe as the Deep State restructures to meet
the challenge from China and Russia, and seeks to manufacture consent for a war with
Iran.
The take away quote
"
Defend American Democracy has spent six figures on television advertisements pressuring
Republican members of Congress to "hold the president accountable for abusing his office and
risking national security for his own gain." The group, which primarily targets
swing-district Republicans, prominently features military veterans in its ads and presents
itself as a veterans group to local media outlets.
........
The 501(c)(4) group is managed by Eric Kessler, a former Clinton administration official who
runs the philanthropic firm Arabella Advisors. The anonymously funded nonprofit was behind
several groups that ran "issue ads" to benefit Democrats during the 2018 midterms, as well as
Demand Justice, a group that spent millions of dollars on ads attacking Brett Kavanaugh
during his nomination to the Supreme Court. The Sixteen Thirty Fund and its sister 501(c)(3)
nonprofit, New Venture Fund, have fiscally sponsored at least 80 of their own groups,
bankrolling those entities in a way that leaves almost no paper trail.
"
The US has the best government Russian influence has not bought.
div> @b #3
I really think the twitter account is satire, judging from other tweets and the profile
pic.
So Russia hacked and attacked Hillary and DNC as Russia. (I believe that is still the
official left-Dem-media meme, despite investigation producing no evidence.) And they attacked
Trump disguised as Ukraine.
This sowing discord is a busy undertaking.
And rather unnecessary, considering the pre-existing state of discord in the nation and
politics, a duplicitous Dem party lost in the wilderness, as it searches a popular cry that
won't actually empower people, a Republican Party that was overwhelmed by a populist tide and
candidate not sanctioned by the leadership, and a legacy media that can crank up divisions on
command.
Maybe I should've posted my comment @6 on the "Impeachment Circus" thread instead.
It just struck me that neoMcCarthist smearing of Russia (which is ongoing, as proven by
b's post) was made possible via the kayfabe of Russiagate, which had it's origins in the 2016
election.
Fiona Hill...another bare faced liar whose name is not Hillary Clinton....I am no longer
astonished that this crap is actually publishable despite the evidence available to anyone
with at least two brain cells. Having followed on the Net the coup in Ukraine in 2014 from
2013 on via live blogs by Western corespondents who are not beholden to the MSM, I know what
lies that latter "journaille" gets away with.
Fiona Hill is an expert on Russophobic content. Like Condi Rice, a Soviet Scholar, she knows
nothing truthful about Russia. Else, why does she lie about Russia?
The think tanks, academia and State Dept. spew out the lies which the Media multiplies.
99% of Russian experts are Russophobes who possess little expertise, some practicing their
propaganda for decades. Many of them excrete books on regular schedules.
The first test (since 2014) of any expert's credentials is his/her position on Crimea. The
next test is on Russian aggression.
If anyone suggests Crimea does not belong to Russia (most especially the federal district of
Sevastopol), then they are ignorant or lying. You either know that in 1954 Crimea was
unconstitutionally given to Ukraine by the Ukrainian Khruschev. It was illegal by USSR law.
2014 corrected that injustice. The experts who profess otherwise are lying.
And if anyone suggests that the Russians are aggressors, they are lying. If Russia was an
aggressor in Georgia or Ukraine, neither would have governments that are so anti-Russian or
militaries that could form a small parade, much less beg for inclusion in NATO.
Russia reacted to Georgian aggression and mass murder. In Ukraine, the Donbass is a Russian
assisted self-defense operation against an ethnic cleansing war. Russia's participation has
been to save 2.5 million Russian-speaking Ukrainians from slaughter ('filtration' is the Ukie
euphemism for killing the Donbass separatists who refuse Kiev's nazi regime).
Russian 'aggression' is a construct of propaganda. Taken in the context of NATO expansion
and encroachment right to the borders of Russia, there is nothing but lies tied to the
'aggression' canard.
We have had 28 years of demonization of the Russian Federation. Russophobia is centuries
old in some societies. Of late, it focuses on the attempts to separate away from Russia the
brother republics of the CIS region of Eurasia. Fed lies, distortion of history, linguistic
differences, religious issues and economic disadvantages, a mania against Russia has been
cultivated. It all is led by "the experts" like Fiona Hill.
We see the same dynamic used against China with Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and
Inner Mongolia. Propaganda. Lies. Experts who mouth the Sinophobic fabrications are the
talking heads on Media and on Congressional sideshows.
Russophobia and Sinophobia are industries now. Fame, publishing riches, TV appearances,
YouTube videos abound with the 'expertise' of these haters.
Judge the output of these expert operatives. The content is always flawed. The truth is
always hidden. But lies fly fast and loose.
Some people actually do believe this stuff, dependent on their partisan world view.
The IG report, which will outline abuses of the FISA system which appears to have
authorized surveillance of Trump campaign by the FBI, is scheduled for release on December 9.
The degree to which it will be damaging to the Russian collusion/hacking/sowing discord
anti-Trump crowds was anticipated yesterday by the simultaneous publication by CNN and WaPo
of assurances by unnamed "officials" that the report will not find anything but minor
discrepancies. Getting out ahead of the story so obviously and more than a week in advance
likely means the report will be damaging - although that may be just a Russian talking
point.
But much as I enjoyed this, I still have to point out that if Ukrainian meddling was so
important and their US consorts so treasonous, then Russian meddling was so important and
*their* consorts so treasonous. You can't honestly have it both ways, either the Democrats'
excusing Ukrainians or the Trumpists excusing Russia. Actually, you can't even honestly say
you know either made any difference. No one sensible thinks either party meant to give aid
and comfort to enemies of the US---the constitutional* definition of treason---unless you
believe the US is justly in undeclared war with the rest of humanity. The only big difference
is that it was Trump who openly asked for foreign assistance in a public speech. The only
conclusion to draw from that is Trumpists are whiners who can dish it out but can't take
it.
*The legalistic assholes who want to deny majority rule under shelter of the Electoral
College on the fraudulent grounds that a technicality matters more really are against
majority rule. Of course they also pretend that impeachment reverses elections. The cherry on
top of this turd sundae? They would reject the 26th Amendment, which would have been invoked
against Reagan as well as Trump (and possibly his original, Nixon, as well.) Pence is not
even man enough to do his duty.
Why did the Hildabeast get the Steele Dossier as insurance if she was confident of
victory?
For the same reason that a healthy person in their 20's or 30's, someone not in the least
expecting to die for decades, purchases life insurance covering their family. Just "in case"
the wildly improbable does indeed happen.
I can't see anyone who has a realistic chance of being elected president, let alone with
the historic feat of being the first female president deliberately throwing all this
away.
No matter how often I'm brought to consider this, it still seems striking that 2 years and
$40 million in US law fare waged by the Special Prosecutor is not enough to see Fiona Hill
laughed out of chambers at her RussiaRussia harangue, whereas the NYT is able to establish an
equivalent lack of foundation to the Ukraine meddling thesis in a thrice, notwithstanding
rather substantial counter-evidence long in the public domain. Indeed the Grey Lady does not
even try to debunk these claims, allowing herself instead to refer to them debunked. If you
say so, apparently, or if you and your cohort say so often enough.
For any progressives still gaslighted by this, I invite you to consider a similar
full-court legal, media, IC / Deep State campaign featuring most of the same actors, engaging
next in the hobbling or destruction of a Bernie Sanders presidency.
Or the Steele Dossier was intended so much insurance as a cudgel to beat the fallen
Donald, post-election loser, while he was down. This was the man whose most stirring
electoral refrain was "lock her up." She and her masters would have had every reason to want
to grind him into the dirt after beating him.
Fiona Hill studied Russian history with Richard Pipes, the Evil Empire man. Pipes is and
was a laughingstock in academia. No one would study with him who had an actual interest in
the supposed field of study. Being his protegé was simply a roll of the dice for a
careerist. Hill also studied with a Ukrainian emigré named Szporlak. He was likely
closer to awake during class than Pipes, who really was a very old fool while supervising
Hill.
Condoleeza Rice notoriously wrote her dissertation about the postwar Czech military while
having minimal ability in Russian and less in Czech. More likely it was simply ghostwritten.
Full of egregious errors, placing Czech politicians at heart of action while they were
actually teaching at University of Chicago.
Sorry, oldhippie, Pipes wasn't and is not a laughingstock in academia. He merely should have
been. His son Daniel is doing the same in middle east studies and he's not a laughingstock
either. It is hard to underestimate how little effect adhering to the basic scholarly
standards can have in keeping out motivated reasoning, double standards, agendas, political
servitude, etc. It is quite likely that Pipes has a better reputation than Stephen Cohen, J.
Arch Getty or Sheila FitzPatrick. He certainly has a better reputation than a Mark Tauger.
Pipes' classes at Harvard in 70s were a spectator sport. Come and see the Cold War fossil.
Lectures routinely interrupted by gales of laughter. Yes, he had a comeback. No, no one has
ever taken him or his 'scholarship' seriously. He simply happens to be useful. Daniel is just
as bad.
Paul @ 22, wrote: "She [Harridan Hillary] and her masters would have had every reason to want
to grind him [Tweetie Bird] into the dirt after beating him."
I agree, but there was also the need to demonize Russia and V.V.Putin to lay the ground
for the war against Russia. The campaign against Trump began in January 2016, launched by
Brennan and the CIA, whose strumpet H.H. had been since back in Arkansas.
Already in July 2016, she was openly campaigning against V.V.P. There was ONE ( 1! )
foreign policy plank in her platform, and it was the no-fly zone over Syria. General Joseph
Dunford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, testified before the United States Congress
in mid-September 2016, on which occasion he was asked about the no-fly zone. He responded,
promptly and unequivocally, that it would mean war with Russia.
If war with Russia had not been the objective, the Great Grey Whore would have used its
position in New York to investigate Tweetie Bird and publish to the world, indeed, hammer to
the world, the long grotesque story of his attempt to make a career in real estate, and the
fraud he engaged in from the start. His string of bankruptcies was the most spectacular in
the history of American business enterprise (this from somebody who has studied United States
economic and financial history) instead of letting him constantly blather on about what a
great businessman he was etc.
His father had him on the payroll when he was two, to the tune of $200,000, in order to
pass wealth on to him without paying the very high gift tax. By the time his father died, he
had made over to Tweetie Bird something in the neighborhood of $420 million. And Tweetie Bird
squandered it all, plus the fabulous real-estate empire that his father had left him -- all
gone...
In 2002, Tweetie Bird was over $3 billion (yes, BILLION) in debt to 72 banks in New York
and no New York bank would give him a credit line, which he desperately needed to keep up his
incessant refrain that money is no object for Donald Trump. So, he turned to the Russian
oligarchs for whom he had been laundering money to generate cash flow. They gave him a credit
line through the Cypriot banks that they controlled, and now they own him. They are his
Russian connection, not V.V.P., who has been fighting the oligarchs since he first took
office -- look at what V.V.P. did to Michail Khodokovski: ten years in the gulag (he's now
living in Switzerland reduced to scraping by on the ten or so billion that he had squirreled
away in Swiss banks).
Tweetie Bird owns NOTHING. Everything is in the name of the Trump Organization, to protect
it from confiscation when the reckoning comes. And, since the T.O. publishes NOTHING about
its affairs, it's reasonable to assume that he is in debt to his Cypriot banks, probably to
the tune of five or six billion at this point, and that they hold liens on every piece of
property he claims as his own.
Tweetie Bird is all about Tweetie Bird, exclusively. His pitch for détente with
Russia was a classic case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason, to wit he intended
to lift the sanctions if V.V.P. would round up the oligarchs who have Tweetie Bird over the
barrel and pack them off to the gulag. However, in August 2017, Congress pulled the rung out
from under him by reinforcing the sanctions and thus removing them from executive order
purview and placing them under Congressional authority.
Hilarious someone said. Really. The Russians would have to be superhuman geniuses to do half
of what US 'Intelligence' says about them. It is transparently true, OTOH, that CIA and etc.
are true clods and dolts. It's tautological really.
My understanding is that Manafort was warned that his work was undermining USA efforts in
Ukraine.
So what? Maybe Trump wanted to undermine the Washington Borg's efforts in Ukraine as they
were counter to his principle foreign policy - cordial relations with Russia. Since Trump was
very clear about this policy all through the election, he has every right to implement that
policy regardless of what anyone opposed to him might think or try to do. It's one of the
basic concepts of a democratic system (yeah, I am aware that the U.S. is a republic not a
democracy, etc.) that the successful candidate should be able to implement any legal policy
that was part of his manifesto.
As for Trump asking the Russians to look for Hillary Clinton's e-mails, it was a joke. Added
to which it was a reference to the 30,000 "personal" e-mails that that idiot, Hillary
Clinton, had managed to mislay and not the DNC and Podesta e-mails that were leaked by some
unknown party to Wikileaks.
These low brow knuckle draggers know how to spin lies. Their useless parade of irrelevant
nincompoops proves an ongoing campaign to demonize Russian people. We all see it here
constantly on other blogs and MSN reports. These people know very well who their match is and
cannot compete socially, on certain new military complexes, political maturity, etc. I offer
Sergey Lavrov as a person not matched by any other nation. All western parasites in
opposition pale in stature, political maturity, and brains. The Russians know what the deal
is with these western crybabies, and know they are dealing with premature juveniles. These
people show how weak they are by their actions and the Russians show patience. Oh, and that
kayfabe word, Trump ..."be fake."... has much experience with it from his wrestling exposure.
This farce has that written all over it, fake bullshit.
I have been watching the Trump impeachment hearings farce on television over the past weeks
and have heard enough BS by the so-called witnesses to fertilize the Sinai Desert. The real
reason behind the hearings is not 'quid pro quo,' but 'cui bono' (who benefits). The parade
of over-the-hill Cold War warriors has reinforced my belief that the impeachment hearings are
essentially an attempt by the old Cold War guard to retain their privileges and positions of
power in Washington. As for Ms. Fiona Hill, she is a prime example of the old dictum that
states, "A Brit with an upper class accent reading the phone book sounds smarter to most
Americans, than Abe Lincoln reading the Gettysburg Address.
Macabre Comedy is the only appropriate descriptive term IMO. Russia is a very busy nation,
every bit as busy as its leader VV Putin. Who within the Evil Outlaw US Empire's national
government is even close to being Putin's equivalent? The vast majority are mere
kindergarteners in comparison, Trump included. In case you've been asleep since 2007 or so,
Putin and all of Russia are working their tails off to improve their nation and their
comrades's wellbeing and in doing so have surpassed The Empire is qualitative military
equipment, nuclear engineering, and a host of other areas, along with building several
geoeconomic blocs of kindred nations to which the Empire can only answer with idiotic
accusations and factless BigLie Media items.
If anything tells us how low the Evil Outlaw US Empire has sunk, it's this attempt to
impeach a POTUS using bullshit for evidence. The would be emperor isn't the only one sans
clothes--the entire imperial edifice is revealed as a scrawny, emaciated, traumatized waif
that the curtain can no longer hide.
Headline: "How True Is the Story on Which the US Sanctions against Russia Are Based?"
Very good question!! Glad someone in the MSM is (finally) asking it . . .
"Mit seinen Aussagen zum Tod eines Whistleblowers brachte Bill Browder die Amerikaner gegen
Putin auf. Doch seine Darstellung ist voller Widersprüche. Von Benjamin Bidder "
With his statements regarding the death of a whistleblower [Magnitsky was no such thing]
Brill Browder [arch scumbag] stirred up the Americans against Putin. But his account is full
of contradictions [you don't say].
And at Bidder's website in addition:
"Washington based its sanctions on Browder's account of Magnitsky's death."
Unfortunately the Spiegel story is behind a paywall. Perhaps someone here has a sub.
People here may recall that a very good documentary about the whole affair, "Behind the
Scenes," made by Andrei Nekrasov, was buried in the USA but was available online. It is a
great explanation of the scurrilous Browder and his role in getting the balling rolling in DC
against Putin. Has great footage of Browder running away from cameras, men trying to serve
subpoenas, and, in front of the camera, squirming-and-sweating-while-lying.
So it seems to me like good news if questions about Browder and his tale are raised in Der
Spiegel---even though I haven't read the article.
I have no argument with constitutional executive powers. I do have many arguments against
Unitary Executive Theory. You can campaign on a policy and implement it once elected, but you
can't use executive power with corrupt intent and claim immunity.
I have been watching closely both the Trump and the Hillary misbehaviors for quite a
while. Your post up above is, I think, the first string of assertions about the pair of them
that I agree with without exception . As far as the activities that you covered in
that post are concerned, you've got each of them nailed to a "T".
I hope we'll see further comments from you, that will exhibit the same degree of
accuracy.
The degree of dishonesty and blatant manipulation by the MSM has reached ridiculous levels.
MSM journalists are not journalists, they are lying, evil peddlers of propaganda shilling for
the military industrial complex; they are as blood-stained as the psychopathic elite that
they so faithfully serve...they should be held responsible for their lies, up to and
including prosecution for war crimes:
There is an article on
telepolis (no paywall, in German) on the Spiegel piece, demasking the author Benjamin
Bidder as someone who belatedly jumps on the bandwagon that others have set in motion, first
and foremost the Russian filmmaker Andrej Nekrasov.
Really @ 33 Thanks for the reference to the Der Spiegel article questioning Magnitsky. Hij is
absolutely ground zero of the whole Russia paranoia and Ukraine obsession. The US has lost
all perspective: an insignificant place like Ukraine dominates its national and foreign
policies while its own people have to pay the price.
Thanks mk @ 37. Sure Nekrasov investigated the Magnitsky story but his film was available to
no one in the US and the EU in the standard outlets (TV, cinema, etc.). Der Spiegel is MSM as
any MSM can be and it is then significant that the publication prints this article, even if
Magnitsky and the anti-Russian mania he set in motion with the help of US politicians is
still enigmatic. How can one man recruit the whole US political system to protect his
personal wealth? Has a contributed to the campaign funds, Clinton Foundation, etc.?
Hillary Clinton: "We better get to the White House if most of us do not want to end up at the
lamp posts". O America, if you knew what these people are doing to the Americans----- after
they got rid of president Kennedy.
It is important to remember that Hillary Clinton as Sec of State transacted her entire
computer communications operation on an unsecured server in a closet at her home. It was
shared with the Clinton Foundation. It was never secured or in any way made available to the
US Government IT security team.
Likewise she used unsecured phones.
That is what the problem was as that server would have been accessed by a number of state
actors who would suspect some benefit might come their way if they peeked. A cinch for any
state actor let alone a clever hacker.
Hillary Clinton is guilty of the single extreme national security breach in US history.
And they are killing Assange to cover for her criminal treachery.
Mina @40: A beggars banquet. A festival of corruption. I wonder when it will dawn on those
needy greedheads that the Sauds are running on empty too ...
A minor point, true enough, but Fiona Hill does most definitely *not* have an ""upper
class English" accent. (As a former Brit of English and working class origin, that is as
apparent as could be.) Her accent is a much softened after many years away from her working
class family origins in North-Eastern England - specifically, County Durham, and as many
years trying to rid herself of those working class origins, taints there remains the local
lilt to her diction.
Regarding her rank, stinking Russophobia - I would suggest that its origins were *not*
from her background (her father was a coal miner) but rather from the fact that she spent her
late teens and early adulthood under the Thatcher the Snatcher government and its deliberate
ending of public ownership of basic services as it installed TINA - pure rapacious,
plundering, mammon and moloch worshipping corporate-capitalism allied to imperialism.
Add to these likely background effects, the desire among some of those of working class
origins who, on achieving a tertiary education have every intention of eschewing and
disparaging their backgrounds and adopting wholeheartedly the worldview of the ruling elites.
Not at all unusual, certainly in the UK.
Definitely totally distorted. Inaccurate (I doubt that she has ever spent much, if any,
time in Russia with ordinary, working class Russians - ho no, too far down the ladder) and
extremely partisan. Another Dem shill?
An aside: my late husband's friends are all highly educated and all (the American ones,
anyway) glued to the impeachment hearings and gung-ho for them.... Education isn't all it's
cracked up to be, clearly. (And For the record - I am very much anti-both parties.)
Really?? @ 33 : thanks for reminding us about Andrei Nekrasov's "Behind the Scenes". The
effort to bury it as well as the reaction (including -- especially? -- from among the
Congresscritters) was an outstanding example of groupthink -- everybody move in lock-step
with the prescribed belief and vilify, demonize those who dare to propose something different
that contradicts the groupthink
Antispin @ 35, thanks for the compliment. I keep trying...
Glad some of you appreciated the parody. We need such cleverness. It is at the opposite
end of the spectrum from groupthink, and it's a good antidote to the mind-numbing drivel of
mendacious mainstream media.
In reply to Karlof1 - absolutely agree about the abilities of V. Putin and his team. If ONLY
we had any government (had any akin to them over the past decades) as able, sensible,
concerned about their country as Putin and his team clearly are, we'd be a peaceful,
non-terroristic, economically more equal place. I would also include with V. Putin and his
team, Xi and his government and the Iranian elected government - and Khamenei. Our lot are
squealing, uneducated (in the true sense of the term) greedy, amoral children by comparison
AnneR @ 46 wrote: "Education isn't all it's cracked up to be, clearly."
Education has both a very positive and a very negative dimension.
On the positive side is the socialization that puts one in touch with many people, most of
whom, ideally, one would mot meet otherwise (not the least of whom are great teachers at all
levels) and teaches one to get along with them. Also, on the positive side is learning: it
saves one from constantly reinventing the wheel, so to speak, and gives a personal touch to
imparted knowledge.
On the negative side is the lock-step conformity it can -- and more and more does --
impose on social mores. Also there is the transmission of the mindset and beliefs that Andrew
Carnegie splendidly called the gospel of wealth (he was gung-ho for it, of course -- God made
him rich because God wanted him to be rich...). Both of these are essential underpinnings to
groupthink (which, by the way, was studied in depth at Yale University in the 1960s, and
where it got it's name).
There's a movie called "Billy Elliot", which takes place in the 1980s UK, that tells this
story: the boy had a miner father and a miner older brother, with high class consciousness --
there's even a scene where they fight over one of the members who violated the strike and
went to work.
But none of that matters of little Billy, as he wants to be a ballet dancer. The riot
police, the strikes, all of that appears just as a background, the landscape, over which he
and his best friend talk about wanting to do ballet.
The figure of Billy Elliot represents the transition in the UK from an industrial economy
to a services one, and the transition of a social-democratic UK to a neoliberal UK.
Many assume that "education" involves learning true things. There is reason for this
assumption in engineering and math, as these actually involve logical proofs. However many
professionals, presumably "educated" are ignorant of the basic science necessary for
understanding and proving...pharmacists who are re-leaved of the obligation to, for example,
ever take a chemistry class, or chemistry test. Thus the assumption is, well, not always
valid. Other examples abound...look for a few. Ask, for example, the X-Ray technician a few
questions about the physics of his job...
However the assumption fails entirely when one enters the bizarre realm of canonical
myth...such as "history" or "political theory" or the Chicago School of Econ.
It is also often assumed that education involves teachers. I have not noticed that such
people are, generally, of any value. Rather, the profession of teaching serves to park people
who might upset matters in a place where they are under control and addicted to their
paychecks, and serve up propaganda according to the rule.
And it is assumed that it involves a forum dedicated to what they call education, when in
reality it is that forum where the process that binds takes place. The Toga, the Bath>
"Hence, too, a liking sprang up for our style of dress, and the "toga" became fashionable.
Step by step they were led to things which dispose to vice, the lounge, the bath, the elegant
banquet. All this in their ignorance, they called civilization, when it was but a part of
their servitude." (Tacitus)
Think jeans and Hollywood, and propaganda.
One particularly egregious difference 'tween education is the exclusion of any formal
study of Rhetoric and logic, with developed skill in these, as a basic prerequisite. Such
matters are now generally ignored, and have been in the canonical syllabus of US "education"
for, more or less, a century.
AnneR @ 46 wrote: "Education isn't all it's cracked up to be, clearly."
Like with food, deprivation is bad, but content, the manner of serving etc. can have a
variety of effects. Here we have an example of a narrower phenomenon, meritocracy. Somewhere
I read that the imperial government of China had European guest and advisors who informed
their host about certain advances in Europe like clock construction and improved cartography,
but who also brought back information about the Chinese method of selecting officials on the
basis of examinations. Initially, the English adopted civil service selected by examinations
to rule India, and that worked so well that the system was extended for the government of
England as well. Like in China, the key was to learn the wisdom of the classics. Of course,
Confucius was replaced with Plato, Horace etc. Back in China, Confucius seems to be replaced
by the study of the History of Chinese Communist Party -- obligatory regardless of the
major.
However, what is outright sinister is the coupling of "narrative building" performed for
intelligence/national security apparatus in USA and UK with academia. "Properly thinking"
luminaries from top institutions of learning were recruited for the purpose, with Fiona Hill
mentor being prime example. From what I understand, Richard Pipes left the position of the
head of Russian and Slavic Studies at Harvard to be CIA consultant where he lead Team B to
assess the intentions and capabilities of USSR. Unlike more realistic team A, Team B strongly
exaggerated both sinister plans of USSR, basically suggesting that without heeding the
constraints of MAD, they will attempt to subjugate the West, and the capabilities. Almost
hiilariously, his team postulated that the symptoms of economic stagnation in USSR were faked
to lull the West into complaisance. Recommendations of Team B were enthusiastically adopted
by Reagan administration to justify acceleration of defense spending. Check "Team B" in
Wikipedia. "I would say that all of it was fantasy. ... if you go through most of Team B's
specific allegations about weapons systems, and you just examine them one by one, they were
all wrong." Needless to say, the theory of faked economic decline was absurd.
Lamentably, Pipes did not abandoned his teaching duties, and while he toiled as the head
of Team B he was mentoring Ph. D. students including Fiona Hill.
*The legalistic assholes who want to deny majority rule under shelter of the Electoral
College on the fraudulent grounds that a technicality matters more really are against
majority rule. Of course they also pretend that impeachment reverses elections. The cherry on
top of this turd sundae? They would reject the 26th Amendment, which would have been invoked
against Reagan as well as Trump (and possibly his original, Nixon, as well.) Pence is not
even man enough to do his duty. by: steven t johnson @ 17 <=you might also be interested
to know that these same types want to take control of all of the resources, all of the
departments, all of the labor, and all of whatever else that exist in America so the USA can
use them to conduct continuous war and manage the grey zone.. read on..
The white paper "Russian Strategic Intentions"[ https://cryptome.org/2019/07/Pentagon-Russia.pdf],
caste its analysis of the future in terms of "competition and conflict" and presents, in its
preface, a long list of those associated to the claim that the USA should use "all of its
instruments of state power" in a comprehensive fashion, to manage grey area warfare, to
promote elite interest in far away places, and to impose aggression (in environment, in
economic activity, with influence campaigns, with paramilitary assault, with cyber intrusion,
and with political warfare) as a defense to Russian grey zone global activities. What bull
shit! no wonder Americans cannot understand Article II Presidents or the USA endangering
Americans and their quality of life because the USA is involved in bombing, destructing and
aggressing activities. The groups that wrote this report have decided they should decide for
the American public, what the USA policy should be? I wonder what Americans would say about
that?
Is it true that "Americans need go no further than think tanks and intelligence services
supporting USA aggression in foreign lands, to find their enemies and to discover the cause
of why their lot has been reduced to forth world peon status? Who in America allowed groups
of the type that wrote this paper to decide, or even to think about deciding, for Americans
what the USA should be doing? Why is not "war for ever, even when there is no war" the
narrative debated by USA politicians competing to govern America? Governed Americans and
governed Russians should build a stadium, outfit the personnel in Russian and USA
governments, their think tanks and their intelligence services with uniforms, lock the two
opposed teams in the stadium, and sell the TV rights to pay off the national debt of all of
the nations of the world as these two teams as they fight it out to the last man, woman and
paper tiger warrior.
Consider this fascinating assumption or projection => "Russia believes..there is no
unacceptable or illegitimate form of deterrence, compellence, or escalation
management(Goure).. [<= I cannot find in real life the continuum of conflict this group
talks about?]. Like Russia's perception of its competition with the USA, its perception of
conflict is dichotomous: one is either at war or not at war." I had no idea Russia could
believe anything? Apparently think tanks supporting the USA; think Russia can think, and
have concluded, as a result of their thoughts, that war exist, even when: there is no war? My
USA cat jumped over the starry moon, while his Russian cow chased earthly rats? The so-called
Russian grand (balance of powers) strategy vs whole of USA government liberal order
management of the international grey zone => compels and escalates the USA, sez the
report, to maintain a continuous state of war?
.. "Countering Russian provocations [<=competition maybe, but not provocation?] requires
all instruments of USA national power, they say?" <=note: as long as not on American soil
who cares?
Piotr seems to agree with Walter. The general principle seems to be "We'll know our
disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false"
(Casey/ Honneger) and of course everyone must recall Clapper complaining about the Russians
finding "fissures in our [US/CIA] tapestry" (one never hears the word "tapestry" in US
English except, generally,in the phrase "tapestry of lies"...unless one is involved with
curtains or one sort, or another...the term "Eiserner Vorhang" popularized by
Churchill...that's a tapestry, ain't it?
If their lips move, they lie, friend. And do not look behind the green tapestry at the
mighty Wurlitzer...
Well, snake, the thalassocratic rule of the Anglosaxon diaspora into forward operating base
(former republic) USA has evidently failed, and "they" now follow not the republic's laws,
but the ukase of Imperial method. They have no other methods.
This was also the reason for England to start WW1. German industry and Ruski resources
would (will/is/has) integrate(d) Heartland and create(d) a tellurocratic reality those Fine
fella's down at the shop cannot abide.
Think of this as a loose connecting rod in a chevy motor...you know what's going to
happen, but it's the only way to go...so you pretend it's ok...
If US intelligence agencies are asserting that Ukraine meddling in the US election was a
Russian operation, when in fact Ukraine did indeed heavily meddle in the elections, isn't
that treason by the US intelligence agency officials concerned?
" deny majority rule under shelter of the Electoral College on the fraudulent grounds that a
technicality matters more really are..."
The US, formerly a Republic and remaining approximately Republican in institutional
appearances and out-side form, has never been a democracy. It was not intended to be, though
it had some democratic forms. ("Democracy" is without semantic value as it is used these
days.)
That's not a trivial technical characteristic. It was intentional and basic. It's the lay
of the Basic Law of the US since 1789 or so, and perhaps less so in the actual Basic Law c
1776...some claim the 1778 Law was not properly ratified...a sound argument once, eclipsed
entirely by long custom, custom being the basis of all Law (and some Ukase).
Of course nowadays it's not even a Republic, more like an animated zombie largely under
the incompetent control of several elite clubs, including foreign and also zionist and also
financial clubs, which are in constant turmoil...because these clubs are running out of
options.
When you are in a conflict set and run out of options, then you almost always lose...since
everybody can see what you must do, and they themselves make plans to counter yours.
In this undertaking the Ruskis and the Chinese have preeminence.
It's already over... Soon they will realize that, and make deals.
............
BM, fair question about the Big T. It depends on who writes the History, curtain-makers
or... At the present time Big T cannot exist, but...one may assume that the Russian
Historians and the Chinese Historians will say "Big-T".
"The legalistic assholes who want to deny majority rule under shelter of the Electoral
College on the fraudulent grounds that a technicality matters more really are against
majority rule."
You seem to advocating the concept of mob rule. Do you understand that a popular opinion
is not necessarily a correct opinion?
Other important aspect of the Ukrainegate, which leads all the way to the Syriagate, of
utmost importance for European security, since we are made aware that matters of security are
directly in the hands of people strange, or in the way to be strange, to European interests
and organzitions, keeping all European institutions hostage of the NATO military
alliance´s interests, and which differs from the main point it is given here, that
related to the meddling in US elections, as if that were what most matter...when it is the
other way around, that the USUK complex meddles in each adn every aspect of Euroepan life,
interests, prospects and security, underminig them all...
I did watch that film when it was linked at an article about the whole affair at the Unz
Review (now I think the Bitchute link is once again neutered). Before seeing this article I
was virtually ignorant of the Magnitisky affair, scumbag Browder, and the putative affair's
influence on American policy. Here is the UNz Review article, by Israel Shamir: http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-good-fortune-of-mr-browder/?highlight=Browder
(sorry if not doing link properly)
It's a long story, which Shamir tells pretty clearly.
Kurz um, the American public was denied the chance to evaluate Browder's claims themselves by
viewing the film. Truly, censorship at its most naked.
Bidder may be jumping on a bandwagon (and, I don't know what he actually writes!!) but Der
Spiegel is 150% MSM, toeing the American line in most respects. So I do think even this
headline is worth noting.
However, I have read a large portion of the Telepolis article and it should be read by
anyone interested in Browder/Magnitsky. It is really a case study of an incredibly successful
disinformation campaign. Which are only possible with active and passive collusion of many
state and nonstate actors and of course the MSM media.
(Also, it looks as though Telepolis has been following this story in other articles that call
out news organizations and EU entities for their complicity in pushing Browder's narrative
and ignoring many counter-signs. Including canceling and otherwise burying Nekrasov's
excellent film.)
Actually, the larger topic in light of the Russiagate and impeachment circuses being
"clash of the titans' disinformation campaigns."
oldhippie@25 The anecdotes about what the insiders kept secret is instructive. The gales of
laughter did nothing to impair Pipes' academic reputation, nor were they meant to, I imagine.
Being a respected academic means also being respected in government and in the media, which
Pipes was. Team B and all that
Walter's babble about a Republic instead of a democracy is reactionary cant. The
Constitution originally read that the electors would be in fact the electors, interposing
against a majority to elect a responsible candidate, one determined to preserve the ruling
class. In those times, that meant slavers, of course. But, in Washington's elections,
Hamilton, concerned to prevent an inadvertent tie, intrigued to make sure John Adams got
fewer electoral votes than the popular voting of the time required. Adams was irate. In
Adams' own election, Hamilton supposedly tried to get the electors to switch votes so that a
Pinckney of South Carolina was elected. (Adams was honest in pecuniary matters and rather
intelligent, but he was something of a dingbat, which piety about the "Founding Fathers"
refuses to admit.) Adams was even more furious. And Jefferson made political capital,
swearing to all that his party's electors would vote the people's will. They did, and
promptly created a constitutional crisis when Jefferson and Burr tied, throwing the election
into the House. The intrigues aimed at overturning the people's will provoked talk of another
revolution or the break up of the union.
The principle that electors are not agents to actually elect the president but mere cogs
was established. It was affirmed by the incandescent fury of the Jacksonians at J.Q. Adams.
And it was further confirmed when the contested election of 1876 again was loud with talk
about uprisings. It was only the obscene withdrawal of troops from the South, protecting the
Klan etc., that pacified the uproar. It was not until the political degeneration of the later
years which lead the coward Gore to roll over. As mere agents of the popular vote, yes, the
EC is a mere technicality. My guess is that Walter personally would sneer at a criminal
defendant who relied on a technicality about their rights to get an acquittal. But the other
Walters want to use a technicality to take away people's rights. Then they are so shameless
as to pretend to virtue and wisdom.
As for the notion that the Electoral College is the enemy of the people's rights, instead
of the states' right? In this thread there are idiots ranting about treason because of email
server. If you want to see treason, look at the history of the Confederate States of America.
That's treason. We have a national government, it's part of the constitution (14th Amendment
is otherwise gibberish.) Thus, the Electoral College as a treaty compact between "sovereign"
(semi-sovereign is not really a thing!) is also dead. The EC is just a technicality. Walter
would implicitly have us believe that if the electors just picked someone else through
conspiracy among themselves, then the President chosen would be the President because that's
the Constitution, and that's just the way it is. Electors keeping faith with the people
instead of their parties would have voted for the person who won the vote. And Walter
wouldn't accept the result, no matter how much it followed the Constitution (which it would
have!) because reactionary scum like Walter are always liars.
Ant. seems to think the minority of the good people should overrule the common peoples,
aka the mob. It is doubtful Ant. would know the good people if they were in the same room.
The assumption that Ant. is one of the good people is simply slavish adoration. Also, the
only real meaning to "mob" is "collective noun for people rioting." An election is not a
riot. This is slander by some whose rancid contempt for humanity at large should be directed
first at Ant.
V. Putin said that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but... American journalists, of course,
are aware that this statement is unfounded, and, of course, is Russian disinformation.
Because V. Putin said this.
You seem to advocating the concept of mob rule. Do you understand that a popular opinion is
not necessarily a correct opinion?
Gee! And here I was under the impression that THE MAJORITY of the people equals democracy.
But because most Americans are nuts, Amerikkka, would be the exception to that rule.
By the same token, pretending the Electoral College equals democracy is also legitimizing
the fact that a few married cousin crazies and evangelized bible thumpers from sparsely
populated hicktowns and rednecks, and pretend gentry from the Confederacy have equal
representation to the most populated states in the Union.
Let me though make a precise evaluation: Crazytown U.S.A. imposed karma Trump on the
majority, because a big part of that majority betrayed liberal anti-war values to neoliberal
peace equals war Nobel drone Obama and neoliberal hawk Killary cackling like a shrew
at the Al-Qaeda gang slaughter of Gaddafi.
Now, Amerikka has a ZioCon for President that pardons and glorifies war criminals, that
arms a proxy war committing starvation genocide, that steals oil resources from Syria, that
wields economic tyranny against Venezuela and Iran for the purpose of regime change and
control of foreign energy riches, that is meddling in Lebannon, Iraq and Latin American
countries usurping the will of people, and who gives away territory in Syria and Palestine to
Zionists not to mention his fascist takeover of the Judiciary and and total ignorance of the
climate change threat.
So even though you're totally wrong on what democracy is, it doesn't matter, because
Amerikkka's majority is getting exactly what it deserves for having betrayed and surrendered
liberal values to Neocons like GWBush, Neolibs like Killary and all in service to Zionism and
Zionists like Kissinger and billionaires like Saban and Adelson and the corporate sheisters
on Wall Street.
Very few Americans have a mind of their own raised on the Zionist corporate media alphabet
soup that scrambles the brain. So you're right, the majority, deserve the Trump karma imposed
on them by the lowest crazy common denominator in Amerikkkan society promoted by the
Electoral College and who are the most useful idiots of Zionist supremacy.
And then everyone wonders about the growing desperation manifested by mass tent cities,
mass opiod consumption and mass incarceration. Amerikka is occupied and Trump is the enforcer
of the occupier.
Now try and find a more precise observation of the truth.
America is an insane asylum that masquerades as the "world's leading democracy."
This country is truly unhinged and lives in its own Orwellian reality. The
Ukraine/impeachment issue is only symptomatic of this broader pathology.
For the USA, it doesn't make a difference what actual reality is. What matters is that
America defines what counts as reality itself--not matter how ludicrous or fake it is.
As a former high-level Bush Regime openly admitted in an interview with journalist Ron
Suskind:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're
studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new
realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's
actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
This American mentality is most evident in the USA's sociocidal wars of aggression around
the world and the lies that America peddles to pimp for its wars--as well as its political
balkanization, regime change, or destabilization campaigns that it dresses up
as"pro-Democracy"(TM) movements:
Mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq
The fake War on Terrorism
The bogus War on Drugs
Humanitarian Intervention, or the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine
Freedom and Democracy
All-American Lies....
Americans truly are the people of the Big Lie.
There should be a Cordon Sanitaire placed around the United States (and its crime
partners/allies) to prevent this American plague from infecting the rest of the word.
@54 snake "Governed Americans and governed Russians should build a stadium, outfit the
personnel in Russian and USA governments, their think tanks and their intelligence services
with uniforms, lock the two opposed teams in the stadium, and sell the TV rights to pay off
the national debt of all of the nations of the world as these two teams as they fight it out
to the last man, woman and paper tiger warrior."
That's awesome! I was just listening to Devo's 1981 New Traditionalists album the other
day, and while I put it on to listen to "Beautiful World" ("It's a beautiful world, for
you...not me!"), the following song is "Enough Said" and these are the great lyrics:
"Take all the leaders from around the world
Put them together in a great big ring
Televise it as the lowest show on earth
And let them fight like hell to see who's king
Gather up the pieces when the fight is done
Then you'll find out living really can be fun
Enough said!"
You can find in youtube - too apropos to not share.
Jackrabbit 6
"took the black vote for granted"
So very true. Team HRC must have thought they could flip states like Pennsylvania by taking
the cities just like BHO did. Instead the states "deplorables" were dismissed. BHO did the
same but he had the cities in his pocket. But in today's PC hypocrisy, you can't point to
race as being a major factor.
psychohistorian 7
These NGOs and other organizations have an added influence on our politics. For some reason
the MSM doesn't mention them much. It's like the White Helmets. Search for their history at
YouTube and you get the official obfuscation. But toss in Purpose and AVAAZ and you find
more.
@ STJ #63> who wrote, inter alia> "reactionary scum like Walter are always liars." et
sec
Many thanks, Friend. As no doubt all here are well-aware, the resort to ad hominem occurs
when the speaker has no actual argument.
I am obliged. Glad you agree with Walter, and also very glad you do not like that...your
inner-conflict may be part of the dialectic. I hope it works out for you, Steve.
see, if you like, McHenry,"The American Historical Review", vol. 11, 1906 p 618
Here's another bull's eye observation: it's more efficient and cunning to manipulate through
social media tech-savvy means and other localized machinations the really susceptible, dumb,
but important groups in swing states made powerful by the Electoral College than to tackle
the opinion of the urban majority with a few critical articles and the appearance of a
pay-off ledger. Besides, the entirety of Europe was critical of candidate Trump. The
criticism of Trump was not specfic to Ukraine alone. So either the meddling was based on a
vast conspiracy of criticism or it was based on a campaign of targeted populist propaganda
directed at the right and working class together with a perfectly-timed leak that the DNC was
sabotaging Sanders cleverly meant to turn part of the left base against the Dem Party. I say
the latter.
Now don't try to convince me that Ukraine would meddle to turn the left base of the
Democratic side against Hillary when Ukraine preferred her. That logic just don't fly.
The question to ask is. Who had the unlimited financial resources, political connections
and tech savvy to pull the meddling off? I'll give you some clues: it's the usual suspect,
starts with Z and it's mostly based in Israel, the U.S. AND in the Russian oligarchy.
Trump is the Chosen Zionist President and there's nothing more to look at here. The
Ukraine and Russia factors are superfluous and moot to that over-arching FACT.
The most important thing is to learn to read and write.
Rhetoric and logic are important to follow after.
The basis of my comment is that I am currently reading Frederick Law Olmstead's The Cotton
Kingdom.
Fascinating. Unvarnished look at the antebellum South. There was a lot of variation among
states and communities. but the basics remain the same (he covers a very wide territory, both
geog. and intellectually and makes very detailed observations of all that he
encountered).
A huge factor (per FLO) in the mental, psychological, intellectual, economic etc
impoverishment of the South was a lack of any cultural institutions, people lived too far
apart to hire any kind of teachers, of course the slaves were virtually all of them also
uneducated. but in, say, South Caroline 25% of the whites also could not read or write or do
elementary sums.
As adults we all have the responsibility to (continue to) educate ourselves. I get nervous
when I hear people putting a pox on education per se. There are no guarantees when human
beings invent or are given various types of tools. Trying to win the argument by withholding
the provision or preventing the acquisition of tools sounds akin to considering people
"uppity" for using the intellectual tools they possess.
@uncle tungsten | Nov 24 2019 11:58 utc | 44 (the email affair and server)
Assume that the Bruce-Partington Submarine plans (Y'all know yer Holmes?) are under
control of Billary Jones, a senior official in an Imperial State. Billary needs money and has
guilty secrets. He's being blackmailed by Oberstein, a spy.
Jones then accidentally leaves the plans where Oberstein sees and photographs them.
Hi there Stevie...conflict is debilitating, eh? Find the Franklin quote yet? He was there,
and you? But I assume you haven't even realized it wuz Bennie F. Best o' luck.
(apologies to Conan Doyle)
69 Shmoe
Sorry about link not working. Esp since it was so long.
I usually activiate Google translate from a Google hit. But
I think you can also activate Google translate from the original webpage. This link pasted
into a new window (the URL space) did get me to the translation: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Browder-und-das-Magnitski-Narrativ-Ende-einer-Desinformationskampagne-4595245.html&prev=search
">https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Browder-und-das-Magnitski-Narrativ-Ende-einer-Desinformationskampagne-4595245.html&prev=search">https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Browder-und-das-Magnitski-Narrativ-Ende-einer-Desinformationskampagne-4595245.html&prev=search
In case that still does not work, type the title into your browser and then "translate."
If you use Google you should get a hit that shows the German title with "translate this page"
to the right.
Here is the title:
"Browder und das Magnitski-Narrativ: Ende einer Desinformationskampagne?"
Another way is to type "Google Translate German to English" into your browser. You get a
page with a box for German text on the left and English translation on the right.
There are 99 comments so far and a few posters are scratching their heads about what Der
Spiegel is up to with this apparent 180. So it might be interesting to paste a few of them
into Google translate. Here is one:
"What is going on at the mirror (Spiegel)? Since the well-established narrative has been
cultivated about the mean Russians since the founding and has been shown to 100%
transatlantic loyalty, now suddenly something like that. Is this just an accidental slip of
reason or is there more behind it?"
Google translate does make mistakes, beware. A typo can lead to absurdity.
Oh, and one more salient, obvious fact in the form of a question: Why would the biggest and
worst Neocon, Zionist shill in Congress, Lindsey Graham risk his dignity to such an extreme
to rescue Trump's ass if Trump were not the Chosen Zionist President??? ... I'm waiting...10,
9, 8...
Lindsey is the barometer of who and what Zionists want and because they want Trump over
Biden, Lindsey is now at war with his former Dem friend. Lindsey's a loyal subject of Zionism
that butters his bread and that's why he'll do anything to protect Trump.
Amazing really. Back some 3-4 years ago, the wiley Russians looked into the future to
understand that they needed to blame the Ukrainians for interfering in the election. They
predicted that deep state actors would reveal that Trump would in fact strong arm the
Ukrainians into revealing dirt on Joe Biden.
As for the teaching of classical Rhetoric and Logic. Absolutely. Give people the tools to
understand arguments and their validity. One of the best books I had and which I stupidly
lost was a compendium of rhetorical devices as labeled in the original Latin and Greek by
drunk monks of the Medieval Europe. It was just amazing how these rhetoricians drew up a
taxology of the various techniques and tropes--from honest to dishonest. A great toolkit.
"What is going on at the mirror (Spiegel)? Since the well-established narrative has been
cultivated about the mean Russians since the founding and has been shown to 100%
transatlantic loyalty, now suddenly something like that. Is this just an accidental slip of
reason or is there more behind it?"
@ Erelis | Nov 24 2019 19:32 utc | 79 There was once a defrocked Jesuit (with tenure at a
major university) who taught sodomy to the choir and rhetoric to his friends and those whom
he thought might be. He also favored snow... But...as you say, the original Latin and Greek.
A good man, but a pervert, and not a pederast. I liked the guy, and he knew his subject, ah,
the academic subject, to near perfection. He wrote speeches on the side for major political
figures, for cash. Thus in part did my own inability to suspend disbelief become cemented.
For money? Good thing they caught him...oh yeah, his popness also runs a cash an' carry,
don't he? Well, somebody said... (Like Martin Luther?)
Anyway the reason to study rhetoric is that it shall be used against you. Knowing the
Science and Art is your only safe defense, your only warning of true intent by rhetorical
analysis and logical deduction matching real events and actions. Without Rhetoric you are a
chump, a mark, a fool, and like sheep. Ewe! (haha) With it you can form reasoned ideas about
the future intention of any speaker. This may be useful.
The first test (since 2014) of any expert's credentials is his/her position on Crimea. The
next test is on Russian aggression.
If anyone suggests Crimea does not belong to Russia (most especially the federal district of
Sevastopol), then they are ignorant or lying.
Posted by: Red Ryder | Nov 23 2019 19:53 utc
I think that Red Rider is wrong here, starting from assumptions. One assumption is that
rather than status quo 1-5 years before the time we are making a judgment, we should look
back ca. 200 years etc. That could imply that India should belong to United Kingdom,
subsequent treaties notwithstanding.
Even more wrong is the hidden assumption that there should be some general principles that
guide "us" as to who owns what (they actually exist but wait) that hold regardless of
"Washington consensus". Perhaps using lower case in "us" was misleading. History explains the
ethnic and linguistic composition of Crimea etc. but really, everybody agrees the it is not
the only determinant. But let us consider some cases:
Annexation of Tuva and Sikkim. Somehow, nobody cares.
De-facto annexation of North Cyprus which now operates as a quasi-independent state fully
dependent on Turkey. Locals and Turks are satisfied, the rest of NATO and perhaps UN does not
recognize legality, but apart of Greek speaking countries, nobody makes a big deal out of it.
Sanctions? Hehe.
Annexation of Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Universal mild disapproval, except for USA
-- wholehearted approval there.
Crimea. Total need to apply severe sanction forever to maintain faith in "our"
principles.
Cynthia Chung invaded my brain and wrote the short essay that's been on the tip of my tongue
for some months now, "On
Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace'" . Within its body is linked two extremely important items,
the first being Elliott Roosevelt's book about his father Franklin As He Saw It (available limited
preview at link), and the second being an excerpt from that book of paramount
importance .
The more well known name of Churchill's "Sinews of Peace" speech is "The Iron Curtain
Speech" given at Fulton, Missouri on 5 March 1946, not quite 11 months after FDR's passing.
Here is the opening appetizer from that speech Chung bases the rest of her essay upon:
"This threatening message was not only meant for the Soviets, but was also directed to the
Americans and in between the lines Churchill stated ' Things are going to be very
different from now on. Your dead president cannot protect you any longer .' Some may be
surprised to hear such an aside comment, more likened to the outer ruminations of
Shakespeare's Iago." [My Emphasis]
Things did immediately become different. I consistently point out that the Evil Outlaw US
Empire immediately began violating the UN Charter and thus its own Constitution and Law of
the Land upon its coming into force; however, what I've neglected to point out until now is
that the UK also began violating it just as immediately as did France, although neither has
anything similar to the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause that might be used to curb illegal
behavior. I often point to historical What Ifs? as in this case regarding the coup made
against Henry Wallace, FDR, and the wholesale overturning of the reasons given for waging the
war and winning the peace. Ms. Chung does an excellent job of highlighting what those were,
how they were smashed, and why. I really can't stress the great importance of her essay
enough; its educational importance is second to none! Read it, save it, make sure its read by
your entire family, take it to your kid's teachers, share it with everyone you know and those
you don't. The only people I can conceive of who wouldn't want to know its contents are
racists/imperialists--dare I say fascists--like Churchill. Three generations of people were
subjected to a geopolitical power play that never should have occurred--the deaths,
destruction, and wasted opportunities likely total in the Quadrillions of Dollars. I must
admit some admiration for Chung's an optimist as she clearly shows in her conclusion; my
adding it here in no way diminishes her essay's power and importance:
"The intended policies by Franklin D. Roosevelt for the post war world are still waiting
to be implemented today.
"So what can we the people do about this? We can wake up to the fact that this has
occurred and recognise that the mainstream presentation of world dichotomy today is just
continuing this sickly narrative. That Russia and China are not some monstrous race and that
we should weigh what is currently being offered as an olive branch with great and serious
reflection. That is namely the Eurasian Economic Union and the New Silk Road which also
applies immensely to the US.
"Let us not continue to remain shackled in despair and inaction but rather realise that
there is a great opportunity still for the Century of the Common Man."
Walter confirms being a liar when paragraphs of argument are miscalled "inter alia," then
ignored. The snide insult by the way functions as a fallacious ad hominem, doubly confirms
thatif Walter knows rhetoric, then Walter is doubly a liar. Last and least citing a 1906
volume of American Historical Review to someone who doesn't have university library access is
a snob's rudeness. I'm defeated by the puzzle of what Walter thinks Walter has to be snobby
about. A collection of American Historical Review isn't exactly nothing, but to get snobby
over it? Really?
"... "...it is quite possible that the historically well-informed neocons are merely longing for the good old Bolshevik days in Russia." ..."
"... Neocons resurrect tribal memories to fan the flames ..."
"... Imo Vindman's testimony revealed a 'personal' grudge against Russia. Hill also displayed a 'obsession' with Russia imo..... its interesting her Russian instructor at Harvard was Richard Pipes, the supreme Russian hater. ..."
"... Perhaps you should consider the influence of Ukrainian emigre groups/lobbies. They are essentialy an extension of the Galician movement you refer to. ..."
"... Machiavelli warned repeatedly of the baleful results that listening to exiles gets you into (specifically concerning attempts to reinstate some exiles in the place they came from), George Washingtons farewell adress can be read in a similiar way. Here is the thing with exiles: ..."
"... Lets pretend that Atlantis exists, but 98% of Americans do not particularly care about this country. Now something happens there that genereates exiles. If those exiles are at least somewhat savy, they will passionately argue that the current atlantean government is pure evil. Other then that, they will strive to make themselfs usefull to the host nation. Now, lets pretend that you have 5 such atlantean exiles in a group of 100 politicians. The atlantean exiles would care primarily about condeming the atlantean government, and may be in a position to deliver political points in other areas to anyone who is asking. A normal "I dont care about Atlantis" politican will see a fairly simple cost benefit thing, I condemn Atlantis, something about which I do not care at all, and in return the exiles will back something I care about, like my health policy. ..."
"... This is by no means a rapid development, but give it a couple of decades and the exchange of many such small favors will essentially result in a large group of politicians who will underwrite things like "Atlantis delenda est", mostly because they dont actually care about Atlantis. ..."
"... I don't know why this campaign against Russia was launched but at least part of it was domestic political pressure from Clinton Dems towards Trump Reps. What better way to deflect criticism about the foreign influences on the Clinton Dems (massive bribes from the usual suspects, either direct or via the Clinton Fdn.) but by accusing your opponent of being in the pay of foreign powers? ..."
"... Hillary Clinton shrieking about "Russia Wikileaks" seems to me to be pure projection and also rationalising a cause for her defeat other than the incompetence and corruption of her campaign. ..."
"... Also it seems to me that the Russian defeat of the regime change op in Syria (altho the situation seems rather fluid at the moment...) is another motivation where Israel's interests loom large. ..."
"... A grandfather and great grandfather were in a Union regiment but that hardly is proof that I am a Union man. Unusual family demographics to be sure but even then those Ukrainians served in that SS unit over 70 years ago. I doubt they were even then motivated by National Socialist ideology. Hatred of Russians was likely the primary motivation, as now. The German invasion was an opportunity to settle scores. ..."
"... I understand the hatred but not the application of "Nazi" to any Ukrainian thinking. If "Nazi" merely connotes "thuggish" then perhaps that explains the Azov formations but I suspect much more is at work. Additional inquiry is warranted. ..."
"... Many of those in the Ukrainian SS units ended up in Canada after WW2, resulting in the very pro Ukranian actions of the Canadian Government post 2014. Their FM, Christina Freeland, is a descendant. ..."
"... After the fall of the Former Soviet Union in 1991, saw a resurgence of the OUN. ..."
"... The Ukrainian Nazi formations and political factions openly call themselves Nazis. For that matter, everyone else called them Nazis too, at least before they became useful to the neocons. I'll spare everyone an explanation of Ukrainian diaspora culture, but I will say that, before WWII, the principal Ukrainian nationalist folk devil wasn't Russia. It was Poland and the Jews. ..."
"... Could the anti Russia bias be as simple as the need to protect the empires of people in State and Defence etc that would be no longer needed if Russia was a 'good' guy? ..."
"... Then there is the MIC and the lobbying flows of money into Congress.Russia is far too important to too many insiders to be anything but an enemy. ..."
"... As pointed out earlier - the military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify its exorbitant budgets. The Deep State, the Borg, the Blob, whatever you want to call it, needs a Big Enemy to justify its spying and increasingly blatant interference in domestic US politics. ..."
"... the Russian nation is greatly under populated and owns a staggering per cent of the planets natural resources of every description. envy by those look from the outside towards russia is alone sufficient justification for wanting to grab it for themselves as has been unsuccessfully tried for centuries. ..."
"... The irony, of course, is that in Jewish folk memory, the most pig-headed (pun intended) and virulent anti-Semites were the peasants of Galicia (western Ukraine) and Poland. ..."
"... I also share your bafflement and not just with the political positions of the likes of Victoria Nuland. What do US & UK hope to gain? I can't see any benefits. ..."
Giraldi suggests, "...it is quite possible that the historically well-informed neocons are
merely longing for the good old Bolshevik days in Russia." That aligns more readily with
neocons' (and their oligarch supporters') psychopathic obsession with power and control via
the state. Giraldi also illustrates another more recent period in history when the neocons
were not decidedly anti-Russian:
In fact, the neocons got along quite well with Russia when they and their overwhelmingly
Jewish oligarchs and international commodity thieves cum financier friends were looting the
resources of the old Soviet Union under the hapless Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Alarms
about the alleged Russian threat only re-emerged in the neocon dominated media and think
tanks when old fashioned nationalist Vladimir Putin took office and made it a principal
goal of his government to turn off the money tap.
There was no monolithic 'Jewish Oligarch' club cashing in on Yeltsin's Russia. In the
broadest sense, the western neocon-friendly Russian-Jewish oligarch group(s) were booted out
by Putin, while rival group(s) stayed in Russia and submitted to Putin's reforms (whatever
that means). Saker has written in the past about the various Jewish oligarch factions in
Russia. It's complicated and beyond me.
Israel Shamir attempts to untangle the contradictory views on Ukraine from the State of
Israel, Ukrainian-Jewish oligarchs, neocons and Jews from the US, Ukraine and Russia:
Summary: 'Tribal' oversimplifies - no unified opinion. It's complicated. Mr. Shamir's
views seem reasonable and go a long way to explaining the contradictions to me.
Giraldi suggests, "...it is quite possible that the historically well-informed neocons are
merely longing for the good old Bolshevik days in Russia."
I have a great deal of respect for Phil Giraldi but he is wrong here--it has nothing to do
with "Bolshevism", whatever that means in the American context, but with settling accounts
with 1930s purges of largely, not exclusively, Jewish Trotskists from the party and a
consistent anti-Zionist position of USSR till the every end. Now, with Russia effectively
de-fanging Israel, they go apoplectic. Modern neocons have zero relation to Bolshevism and if
they dream about anything--it is mostly have Russia gone as such.
''A question for me is the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and
neocons toward Russia. There are a lot of Jews scattered among these groups. .... Or, do
these people see Russia as a plausible geopolitical rival for the US? Surely it cannot be as
simple, or simpleminded as that.''
Jews have next to zero political control in Russia and I do think that the Zionist see
Russia, as the only other superpower, as a hindrance to their aims for one thing.
Also any state where Jews 'lost out' is subject to vilification and branded as evil.
Imo Vindman's testimony revealed a 'personal' grudge against Russia. Hill also
displayed a 'obsession' with Russia imo..... its interesting her Russian instructor at
Harvard was Richard Pipes, the supreme Russian hater.
As for the non Jewish Neos what would they do without a big scary enemy to fight?...they
might have to actually concentrate on doing things for America.
If anyone is interested here is a nice tool for following congressional bills and etc..
Mostly good for counting all the money they are giving away and the sanctions on countries
they are demanding....they aren't doing much of anything else in congress if you don't count
the kangaroo court circus.
How odd on PBS tonight - 'Secrets of Her Majesty's Secret Service" - an inside look at the
worlds only defense against Russia -a love letter to M16 and it nearly 100 year "special
relationship" with the US and CIA.
What strange timing for such a calculated PR piece for an extremely publicity shy Five
Eyes operation. Were they trying to get ahead of the coming Russiagate investigation reports
with this engaging documentary - we are in fact the James Bonds of the world and we know you
Americans love James Bond.
Anyone else see it or have I gotten aa sinister cabal derangement syndrome behind even PBS
"friendly" documentaries?
"A question for me is the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and
neocons toward Russia" Perhaps you should consider the influence of Ukrainian emigre groups/lobbies. They are
essentialy an extension of the Galician movement you refer to.
" Is it Russia's relentless persecution of homosexuals?" What's the evidence for this
persecution?
Essentially, when both 2 persons as contrary to each other as George Washington and
Niccolo Machiavelli agree on something, it behoves one well to listen.
Machiavelli warned repeatedly of the baleful results that listening to exiles gets you
into (specifically concerning attempts to reinstate some exiles in the place they came from),
George Washingtons farewell adress can be read in a similiar way. Here is the thing with
exiles:
Lets pretend that Atlantis exists, but 98% of Americans do not particularly care
about this country. Now something happens there that genereates exiles. If those exiles are
at least somewhat savy, they will passionately argue that the current atlantean government
is pure evil. Other then that, they will strive to make themselfs usefull to the host
nation. Now, lets pretend that you have 5 such atlantean exiles in a group of 100
politicians. The atlantean exiles would care primarily about condeming the atlantean
government, and may be in a position to deliver political points in other areas to anyone
who is asking. A normal "I dont care about Atlantis" politican will see a fairly simple
cost benefit thing, I condemn Atlantis, something about which I do not care at all, and in
return the exiles will back something I care about, like my health policy.
This is by no means a rapid development, but give it a couple of decades and the
exchange of many such small favors will essentially result in a large group of politicians
who will underwrite things like "Atlantis delenda est", mostly because they dont actually
care about Atlantis.
This is not a specifically US thing at all. My understanding is that Russias WW1 decision
to back Serbia was considerably influenced by a group of ethnically serbian/Montenegrin
advisors (who, one has to say were otherwise loyal to Russia, and had fought with distinction
in the Tsars wars, shedding their blood for Russia).
I don't know why this campaign against Russia was launched but at least part of it was
domestic political pressure from Clinton Dems towards Trump Reps. What better way to deflect
criticism about the foreign influences on the Clinton Dems (massive bribes from the usual
suspects, either direct or via the Clinton Fdn.) but by accusing your opponent of being in
the pay of foreign powers?
Hillary Clinton shrieking about "Russia Wikileaks" seems to me to be pure projection
and also rationalising a cause for her defeat other than the incompetence and corruption of
her campaign.
Also it seems to me that the Russian defeat of the regime change op in Syria (altho the
situation seems rather fluid at the moment...) is another motivation where Israel's interests
loom large.
It also seems to me to be stunningly stupid to have thrown away any potential alliance
with Russia in favor of promoting Wahabist scum. And forcing Russia into the arms of the
Chinese instead of recruiting them into the containment cordon.
Anyway, speaking as a denizen of Plato's cave, without direct knowledge of the reality of
the thing it's mostly educated guesses on my part...
A grandfather and great grandfather were in a Union regiment but that hardly is proof that
I am a Union man. Unusual family demographics to be sure but even then those Ukrainians
served in that SS unit over 70 years ago. I doubt they were even then motivated by National
Socialist ideology. Hatred of Russians was likely the primary motivation, as now. The German
invasion was an opportunity to settle scores.
I understand the hatred but not the application of "Nazi" to any Ukrainian thinking. If
"Nazi" merely connotes "thuggish" then perhaps that explains the Azov formations but I
suspect much more is at work. Additional inquiry is warranted.
Many of those in the Ukrainian SS units ended up in Canada after WW2, resulting in the
very pro Ukranian actions of the Canadian Government post 2014. Their FM, Christina Freeland,
is a descendant.
Folks like Freeland openly credit her SS grandfather for her ideology. When speaking in
public, she does then to conveniently omit his services to the national Socialist state.
Try Stephan Bandera, he was as bad of a figure as what the Russians accused him of being.
Bandera's legacy was that of a Nazi sympathizer and a real nut case too boot. He was one sick
twisted individual.
After the fall of the Former Soviet Union in 1991, saw a resurgence of the OUN.
These Russian hating individuals that composed the far-right Nazi resurgence in the Ukraine
government, started terrifying the Russian enclaves in the Crimea, and those enclaves in turn
called on their fellow Russian brothers in Russia for help, to which Putin and the Russian
military came to their aid and the annexation of the Crimea by Russia took place so as to
protect the Russian enclaves from further persecution by the Banderites. Bandera posters
became more and more prevalent. The Euromaidan protests turned more and more violent, the
wolfsangel that was formerly a symbol of the SS but was now taken up by the Azov Battalion
and other militias, the old OUN war cry of "Glory to Ukraine, glory to the heroes" that was
now ubiquitous among anti-Yanukovych protesters.
Here's some further reading regarding Stephan Bandera:
The Ukrainian Nazi formations and political factions openly call themselves Nazis. For
that matter, everyone else called them Nazis too, at least before they became useful to the
neocons. I'll spare everyone an explanation of Ukrainian diaspora culture, but I will say
that, before WWII, the principal Ukrainian nationalist folk devil wasn't Russia. It was
Poland and the Jews.
That's a very interesting write up at Zerohedge. I believe we discussed the same conduct,
though not the depth of corruption of US politicians, here while that was happening. The borg
are starting to panic with the threat of a real investigation.
Thank you for the posting and thank all for the comments.
Some of us out here in The Middle can't really understand any of the behaviors of those
good and not-so-good Swamp dwellers (any more than we can understand the behaviors of the La
La Land Californian politicians.
I understand more about the issues involving our relationship with Ukraine by reading this
post and comments than I ever would have been able to since I simply don't have time to get
large books and many detailed published papers to read.
Could the anti Russia bias be as simple as the need to protect the empires of people in
State and Defence etc that would be no longer needed if Russia was a 'good' guy?
The US's 'independent' multi-national force NATO would clearly no longer be needed, so
many years after the Warsaw Pact dissolved. Whilst the US 'occupation' forces all over the
place, but especially in Europe, could return home to the US.
Then there is the MIC and the lobbying flows of money into Congress.Russia is far too
important to too many insiders to be anything but an enemy.
Indeed, its boom time as China related structures are expanding in parallel rather than
replacing those directed at Russia.
As pointed out earlier - the military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify its
exorbitant budgets. The Deep State, the Borg, the Blob, whatever you want to call it, needs a
Big Enemy to justify its spying and increasingly blatant interference in domestic US
politics.
There are too many business ties with China, and our supply chains reach too deeply into
that country, for it to serve as a Big Enemy without causing serious disruption.
the reasons for the agreed upon antipathy towards Russia is imo not the actual reason for the
hostilities that have existed for at least the last 100 years and actually much longer.
the Russian nation is greatly under populated and owns a staggering per cent of the
planets natural resources of every description. envy by those look from the outside towards
russia is alone sufficient justification for wanting to grab it for themselves as has been
unsuccessfully tried for centuries.
why complicate matters when simple greed answers so many of the questions asked about WHY
the west hates russia.
The irony, of course, is that in Jewish folk memory, the most pig-headed (pun intended)
and virulent anti-Semites were the peasants of Galicia (western Ukraine) and Poland.
I also share your bafflement and not just with the political positions of the likes of
Victoria Nuland. What do US & UK hope to gain? I can't see any benefits.
The U.S. Pentagon and State Department have devised plans to supply Ukraine with antitank
missiles and other weaponry and are seeking White House approval, U.S. officials said, as
Kiev battles Russia-backed separatists and ties between Moscow and Washington fray.
American military officials and diplomats say the arms, which they characterized as
defensive, are meant to deter aggressive actions by Moscow, which the U.S. and others say has
provided tanks and other sophisticated armaments as well as military advisers to rebels
fighting the Kiev government.
Arming Ukraine remains a bad, foolish idea for all the reasons I have given before.
Advocates of sending weapons say that it will serve as a deterrent, but it will almost
certainly be perceived as a provocation by Moscow and could easily serve as a pretext for more
aggressive behavior from Russia and its proxies. Ukraine will not be made more secure by doing
this, and the U.S. has no obligation to help defend Ukraine in any case, but the bigger problem
with the proposal is that it has nothing to do with promoting U.S. or allied security. Some of
our most important European allies, including Germany and France, understand this, and have
opposed the same idea in the past.
Sending more weapons into Ukraine risks reigniting and escalating the conflict at the same
time that it deepens U.S. involvement in it. It would antagonize Russia while further
entangling the U.S. in a conflict in which we have no vital interests. If Russia responds in
kind or with an even more aggressive response, the U.S. can't credibly threaten to counter them
because Ukraine will always matter far more to them than it does to us. The White House should
reject the latest misguided proposal to send arms to Ukraine.
P.S. Leonid Bershidsky
spells out why sending weapons to Ukraine is also unnecessary:
Two years after both sides have largely kept to existing demarcation lines (minor
encroachments aside), it is militarily unnecessary to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons
unless the U.S. wants to encourage it to try to reclaim the "people's republics." That would
be a mistake. Though Russia doesn't have enough resources to take over and hold Ukraine while
still staying on the lookout for other military threats, it has plenty of money, firepower
and determination to defend the separatist statelets.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he
also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New
York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review ,
Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and
Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the
University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter . email
'Did you receive any indication whatsoever, or anything that resembled a quid pro quo?'
Former envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker: 'No.'
Devin Nunes to Tim Morrison, former NSC official: 'Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or
extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?'
'No.'
This follows the responses of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to the question of
whether he was offered a quid pro quo: US aid in exchange for investigating Hunter Biden's
corrupt dealings with the natural gas company Burisma: 'No.'
Ditto Gordon Sondland, US ambassador to the European Union: was there a quid pro quo: 'No.'
(Sondland's testimony has just begun at the time of writing: rest assured it will be more of
the same.)
Last week's hearings were preposterous, a disaster for the Democrats. This week's hearings
are shaping up to be even worse news for the partisans of the Adam Schiff Show.
Remember that old hippie slogan, ' suppose they gave a war
and nobody came? ' It's been updated and applied not to international conflicts but
partisan intramural sniping: suppose they gave a hearing and nobody came?
For that's the truth of the matter. The ratings for this reality TV show are in the tank.
During Watergate, during the Clinton impeachment, people were glued to the news. Now, despite
the screaming CNN chyrons, anti-Trump Washington Post and New York Times sermons,
nobody cares.
The Adam Schiff Show is playing to itself. Even the president has realized that it is 98.6
percent farce, 1.4 percent menace. Hence his little taunts. Some Dems say
Trump should testify , assuming the 'offer' will be brusquely ignored. But Trump calls
their bluff: 'Even though I did nothing wrong,' the president tweeted , 'and
don't like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax, I like the idea & will, in order
to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it!'
That was the last you'll hear about asking Trump to testify.
And now there are reports that Trump is actively supporting impeachment. You read
that right: 'The impeachment hearings have been thrown into chaos after President Trump
announced that he supports impeachment, forcing Democrats to oppose their own impeachment
inquiry.'
OK, that last is from the
Babylon Bee , a source that is only marginally more reliable than The New York
Times.
It is a mark of the way we live now that articles in the Babylon Bee are often
indistinguishable in terms of their credibility from articles in the supposedly mainstream
media.
The Adam Schiff Show's star witness yesterday was the pathetic Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman --
and that's
Lt. Col. not 'Mr', buddy, and don't you forget it!
Some news reports say that his testimony provided nuggets for the Dems as well as
exculpatory statements for Republicans. For example, the Lt. Col. said that he thought that
Trump's request that President Zelensky investigation local corruption was 'an implied "demand"
because of the "power disparity" between the two leaders.'
So its's come to this. Lt. Col. Vindman testified that the public transcript of the July
call between President Trump and President Zelensky was accurate; he confirmed that US aid was
being held up not because of a quid pro quo but because of an OMB review to be sure its was
consistent with administration policies; he confirmed, too, that he saw no evidence of
bribery.
And this was Adam Schiff Show's 'star witness', the modern major general -- well, Lt. Col.
-- who was going to drop the bombshell that would galvanize the Democratic case for
impeachment.
Not hardly.
But mention of 'bribery' reminds me of a fact that has been little remarked. Like many
organizations, the Adam Schiff Show has begun distributing pocket editions of the US
Constitution. There are some novelties about it, however. For example, in Article II, Section
4, most editions read:
'The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be
removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors.'
The Adam Schiff Show version is more capacious:
'The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be
removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, Mean Tweets,
Policies we do not approve of, Rogue Telephone Calls, being Elected without Our Permission, or
other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'
I do not write in jest. You may not be able to find printed copies of the Adam Schiff Show
Constitution (including the Declaration of Dependency), but my transcription of the bit about
impeachment is an accurate transcription of the sentiment that informs it.
Lt. Col. Vindman loves his uniform -- all those medals and embroidery -- and he thought that
Donald Trump was contravening the policies endorsed by the National Security Council. That is
the essence of his complaint.
But that is just too bad for the Lt. Col. He does not set the policies. The president of the
United States does.
The president of the United States, it pains me to inform Lt. Col. Vindman, is Donald J.
Trump. He may not like that. He may think Donald is crude or wrong or ill-informed or out of
touch. That doesn't matter. He is the president. Lt. Col. Vindman's job is to carry out the
policies formulated by the president, to offer advice and counsel when asked, and otherwise to
get with the program or get out of government.
An unanswered question is why the Democrats are proceeding with this destructive farce, so
damaging to the authority of Congress and the national interest. Apart from the news rooms of
the anti-Trump press and the activist cells of 'The Resistance', it has become increasingly
clear over the past week that most of the country is either uninterested in the hearings or
actively hostile to the patent effort to smear a duly elected president.
It has been clear from the outset that the impeachment hearings are a desperate reprise of
the Russian Collusion Hoax -- an effort to stymie, distract, hamper, and ultimately to destroy
a political rival of whom the Democrats and the NeverTrump Right does not approve.
But in weaponizing the threat of impeachment -- an instrument of last resort intended by the
Founders to be a safety check against the most serious sorts of malfeasance -- by deploying
impeachment for nakedly partisan purposes because the president may (but on the evidence did
not) say something which, if interpreted with sufficient malice and hermeneutical ingenuity,
might just be construed to hint at a possibly (but probably not) inappropriate request for a
favor -- to deploy the awesome machinery of impeachment and spark such 'mighty contests from
trivial things' is a disgusting abuse of power and betrayal of the public trust.
The people understand this. Adam Schiff, drunk on his new-found celebrity and (quite
temporary) fund-raising prowess has so far failed to take it on board. The reckoning, however,
is just around the corner. The White House has slyly signaled its glee about how the farcical
impeachment hearings are proceeding. If he took his duties as a public servant to heart, Adam
Schiff would understand the peril he has brought upon his party and the disservice he has done
the country by transforming his tenure in Congress into a partisan freak show.
'If'. Well, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. The Adam Schiff Show is falling apart
before our eyes. Like a television franchise that has jumped the shark, the Democrats thought
they could transform this tawdry revenge fantasy into reality. It isn't working. The
interesting next episode will be all about damage control. How exactly the Democrats will move
to extricate themselves from this ill-advised plot is yet to be seen. But I predict that by the
New Year the impeachment frenzy of 2019 will be consigned to the rancid attic of misbegotten
partisan schemes. No Democrat will want to be reminded of it and poor Adam Schiff will take his
mad stare to those out-of-the-way, depopulated venues where embarrassing politicians go while
waiting to be swallowed up by oblivion.
Russian officials said Saturday that the U.S. decision to supply Ukraine with lethal weapons to
combat Russian-backed separatists will cause new bloodshed, as long-standing tensions between Washington and Moscow
escalated over the four-year-old conflict.
Moscow's admonition came shortly after the State Department announced Friday evening that the
United States will provide heavy armaments to Ukraine for the first time, a step up from the support equipment and
training offered so far. A statement by spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the weapons were defensive in nature, "as
part of our effort to help Ukraine build its long-term defense capacity, to defend its sovereignty and territorial
integrity, and to deter further aggression."
On Wednesday, Washington said it had approved an export license allowing the sale of light
weapons and small arms to Ukraine from commercial U.S. manufacturers.
"... Without understanding the reality of Obama's coup in Ukraine , there is no way of honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obama's 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but of different types zerohedge ..."
"... Victoria Nuland is reported to have been overheard to say on a cell phone - "Fuck the EU." This was evidently a response to European attempts to head off a coup by West Ukrainian sons and grandsons of Galicians (west Ukrainians) who fought with Nazi Germany against the USSR in WW2. Actually there was a Galician division (a lot of Galicians) in the Waffen SS. Some might think that was not such a bad thing in itself but does the world really need a Ukraine run by neo-Nazis? ..."
There are many instances of U.S. coups that the Government lied about and that afterward had
negative blowback. The 1953 U.S. coup against Iran's democratically elected Government wasn't
revealed to the American public until decades after it had happened. It had long been alleged to have been a
'democratic revolution' in Iran . Our Government and media have been lying to us for a long
time, and not only about 'WMD in Iraq'. We shall be documenting here that that 1953 coup
in Iran (and other similar instances by the U.S. Government) is being repeated (yet again) in
the case of the February 2014 U.S. coup that occurred in Ukraine. The regime is very effective at lying , at deceiving , at manipulating , its public, no less now than it was then .
Without
understanding the reality of Obama's coup in Ukraine , there is no way of
honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic
Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obama's 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but
of different types zerohedge
-----------------
Victoria Nuland is reported to have been overheard to say on a cell phone - "Fuck the EU."
This was evidently a response to European attempts to head off a coup by West Ukrainian sons
and grandsons of Galicians (west Ukrainians) who fought with Nazi Germany against the USSR in
WW2. Actually there was a Galician division (a lot of Galicians) in the Waffen SS. Some might
think that was not such a bad thing in itself but does the world really need a Ukraine run by
neo-Nazis?
There is the awkward issue of the Donbas industrial region in east Ukraine. The people there
are mostly Orthodox Christians in contrast to the Galicians who claim to be my
co-coreligionists in the embrace of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Well, they are
demographically that at least. The east Ukrainians prefer Russia, poor fools. The extent of
Russian government intervention in the east is unclear to me. It is likely that it extends to
equipment, ammunition and training, at least that.
A question for me is the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and
neocons toward Russia. There are a lot of Jews scattered among these groups. Is it a group
memory of Tsarist pograms that eats at them? Israel does not seem to have a special problem
with modern Russia. Is it Russia's relentless persecution of homosexuals? There are a lot of
LGBTQ supporters among the two groups. Or, do these people see Russia as a plausible
geopolitical rival for the US? Surely it cannot be as simple, or simpleminded as that. The
undying USSR as chimera? Perhaps it is that. pl
The dichotomy between the fairly good relations Russia has with Israel compared to the
States has long seemed peculiar. There are a lot of Russian Jewish ex-pats in Israel and
quite a few in the USA though I think most of those here arrived earlier than the ones in
Israel.
In spite of the wide perception here of official suppression of Jews in Russia reality
perhaps differs.
Amy Chua, in writing her book "World on Fire" recounts her Jewish husband's response when
she discovered 6 of the 7 principal oligarchs were Jewish. He raised an eyebrow and said:
"Only 6?"
The oligarchs were extremely unpopular in Russia. Some of these oligarchs have since been
purged while others re-aligned from Yeltsin to Putin.
The book is a good read about different economically dominant minorities around the
World.
Regarding the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and neocons toward
Russia, I think it might have something to do with all those Merkavas taken out by Kornets in
2006.
Well, there would be the mindset that gave rise to the Wolfowitz doctrine--a fear and
loathing of near-peer competitors. Rage at having had them down and a boot at their throats
under Yeltsin, only for them to get up off the mat. When you think of how much insulted
hubris goes into the rage against Iran after the humiliation of the Embassy takeover and
eviction. Then there is Putin's assertion of primacy over the West-aided pillage by Russia's
own oligarchs. His reading of the riot act to them, not few of whom were Jewish. Another
unforgivable sin. And perhaps more than anything the example he sets of patriotic resistance
to transnational oligarchy. And now they are beginning to hand out some diplomatic and
military ass-kickings, if war is an extension of policy, they seem to have established
military doctrine that actually serves to support diplomatic and political campaigns, rather
than the reverse. Anyway, a few thoughts...
A rabid neocon Max Boot view looks identical to Vindman views.
The article was written one year after the February 2014 coup. The logic is simple and flawed
anything that cause casualties for Russia is good for the USA. This WaPo chickenhawk "military
analyst" is simply incapable to ask a simple question: Why Russia stopped in seizing all southern
Ukraine just after the coup, when it has both the opportunities and the support of local
population to do do. They can easily for Ukrainian government in exile, who would ask for
military aid and provide this military aid on completely legitimate basis. Nobody in NATO would
even sqeek. And if Russia in interested in the preservation of the Ukrainian state, why to
antagonize it, which might prompt it to change its mind.
A distinguished group of former government officials, including former NATO commander Adm.
Jim Stavridis, Obama's former Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy, Obama's former NATO
ambassador Ivo Daalder, and Clinton's former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, have
just issued a report calling for the provision of arms to Ukraine. They
write :
The U.S. government should provide Ukraine $1 billion in military assistance as soon as
possible in 2015, followed by additional tranches of $1billion in FY 2016 and FY 2017.
Additional non-lethal assistance should include: counterbattery radars, unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs),
electronic counter-measures for use against opposing UAVs, secure communications
capabilities, armored
Humvees and medical support equipment.
Lethal defensive military assistance should include light anti-armor missiles, given the
large numbers of armored vehicles that the Russians have deployed in Donetsk and Luhansk and
the abysmal condition of the Ukrainian military's light anti-armor weapons.
... ... ...
Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is the author of the
forthcoming bookThe Road Not Taken: Edward Lansdale and the American Tragedy in
Vietnam(Liveright, 2018).
It does serves the interests of military-industrial complex. And this is all that matters.
Notable quotes:
"... IMHO, in Ukraine the USA deviated from its longstanding policy of supporting constitutional order governance, allied with far right nationalists and smashed the constitutional order installing marionette far right government ( Nulandgate ) . On the part of the USA this was done to achieve geopolitical goals of weakening Russia. On the part of UE this was done for expanding EU economic "Lebensraum" into xUSSR space. ..."
"... In this sense, Obama, and especially Obama's State Department, are a clear predecessors of Trump's turn to the right. See the discussion by Professor Cohen: ..."
While the discussion of this issue on emotional level is clearly fun, the key question here is: did the economic conditions
in the USA changed in a way that the majority of population from now on will consistently support a far right party (or a far
right faction within the Republican Party).
And to support far right (neofascist) ideas as a reaction to the process of sliding standard of living and the lack of job
opportunities in conditions of the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA and the associated process of de-legitimization of neoliberal
elite (Schiff)
Marxism used to teach us that the way people live define the way people think ;-)
I am also alarmed at the support of Ukrainegate among esteemed commentariat. When you consider "military assistance" as the
way to pressure the country, the first thing to discuss is whether this military assistance serves the USA national interests
or not. This was not done.
IMHO, in Ukraine the USA deviated from its longstanding policy of supporting constitutional order governance, allied with far
right nationalists and smashed the constitutional order installing marionette far right government ( Nulandgate ) . On the part
of the USA this was done to achieve geopolitical goals of weakening Russia. On the part of UE this was done for expanding EU economic
"Lebensraum" into xUSSR space.
This was the case, long before Trump, when the USA demonstrated clearly neofascist tendencies in foreign policy. In this sense,
Obama, and especially Obama's State Department, are a clear predecessors of Trump's turn to the right. See the discussion by Professor
Cohen:
"... The most recent evidence of this was the bizarre incident earlier this week, confirmed by the government in Kiev , where 311 Ukrainian troops of the 72 nd Army brigade laid down their arms and crossed the border into Russia. Moscow's claim that they were trying to defect is suspect, especially since dozens of the troops have reportedly returned to Ukraine. Kiev argues that the troops simply ran out of ammunition. ..."
"... To complicate matters, the Ukrainian army is supported by private paramilitary groups, including both the large Donbass Batallion and a number of smaller and less formal groups based in various towns in the region. Some have already entered the heavily populated area around Donetsk. While their political sympathies lie with Kiev, these militias are not under Kiev's command and control, and certainly have not undergone any professional unit training. U.S.-supplied weapons might end up in their hands, as well, with unpredictable consequences. ..."
"... It would be tragic if U.S.-supplied ammunition or armaments ended up killing the very Ukrainian civilians that Washington hopes will be coaxed back into a unified Ukrainian state. ..."
The following is a guest post from Barnard College, Columbia University, political scientist
Kimberly Marten.
*****
Last week the Democratic Party publicly split over the wisdom of sending lethal military assistance to Ukraine. The Obama administration
is reportedly sharing some intelligence and non-lethal equipment (like night-vision goggles and armored vehicles) with the Ukrainian
army, and is preparing to up its support for Ukrainian National Guard training. But Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl
Levin joined prominent Republicans in asking Obama to go further. He
called
for defensive weapons to be sent to Kiev , including ammunition and anti-aircraft missiles, after a closed-door briefing with
Pentagon officials.
Demands for U.S. weapons support will likely grow as Russia's troop buildup along the border continues and the threat of open
warfare between the two countries increases. Obama himself has
hinted that weapons might be sent if Russia invades Ukraine. Republican Sen. John McCain accused the Obama administration of
kowtowing to Moscow and being
"cowardly"
for not sending arms already in mid-July.
But the U.S. should think twice about sending weapons to Kiev. This has nothing to do with Russia -- and everything to do with
Ukraine.
The Ukrainian military is not a well-disciplined or cohesive force. Its troops have made amazing progress in the past several
months, taking back Slovyansk and other eastern territories from the rebels. They have begun shelling rebel strongholds in Donetsk,
one of the most important targets in the campaign to retake eastern Ukraine. But their tremendous battle achievements have come in
spite of weak preparation and professionalism. This means that the United States would find itself with little control over how its
weapons might be used on the ground.
The most recent evidence of this was the bizarre incident earlier this week,
confirmed by the
government in Kiev , where 311 Ukrainian troops of the 72 nd Army brigade laid down their arms and crossed the border
into Russia. Moscow's claim that they were trying to defect is suspect, especially since dozens of the troops have reportedly returned
to Ukraine. Kiev argues that the troops simply ran out of ammunition.
Whatever the correct explanation turns out to be, it is odd that large units, presumably commanded by at least mid-level officers,
would try to escape rebel fire by seeking protection on enemy territory. At best it indicates poor logistical and operational planning.
At worst it means that weapons sent by the United States to Ukraine might well end up in rebel or Russian hands. There are
conflicting reports
about whether the border-crossing troops destroyed their weapons, or instead left them on the field for rebels to pick up.
Beyond any question of poor decision-making by the Ukrainian troops involved in this particular event, many Western analysts believe
that
the Ukrainian military is penetrated by a web of Russian intelligence agents . Its roots as an institution date to the Soviet
era, and the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union in late 1991 was followed by a chaotic period where patriotism and even citizenship
were ill-defined across the post-Soviet space. Under the previous regime of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich the
Russian and Ukrainian militaries cooperated in some areas, and the defense industries of the two countries co-produced some weapons.
It is not surprising that some members of the Ukrainian military organization would have ambiguous emotions or competing loyalties
in the current conflict. Indeed a number of Ukrainian officers defected to the Russian side during Vladimir Putin's seizure of Crimea
this past spring.
But the lack of discipline and professionalism goes further. There have been numerous cases, well documented by Western journalists,
of Ukrainian forces firing on civilians in recent months.
Human Rights Watch believes
that indiscriminate rocket fire used by Ukrainian or pro-Kiev forces in Donetsk has killed over a dozen civilians in violation
of international laws of war. The New York Times reports that
the Ukrainian army probably shelled
a Donetsk dental clinic by accident on Wednesday.
To complicate matters, the Ukrainian army is supported by private paramilitary groups, including both the large
Donbass Batallion and a number of
smaller and less formal groups
based in various towns in the region. Some have
already entered the heavily populated area around Donetsk. While their political sympathies lie with Kiev, these militias are
not under Kiev's command and control, and certainly have not undergone any professional unit training. U.S.-supplied weapons might
end up in their hands, as well, with unpredictable consequences.
It would be tragic if U.S.-supplied ammunition or armaments ended up killing the very Ukrainian civilians that Washington hopes
will be coaxed back into a unified Ukrainian state. Moscow would have a field day in its local propaganda war if that happened. And
if U.S. weapons ended up in the hands of pro-Kiev non-state militias, it would take away the moral authority that Washington has
in criticizing Moscow's supply of weapons to the anti-Kiev militias. The further strengthening of non-state violent actors in Ukraine
-- even those currently fighting on the side of the government -- boosts the likelihood that the state will ultimately fail in a
flurry of local warlordism.
Until the Ukrainian military achieves a higher degree of discipline and cohesion, the U.S. needs to concentrate on helping train
those troops, not arm them. A professional army, subservient to democratic civilian authority, is one of the best guarantees of a
strong Ukrainian state in the future. Defeating Russian incursions on to Ukrainian territory might bring a short-lived sense of victory
to the American public, but immediate military gains will be meaningless if Ukrainian state security forces cannot gain legitimacy
and trust in the areas they are now trying to recapture.
Should the United States be sending hundreds of millions of dollars in lethal weaponry to
Ukraine? That's not a policy discussion we've heard aired in the past two weeks. This seems
odd, because the provision of such lethal weaponry is at the center of the rapidly-unfolding
Trump/Ukraine/impeachment drama. Trump is accused of withholding 'aid' for the purpose of
'pressuring' Ukranian authorities to carry out investigations that advance his political
interests. At least at first blush, it's a valid matter for inquiry. But what about the 'aid'
itself?
First off, 'aid' is a strangely euphemistic term to
describe high-powered anti-tank missiles, grenade launchers, and sniper rifles to be used
for the express purpose of causing death and destruction, prolonging a Cold War-style proxy
conflict between the US and Russia. That's another layer of irony, because Trump spent the
first two-plus years of his presidency being maligned as a devious colluder with Putin. Yet
here he is dispatching state-of-the-art weapons systems directly into Russia's immediate sphere
of influence. (Despite the political consternation over how the 'aid' came to be sent,
it has in fact been sent .)
The Wall Street Journal notes that the 'aid' program 'enjoys strong support on both
sides of the aisle' -- which should automatically raise red flags. Typically when an issue
becomes safely ensconced in the realm of 'bipartisan consensus' it means something sinister is
afoot. Forgotten is the fact that Barack Obama repeatedly
refused to send 'aid' of this kind, much to his credit given the dangerous geopolitical
implications. But does that mean now that the previous president had an intolerable, fringe
position on the subject? You'd never know, because the policy substance has been entirely
obscured in favor of omni-directional partisan bluster. 'Progressives' now appear to view
arming Ukraine as an intrinsic good, and conservatives/libertarians have no intelligible view
except insofar as it casts Trump's behavior in the most favorable possible light. Meanwhile
Cold War 2.0 rages on and no one cares -- other than for how it affects the latest
impeachment-frenzied news cycle.
You want to accuse Trump of corruption? Fine. Take a look at his special envoy to Ukraine,
Kurt Volker, who resigned in the heat of the latest Trump/Zelensky phone call episode. That
Volker was ever appointed to that position is almost comically
corrupt . He's the executive director of the McCain Institute, which is funded by defense
contractor behemoth Raytheon, and a lobbyist for BGR Group, which is also of course
Raytheon-funded. In his capacity as 'special envoy' he advocated for the swift dispensation of
'aid' -- which just so happens to enrich Raytheon. But Volker is only considered noteworthy
because he's provided
salacious texts to Congress, not because he's emblematic of quintessential 'swamp-like'
corruption. That enterprise, after all, is wholly bipartisan and therefore of little
interest.
Sending large amounts of lethal weaponry into a hot war scenario on Russia's border
(presumably in perpetuity) has now been sanctified as conventional wisdom. Democrats love it
because it hamstrings Trump politically, and they can insinuate that his temporary withholding
of the 'aid' helped Russia. Republicans love it because it shows Trump is 'tough on Russia' and
'tough' in general, and very eager to do whatever's necessary to drive up defense industry
profits. The impeachment fracas will leave no room for any dispassionate evaluation of the
wisdom of this policy. Oh well.
From the point of view of election promise of detente with Russia, Trump clearly betrayed them. He was a neocon puppet
from the beginning to the end, His policy was not that different from hypothetical policy of Hillary administration.
Notable quotes:
"... Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact, she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with zero resistance from either party. ..."
"... It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony, and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is neither ..."
"... Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so spectacularly is beyond depressing. ..."
"... The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise "Orwellian" media environment. ..."
"... The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a puppet. ..."
"... The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from the US. ..."
"... Failing impeachment, from the attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment. ..."
"... Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later. ..."
Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact,
she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with
zero resistance from either party.
CNN has published a fascinatingly manipulative and falsehood-laden article titled "
25 times Trump
was soft on Russia ," in which a lot of strained effort is poured into building the case
that the U.S. president is suspiciously loyal to the nation against which he has spent his
administration escalating dangerous new cold war aggressions.
The items within the CNN article consist mostly of times in which Trump said some words or
failed to say other words; "Trump has repeatedly praised Putin," "Trump refused to say Putin is
a killer," "Trump denied that Russia interfered in 2016," "Trump made light of Russian
hacking," etc. It also includes the
completely false but oft-repeated narrative
that "Trump's team softened the GOP platform on Ukraine", as well as the utterly ridiculous and thoroughly
invalidated claim that "Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has
focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS."
CNN's 25 items are made up almost entirely of narrative and words; Trump said a nice thing
about Putin, Trump said offending things to NATO allies, Trump thought about visiting Putin in
Russia, etc. In contrast, the 25 items which I am about to list do not consist of narrative at
all, but rather the actual movement of actual concrete objects which can easily lead to an
altercation from which there may be no re-emerging. These items show that when you ignore the
words and narrative spin and look at what this administration has actually been doing ,
it's clear to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that, far from being "soft" on
Russia, Trump has actually been consistently reckless in the one area where a US president must
absolutely always maintain a steady hand. And he's been doing so with zero resistance from
either party.
It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with
Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that
neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in
the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony,
and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is
neither. Observe:
1. Implementing a Nuclear Posture Review with a more aggressive stance
toward Russia
Last year Trump's Department of Defense rolled out a Nuclear Posture Review which
CNN itself called "its toughest line yet against Russia's resurgent nuclear forces."
"In its newly released Nuclear Posture Review, the Defense Department has focused much of
its multibillion nuclear effort on an updated nuclear deterrence focused on Russia," CNN
reported last year.
This revision of nuclear policy includes the new implementation of
"low-yield" nuclear weapons , which, because they are designed to be more "usable" than
conventional nuclear ordinances,
have been called "the most dangerous weapon ever" by critics of this insane policy. These
weapons, which can remove some of the inhibitions that mutually assured destruction would
normally give military commanders, have already been rolled off the assembly line.
2.
Arming Ukraine
Lost in the gibberish about Trump temporarily withholding military aide to supposedly
pressure a Ukrainian government who was never even aware of being
pressured is the fact that arming Ukraine against Russia is an entirely new policy that was
introduced by
the Trump administration in the first place. Even the Obama administration, which was
plenty hawkish toward Russia in its own right, refused to implement this extremely provocative escalation
against Moscow. It was not until Obama was replaced with the worst Putin puppet of all time
that this policy was put in place.
3. Bombing Syria
Another escalation Trump took against Russia which Obama wasn't hawkish enough to also do
was bombing the Syrian government, a longtime ally of Moscow. These airstrikes in April 2017 and
April 2018 were perpetrated in retaliation for chemical weapons use allegations that there
is
no legitimate reason to trust at this point.
4. Staging coup attempts in
Venezuela
Venezuela, another Russian ally, has been the subject of relentless coup attempts
from the Trump administration which persist unsuccessfully to this very day .
Trump's attempts to topple the Venezuelan government have been so violent and aggressive that
the starvation sanctions which he has implemented are believed to have
killed tens of thousands of Venezuelan civilians .
"Signals coming from certain capitals indicating the possibility of external military
interference look particularly disquieting," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. "We warn
against such reckless actions, which threaten catastrophic consequences."
5. Withdrawing
from the INF treaty
For a president who's "soft" on Russia, Trump has sure been eager to keep postures between
the two nations extremely aggressive in nature. This administration has withdrawn from the 1987
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, prompting UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to
declare that
"the world lost an invaluable brake on nuclear war." It appears entirely possible that Trump
will continue to adhere to the John Bolton school of nuclear weapons treaties until they all
lie in tatters, with the administration strongly criticizing the crucial New START
Treaty which expires in early 2021.
Some particularly demented Russiagaters try to argue that Trump withdrawing from these
treaties benefits Russia in some way. These people either (A) believe that treaties only go one
way, (B) believe that a nation with an economy the size of South
Korea can compete with the U.S. in an arms race, (C) believe that Russians are immune to
nuclear radiation, or (D) all of the above. Withdrawing from these treaties benefits no one but
the military-industrial complex.
6. Ending the Open Skies Treaty
"The Trump administration has taken steps toward leaving a nearly three-decade-old agreement
designed to reduce the risk of war between Russia and the West by allowing both sides to
conduct reconnaissance flights over one another's territories," The Wall Street Journalreported last month , adding that the
administration has alleged that "Russia has interfered with American monitoring flights while
using its missions to gather intelligence in the US."
Again, if you subscribe to the bizarre belief that withdrawing from this treaty benefits
Russia, please think harder. Or ask the Russians themselves how they feel about it:
"US plans to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty lower the threshold for the use of nuclear
weapons and multiply the risks for the whole world, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai
Patrushev said," Sputnik
reports .
"All this negatively affects the predictability of the military-strategic situation and
lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, which drastically increases the risks for
the whole humanity," Patrushev said.
"In general, it is becoming apparent that Washington intends to use its technological
leadership in order to maintain strategic dominance in the information space by actually
pursuing a policy of imposing its conditions on states that are lagging behind in digital
development," he added.
7. Selling Patriot missiles to Poland
"Poland signed the largest arms procurement deal in its history on Wednesday, agreeing with
the United States to buy Raytheon Co's Patriot missile defense system for $4.75 billion in a
major step to modernize its forces against a bolder Russia," Reuters
reported last year .
8. Occupying Syrian oil fields
The Trump administration has been open about
the fact that it is not only maintaining a military presence in Syria to control the
nation's oil, but that it is doing so in order to deprive the
nation's government of that financial resource. Syria's ally Russia strongly opposes this,
accusing the Trump administration of nothing short of "international state banditry".
"In a statement, Russia's defense ministry said Washington had no mandate under
international or US law to increase its military presence in Syria and said its plan was not
motivated by genuine security concerns in the region," Reutersreported last
month.
"Therefore Washington's current actions – capturing and maintaining military control
over oil fields in eastern Syria – is, simply put, international state banditry,"
Russia's defense ministry said.
9. Killing Russians in Syria
Reports have placed Russian casualties anywhere between a handful and
hundreds , but whatever the exact number the U.S. military is known to have killed Russian
citizens as part of the Trump administration's ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last
year.
exact number the U.S. military is known to have killed Russian citizens as part of the Trump
administration's ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last year.
10. Tanks in
Estonia
Within weeks of taking office,
Trump was already sending Abrams battle tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and other
military hardware right up to Russia's border as part of a NATO operation.
"Atlantic Resolve is a demonstration of continued US commitment to collective security
through a series of actions designed to reassure NATO allies and partners of America's
dedication to enduring peace and stability in the region in light of the Russian intervention
in Ukraine," the Defense Department said in a statement.
11. War ships in the Black
Sea
12. Sanctions
Trump approved new sanctions against Russia on August 2017. CNN reports the following:
"US President Donald Trump approved fresh sanctions on Russia Wednesday after Congress
showed overwhelming bipartisan support for the new measures," CNN reported at
the time . "Congress passed the bill last week in response to Russia's interference in the
2016 US election, as well as its human rights violations, annexation of Crimea and military
operations in eastern Ukraine. The bill's passage drew ire from Moscow -- which responded by
stripping 755 staff members and two properties from US missions in the country -- all but
crushing any hope for the reset in US-Russian relations that Trump and Russian President
Vladimir Putin had called for."
"A full-fledged trade war has been declared on Russia," said Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in
response.
13. More sanctions
"The United States imposed sanctions on five Russian individuals on Wednesday, including the
leader of the Republic of Chechnya, for alleged human rights abuses and involvement in criminal
conspiracies, a sign that the Trump administration is ratcheting up pressure on Russia," The
New York Timesreported in December
2017 .
14. Still more sanctions
"Trump just hit Russian oligarchs with the most aggressive sanctions yet," reads
a Vice headline from April of last year.
"The sanctions target seven oligarchs and 12 companies under their ownership or control, 17
senior Russian government officials, and a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its
subsidiary, a Russian bank," Vice reports. "While the move is aimed, in part, at Russia's role
in the U.S. 2016 election, senior U.S. government officials also stressed that the new measures
seek to penalize Russia's recent bout of international troublemaking more broadly, including
its support for Syrian President Bashar Assad and military activity in eastern
Ukraine."
"The Trump administration on Thursday imposed new sanctions on a dozen individuals and
entities in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea," The Hill
reported in November of last year. "The group includes a company linked to Bank Rossiya and
Russian businessman Yuri Kovalchuk and others accused of operating in Crimea, which the U.S.
says Russia seized illegally in 2014."
17. Oh hey, more sanctions
"Today, the United States continues to take action in response to Russian attempts to
influence US democratic processes by imposing sanctions on four entities and seven individuals
associated with the Internet Research Agency and its financier, Yevgeniy Prigozhin. This action
increases pressure on Prigozhin by targeting his luxury assets, including three aircraft and a
vessel," reads
a statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from September of this year.
18.
Secondary sanctions
Secondary
sanctions are economic sanctions in which a third party is punished for breaching the
primary sanctions of the sanctioning body. The U.S. has leveled sanctions against both
China and
Turkey for
purchasing Russian S-400 air defense missiles, and it is
threatening to do so to India as well.
19. Forcing Russian media to register as
foreign agents
Both RT and
Sputnik have been forced to register as "foreign agents" by the Trump administration. This
classification forced the outlets to post a disclaimer on content, to report their activities
and funding sources to the Department of Justice twice a year, and could arguably place an unrealistic
burden on all their social media activities as it submits to DOJ micromanagement.
20.
Throwing out Russian diplomats
The Trump administration joined some 20 other nations in casting out scores of
Russian diplomats as an immediate response to the Skripal poisoning incident in the
U.K.
21. Training Polish and Latvian fighters "to resist Russian aggression"
"US Army Special Forces soldiers completed the first irregular and unconventional warfare
training iteration for members of the Polish Territorial Defense Forces and Latvian
Zemmessardze as a part of the Ridge Runner program in West Virginia, according to service
officials," Army Times
reported this past July.
"U.S. special operations forces have been training more with allies from the Baltic states
and other Eastern European nations in the wake of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian
Federation in 2014," Army Times writes. "A low-level conflict continues to simmer in
eastern Ukraine's Donbas region between Russian-backed separatists and government forces to
this day. The conflict spurred the Baltics into action, as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia
embraced the concepts of total defense and unconventional warfare, combining active-duty,
national guard and reserve-styled forces to each take on different missions to resist Russian
aggression and even occupation."
22. Refusal to recognize Crimea as part of the Russian
Federation
Key point: Trump agreed to send more forces to Poland to defend it against Russia.
What Happened: U.S. President Donald Trump agreed to deploy approximately 1,000 additional
U.S. troops to Poland during a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda on the sidelines of
the U.N. General Assembly in New York City, Reuters reported Sept. 23.
Why It Matters: The deal, which formalizes the United States' commitment to protecting
Poland from Russia, provides a diplomatic victory to Duda and his governing Law and Justice
ahead of November elections. The additional U.S. troops will likely prompt a reactive
military buildup from Moscow in places like neighboring Kaliningrad and, potentially,
Belarus.
24. Withdrawing from the Iran deal
Russia has been consistently opposed to Trump's destruction of the JCPOA. In a statement
after Trump killed the deal, the Russian Foreign Ministry said
it was "deeply disappointed by the decision of US President Donald Trump to unilaterally refuse
to carry out commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action", adding that this
administration's actions were "trampling on the norms of international law".
25.
Attacking Russian gas interests
Trump has been threatening Germany with sanctions and troop withdrawal if it continues to
support a gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2.
"Echoing previous threats about German support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Trump said
he's looking at sanctions to block the project he's warned would leave Berlin 'captive' to
Moscow," Bloomberg
reports . "The US also hopes to export its own liquefied natural gas to Germany."
"We're protecting Germany from Russia, and Russia is getting billions and billions of
dollars in money from Germany" for its gas, Trump told the press.
I could have kept going, but that's my 25. The only reason anyone still believes Trump is
anything other than insanely hawkish toward Russia is because it doesn't benefit anyone's
partisanship or profit margins to call it like it really is. The facts are right here as plain
as can be, but there's a difference between facts and narrative. If they wanted to, the
political/media class could very easily use the facts I just laid out to weave the narrative
that this president is imperiling us all with dangerous new cold war provocations, but that's
how different narrative is from fact; there's almost no connection. Instead they use a light
sprinkling of fact to weave a narrative that has very little to do with reality. And meanwhile
the insane escalations continue.
In a cold war, it only takes one miscommunication or one defective piece of equipment to set
off a chain of events that can obliterate all life on earth. The more things escalate, the
greater the probability of that happening. We're rolling the dice on Armageddon every single
day, and with every escalation the number we need to beat gets a bit harder.
We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the U.S. and Russia
should stop and establish detente immediately. The fact that outlets like CNN would rather
diddle made-up Russiagate narratives than point to this obvious fact with truthful reporting is
in and of itself sufficient to discredit them all forever.
Our historians here seem to be forgetting the brutal takeover of Ukraine by the USSR in
the 50's, in which millions of Ukrainians were shot, raped, beaten and starved out, while
"ethnic Russians" moved in and took over. Kruschev didn't "give" Crimea away, he simply
transferred the administration thereof to the Soviet Republic of "the" Ukraine (a term
Ukranians have always decried as a way to make it seem as if Ukraine had always been a part
of the USSR). The "ethnic Russians" wouldn't have been there at all if the Soviets hadn't put
them there. That argument is the same one Hitler used as his excuse to annex Poland, and Polk
used to annex Texas. It's true Russia's self-interest (and well-founded fears of foreign
betrayal) have been largely ignored, but it's also disingenuous to ignore their murderous
20th-century imperialism. Just because we're not the good guys doesn't mean they are
either.
anon4d2 , November 20, 2019 at 18:12
Perhaps you forgot that the USSR actions in eastern Europe after WWII were in direct
response to the murder of 20 million Russians in WWII by the Nazi forces, attacking through E
Europe just as Napoleon had done. All US casualties in all its wars are less than five
percent of that, and 95 percent of Nazi division-months were spent in the USSR. On that front
they had nearly all of the casualties and did nearly all of the fighting. No wonder they were
a bit uncomfortable afterward with leaving open the favorite attack route of the west. What
would the US have done if a hundred times its WWII casualties were caused by two invasions
through (for example) Mexico? Would we have left the door open? Such circumstances cannot be
ignored. Starting one's version of history after the world's greatest provocation cannot be
said to clarify the history.
Toby McCrossin , November 21, 2019 at 02:56
"Our historians here seem to be forgetting the brutal takeover of Ukraine by the USSR in
the 50's"
Nice alternative facts. Ukraine was one of the original constituent republics of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922!
" Kruschev didn't "give" Crimea away"
Huh? Crimea had been part of Russia since 1783. You know you can check this stuff yourself
using Google, right?
"The "ethnic Russians" wouldn't have been there at all if the Soviets hadn't put them
there."
Right, so the Soviets put the Russians in Crimea in 1783, 139 years before it was in
existence. I guess the Soviets mastered time travel.
I know reading's hard and all but you might wanna try it some time.
Jon Anderholm , November 20, 2019 at 02:22
An essential article by Caitlin .. Thanks so much .
Sam F , November 19, 2019 at 22:56
Another excellent article by Caitlin Johnstone.
Jeff G. , November 19, 2019 at 19:59
Given the laws of cause and effect, our nuclear missiles might as well be considered to be
pointed straight at ourselves. Like shooting at one's image in a mirror or joining in a
mutual suicide pact. Sheer insanity.
ranney , November 19, 2019 at 17:26
WONDERFUL article, Caitlin. You are so right! I agree with Alan Ross, you deserve an award
for this, and I hope this gets passed around for a wide readership.
Antonio Costa , November 19, 2019 at 15:14
When elected POTUS you are elected, no matter the campaign rhetoric, to take the reins of
the imperial empire.
Trump did that willingly, in fact to a fault given his "big mouth". He's no more nor less
dangerous than his predecessors. And like them, his is a mass of rhetorical contradictions.
Policy is all that should really matters. It is our only means of identifying some truth.
Trump knows what most here know regarding US invasions and assassinations. What he thinks
about any leader is anyone's guess (including his). For him it's all deal making as if it's
his private Trump Towers Enterprises. But in the end he's playing the chief gangsta role of
his like. (If you've ever listened to Sinatra at the Sands (the full concert), you'll hear
how Trump has mimicked the popular gangsta singer to the last "love ya baby ").
The media is not free. It is an arm of the national security state, with occasional
outages of truth telling, all the more to tell the big lies. It's purpose is to pacify and
repress any rebellions. Since the end of Vietnam it has succeeded. And here we are, never
knowing truth from lie. (I think of Obama as deceitful to the max, while Trump just tells
transparent lies so you don't know when he's actually telling a profound truth.)
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people
from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the
mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the
State."
-- Joseph Goebbels (was a German Nazi politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi
Germany from 1933 to 1945)
Mark Thomason , November 19, 2019 at 14:22
We can go one step further than to say that Trump was reckless toward Russia, "with zero
resistance from either party."
Both parties demanded it. They approved it as "Presidential" whenever he did it, and
attacked him for any effort to be less reckless. They'd done the same to Obama, but Trump
proved weaker and more malleable.
Jeff Harrison , November 19, 2019 at 14:14
Verra nice peroration. I have two objections. One, I doubt that the people of the Donbass
are Russian backed in the same sense that the "moderate" rebel scum in Syria is US backed
with weapons, intelligence, and training but the people of the Donbass are ethnic Russians.
With a steady stream of anti-Russian legislation coming out of Kiev, I imagine they're
looking for an out. Putin is trying to get it for them without starting a war with Ukraine.
The real question that Washington has yet to address is what are they going to do if the
people of Ukraine notice that since they signed on to the neo-liberal dictates of Washington
and Brussels they've become the poorest nation in Europe. I know that there are a number of
Ukrainians who think wistfully of the days when they were part of Mother Russia. But you
never know, the CIA is notorious for its subversion and the Ukrainians might prove to be
spectacularly stupid. After all, they weren't doing badly until they let the US and EU foment
a coup for them.
And, two, "We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the
U.S. and Russia should stop and establish detente immediately." While I agree with the
sentiment, don't bring Russia into this. Everything that Russia has done has been a reaction
to what is usually an American violation of international law. Putin has been very clear that
he wants to back off this cold war but he has also been very clear that we started it and
we're going to have to be the ones to start backing off.
David Hamilton , November 20, 2019 at 02:11
I absolutely agree with your number two reaction to Caitlin's suggestion that Russia and
the U.S. should stop it and establish detente immediately. Everything Russia's leadership is
doing is a reaction to American imperial dares to defy their law violations. They exhibit
extreme and principled restraint to the Orwellian madness emanating from this place.
I think it is important that this be understood. Russians have been used and abused once
before by American largesse in the form of Clinton's puppet's assistance in the rape of the
former Soviet Union by the Harvard-sponsored project. That was the one during the nineties
that privatized national industries and created a dozen neoliberal oligarchs. The cost was a
huge increase in death rate that lowered life expectancy into the 50's from 70 years I think.
Cynical foreign policy, isn't it?
Lois Gagnon , November 19, 2019 at 13:16
Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official
control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so
spectacularly is beyond depressing.
Many thanks to Caitlin Johnstone, Consortium News and all the others pushing back against
this system of perception management. I keep repeating it because it rings true. It's like
waking up in the Twilight Zone.
John Neal Spangler , November 19, 2019 at 12:44
She is right. CNN. MSNBC, NYT, and Wapo totally irresponsible. Fox not much better. So
many anti-Russian bigots in US
Jimmy gates , November 19, 2019 at 12:37
Thank you Caitlin. The neoliberals and neocons both desperately want a greatly intensified
cold war with Russia, but want it started by Trump ( because he is personally an
outsider).
This gives the Democrat and Republican donors contracts for the war machine. Ever since
Clinton administration moved NATO to the Russian border, the process has worked for the
oligarchs who control all US policies, foreign and domestic.
The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and
Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise
"Orwellian" media environment.
For anyone who has been waiting for the publication of reporter Udo Ulfkotte's best
selling book (in Germany), a book based on his experience as a well respected journalist
whose reporting was completely compromised by Western intelligence services and business
interests, it is finally available in an English language edition. The English language
edition has been quite obviously suppressed for the last several years and the book was
published in 9 languages BEFORE this English edition became available. It is a book that is
well worth reading to better understand why literally NOTHING written by MSM should be
believed at face value, ever:
See:
I would urge anyone interested in buying this book to get it directly from the publisher-
Progressive Press. Amazon and other mega monopolies are a big part of our problems. Take the
time to make a few extra clicks and boycott Jeff Bezos.
Noah Way , November 19, 2019 at 10:58
The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which
includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a
puppet. Nobel Peace Prize winner oBOMBa bombed 7 countries, overthrew Ukraine's democratic
government, invaded Syria, armed terrorists as proxy armies, authorized drone assassinations,
and bombed a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
The last president to resist the military complex? JFK
Caitlin Johnstone's list points to growing tensions with Russia. Failure of the political
and media establishment to see this makes the task of avoiding world war three all the more
difficult. In the West the end of the Cold War was seen as the dawn of peace. But the Cold
War was the peace, a post-world war environment: we are now in a pre-world war
environment.
Jimmy gates , November 19, 2019 at 12:45
The Democratic Party members have not " missed" anything that Trump has done. They will
not impeach him on those grounds, because they too are guilty of complicity in those war
crimes.
As Pelosi said regarding impeaching GWB for the torture program or invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan " it's off the table". Because she was complicit.
Lois Gagnon , November 19, 2019 at 13:23
Russia did not illegally annex Crimea. A referendum was held and 90% of the voters voted
to rejoin Russia. Most people in Crimea are ethnic Russians and speak Russian. They were
understandably scared to death of what their fate would be under the rule of the fascists the
US installed in Ukraine.
And frankly, Russia had every right to protect its only warm water port in Sevastopol that
would have been taken over by NATO if Crimea had remained part of Ukraine. Too many Americans
have been indoctrinated in the belief that Russia has no legitimate self interest to
defend.
michael , November 19, 2019 at 18:22
In addition to what Lois Gagnon points out, you have to realize that the re-patriation of
Crimea to Russia in March 2014 was the direct result of Obama, Biden, Nuland et al
overthrowing the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Yanukovych, in the Maidan coup
in February, 2014, and replacing him with a neoNAZI regime. Russian speech was outlawed,
which has been the language of the majority of Crimea since Catherine the Great.
The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the
Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita
median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from
the US.
Jeff G. , November 19, 2019 at 20:25
Crimeans have an absolute right of self-determination as a fundamental human right under
established international law, just as the Kosovars did when we were supporting the breakup
of Serbia when Clinton was president. Ethnic Russians voted in an overwhelming majority in a
free and fair plebiscite to rejoin Russia, which they had been part of for centuries, because
the neo-Nazi US coup government allied with Azov battalions in Kyiv terrified them and they
wanted nothing further to do with them. Crimea had every right to decide. Russia did nothing
to interfere, not a bullet was fired. Russia's troops were already stationed in Crimea by
treaty and did not invade. Russia warned NATO against the Kosovo precedent that it would come
back to bite them someday, and it was ignored. NATO is unhappy because it was denied an
illegitimate geostrategic advantage they thought they would gain. Crimea is happy, so what's
the problem?
DH Fabian , November 19, 2019 at 21:08
"We," who? Regardless, the issues you raise can't be understood outside of their
historical context, and Americans never try to understand the world within that historical
context.
anon , November 19, 2019 at 22:54
Crimea was part of Russia for roughly 200 years before the USSR premier (Kruschev?) gave
it to Ukraine, although its inhabitants were nearly all of Russian heritage and language,
like E Ukraine. So not surprising that they wanted to go back to being part of Russia.
dean 1000 , November 20, 2019 at 19:26
Couldn't agree more Lois Gagnon. Washington did an illegal coup. Russia did a legal
annexation.
btw – The Autonomous Republic of Sevastopol on SW Crimea is no longer the only
ice-free port of the Russian Navy. Kaliningrad (on the Baltic sea) has been part of Russia
since 1945. Its deep ice-free harbor is the home port of Russia's Baltic fleet according to
the 2012 world book DVD.
Good one Caitlin. Again
jdd , November 19, 2019 at 09:51
This article properly puts to rest the absurd notion that President Trump is a "tool of
Putin, " and correctly notes that it has created a potentially disastrous situation.
However,
let's put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the Anglo/American led forces arrayed
against Trump from the moment he announced his intention to run on a platform of "getting
along" with Russia and joining with Putin to defeat ISIS.
Failing impeachment, from the
attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of
Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort
to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of
the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the
current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish
testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment.
Nick , November 19, 2019 at 16:50
Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until
after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later.
Alan Ross , November 19, 2019 at 09:47
This article alone deserves an award for public service. And in a more sensibly run world
Caitlin Johnstone would have gotten at least fifty such awards for past articles.
He testified that the Iraq war would be "self financing" his reward for that brilliant bit of financial prediction was to be put
in charge of the World Bank. Can't say that the powers that be don't have a sense of humor.
"Next time, however, will be without the local allies we need."
Wolfowitz still doesn't get it, does he? There will be no "next time". Our so-called "local allies" will fight their own fights
using weapons they paid for themselves. We're going to stop squandering trillions on foreign messes and start fixing our own.
I remember that guy. I listened to him and his ilk in 2003.
Yeah, not doing that again. However I have to admire the cheek of him taking money to pretend to be an expert.
Wolfowitz and NYT: It cannot get much sicker and enraging than this but what more can one expect from the NYT.
Wolfowitz belongs back under a rock where he has been since the war crime of Iraq for which he is at least partially responsible.
The NYT, well leave it in the bottom of a bird cage where it has earned a historical place foreever. Absolutely no credibility
nor respect.
Peace with honor.
Remember that? I assume at the very bottom of it, keeping the war running is better to people like W. than to claim this kind of peace!
I completely agree.
The problem is bipartisan. There are a handful of principled antiwar politicians in both parties, but most are not. The Democrats
now oppose the war in Yemen, but as I predicted to myself ( possibly online somewhere under a different name) they would wait
a year or so until it was safe to pretend it was Trump's war. Well, it is his war now, but it didn't start that way.
I would love to see the day when a President would be impeached for participating in or supporting or starting an unjust war.
I would like to see State Department officials resigning in protest. Trump in my opinion is guilty of pressuring Ukraine and yes,
this is impeachable, but why are we arming them in the first place?
At risk of repeating myself:
Unless and until those responsible for the wars start facing very real and very personal consequences, nothing will change.
Mr. Larison is writing as if he appears to be taking seriously Mr. Wolfovitz. Attacking Iraq on fabricated pretenses, which everyone
at his level knew was fabrication is same as Hitler attacking Poland on the faked attack of a German border post by German soldiers
dressed in Polish uniforms.
By international law (if it were a higher power out there), Wolfowitz et. co. are war criminals and no attention should be
given to their utterances and be switched with the inmates at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely.
What needs to be investigated though is the purpose of these utterances, the narrative that it creates (which, to be honest,
Mr. Larison does). The narrative that comes across is the how exceptionally criminal the US Government (not the people!) in its
dealings with the outside world. And Mr. Wolfowitz has the gall to uphold this criminal behaviour as pace making. Doublespeak
through and through.
"The U.S. is never "sucked back in." Our government goes running back in at the first chance it gets. Sometimes this is driven
by threat inflation, sometimes it is driven by headlines that prompt calls for "action," sometimes it is driven by a misguided
need to show "leadership," and sometimes it is just old-fashioned "do-somethingism" where the U.S. intervenes because it can."
You forgot the wide range of black ops that are used to manipulate public opinion. I don't know why this shouldn't be acknowledged,
at least as a category if not in terms of specifics. The US institutionalized covert operations on a massive scale after WWII,
which has created a serious epistemological problem. Even if you aren't going to cite the OPCW reports doubting Assad's responsibility
for the use of chemical weapons within Syria or specifically mention CIA Operation Timber-Sycamore, it makes all the sense in
the world to acknowledge that covert operations, as a generic fact of life, really confuse how we should adjudicate responsibility
for acts of war. This is just prudence.
"... For the last twenty years Ukraine and Belarus have kept NATO and Russian forces far apart. This was an underappreciated benefit. NATO's flirtation with admitting Ukraine into the alliance simply ignored the new risks that would be assumed. If Russia were to occupy all of Ukraine, we would return to this unhappy standoff. ..."
"... If Ukraine falls into civil war, with Russia and the West aiding their respective favorites, the risk of a direct NATO-Russia clash also rises. To ensure peace between Russia and the West, the question of foreign alignment should be taken out of Ukrainian politics. ..."
"... Barry R. Posen is Ford International Professor of Political Science, MIT and Director of their Security Studies Program. He is the author of Restraint- A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy . ..."
"If, in the worst case, all Ukraine were to "fall" to Russia, it would have little impact on
the security of the United States."
Once, foreign policy experts talked about "vital interests." The term has fallen into
disuse, partly because there are no hard and fast rules for calculating what distinguishes the
"vital" from the merely "interesting." If advocates wanted their country to do a thing they
would call it a vital interest; if they did not, then they would not. But students of foreign
policy did seem to agree on one thing: vital interests were the things you were willing to have
your soldiers die for and kill for. By this measure, even the most hawkish politicians in the
United States, all of whom have eschewed any desire for a shooting match, have agreed that the
United States has no vital interests in Ukraine.
What would vital interests look like if they were present? Vital interests affect the
safety, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and power position of the United States, or indeed
of any country. If, in the worst case, all Ukraine were to "fall" to Russia, it would have
little impact on the security of the United States. Russia is no longer the strong country that
the USSR was: its GDP is dwarfed by that of the United States. Its non-nuclear military power
is woefully insufficient for the conquest of the major states of Eurasia. The possession of
Crimea, a grab for Ukraine's eastern provinces, or even the occupation of all Ukraine would not
change this. Indeed, the military conquest of Ukraine would be costly to Russia because as one
moves westward, one encounters ever-more-nationalistic Ukrainians, who have a historical
propensity to fight. Russian forces facing west would find themselves with a fifth column in
their rear.
Geography alone can sometimes create a vital interest. If Ukraine were Mexico, the United
States would have an interest in protecting it from Russia or anyone else. For Russia, Ukraine
is Mexico, and in their eyes, the United States and its Western allies have been inexorably
creeping in their direction since the end of the Cold War. Russian interests in Ukraine
probably exceed NATO's, which is why modest sanctions are unlikely to coerce Russia into
passivity. They do not want Western political, economic, and military power on their border. Of
course, the easternmost members
of NATO would not like Russian forces on their doorstep , but because they are all too weak
to defend themselves, or too confident in the United States to bother, their security depends
much more on whether the United States will make good on its alliance commitments than on
whether Russia shares a border.
The United States does have one security interest in Ukraine. Though it is not a vital
interest, the preservation of an independent
neutral zone between NATO and Russian military forces has been a stabilizing factor in
east-west relations. During the Cold War, especially in Germany, NATO and Soviet forces faced
each other head to head. Even their non-nuclear forces had powerful offensive capabilities --
thousands of tanks and aircraft that could strike deeply into the other's territory. The two
sides also possessed large numbers of nuclear weapons, and had the command, control and plans
in place to use them if necessary. This was a nervous relationship, fraught with the
possibility of escalation and mutual disaster. This is a world that neither we nor the Russians
should wish to recreate, even with the diminished forces Russia now possesses. The United
States and its allies succeeded in managing this for forty years, and we could do it again if
we had to. So preventing this is "nice to have" but not "need to have." Indeed, trying to
prevent it by force brings on the very thing we should wish to avoid. But maintaining a wide
military buffer zone is a real security interest, and the only one worth pursuing in
Ukraine.
For the last twenty years Ukraine and Belarus have kept NATO and Russian forces far apart.
This was an underappreciated benefit. NATO's flirtation with admitting Ukraine into the
alliance simply ignored the new risks that would be assumed. If Russia were to occupy all of
Ukraine, we would return to this unhappy standoff. If NATO forces were to help Ukraine resist
Russia militarily, we would also return to this situation. This is neither in Russia's
interests, nor in ours. It is far better to negotiate a mutual "hands off Ukraine" agreement.
Diplomacy, sanctions (and the threat of more), and economic assistance (bribes) to Ukraine are
the tools that the West should use to restore the status quo ante.
Western liberals will be quick to decry any security agreement reached over the heads of the
Ukrainians. The crisis in Ukraine, however, is a direct consequence of the fact that Ukrainians
do not agree on the extent to which they should be associated with the West or with Russia.
This disagreement threatens to tear the country apart. If Ukraine falls into civil war, with
Russia and the West aiding their respective favorites, the risk of a direct NATO-Russia clash
also rises. To ensure peace between Russia and the West, the question of foreign alignment
should be taken out of Ukrainian politics.
The deep state and associated political forces of neocons/neolibs is a serious problem that
threatens the USA national security. Weapons send to Ukraine can go anywhere. Risk of WWIII and
total wipeout of both the USA and Russia (and well as NATO countries in Europe) from the face of
Earth also increase.
Notable quotes:
"... All about welfare for the military industrial complex and fomenting war. ..."
Aaron Mate's Pushback show is probably one of the best shows on US and world politics out
there: my only complaint is that there are not more episodes.
Keeping the masses poor through military spending, and focused on an external bogeyman is
just a strategy the morbidly rich employ to prevent a more equitable and rational
distribution of wealth at home
"... Like a denizen of Plato's cave, or being in the film the Matrix, most people have no idea what the truth is. And the questions raised by Professor Cohen are a great service in the cause of the truth ..."
"... Professor Cohen is indeed a patriot of the highest order. The American and "Globalists" elites, particularly the dysfunctional United Kingdom, are engaging in a war of nerves with Russia. This war, which could turn nuclear for reasons discussed in this important book, is of no benefit to any person or nation. ..."
"... America and the world owe Professor Cohen a great debt. "Blessed are the peace makers..." ..."
"... An interesting quote found in the book from a surprising source, Henry Kissinger: "The demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy. It is an alibi for not having one." And then notes Cohen, "But Kissinger was also wrong. Washington has made many policies strongly influenced by the demonizing of Putin -- a personal vilification far exceeding any ever applied to Soviet Russia's latter-day Communist leaders." ..."
"In a Time of Universal Deceit -- Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act" is a well
known quotation (but probably not of George Orwell). And in telling the truth about Russia
and that the current "war of nerves" is not in the interests of either the American People or
national security, Professor Cohen in this book has in fact done a revolutionary act.
Like a denizen of Plato's cave, or being in the film the Matrix, most people have no idea
what the truth is. And the questions raised by Professor Cohen are a great service in the
cause of the truth. As Professor Cohen writes in his introduction To His Readers:
"My scholarly work -- my biography of Nikolai Bukharin and essays collected in Rethinking
the Soviet Experience and Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives, for example -- has always been
controversial because it has been what scholars term "revisionist" -- reconsiderations, based
on new research and perspectives, of prevailing interpretations of Soviet and post-Soviet
Russian history. But the "controversy" surrounding me since 2014, mostly in reaction to the
contents of this book, has been different -- inspired by usually vacuous, defamatory assaults
on me as "Putin's No. 1 American Apologist," "Best Friend," and the like. I never respond
specifically to these slurs because they offer no truly substantive criticism of my
arguments, only ad hominem attacks. Instead, I argue, as readers will see in the first
section, that I am a patriot of American national security, that the orthodox policies my
assailants promote are gravely endangering our security, and that therefore we -- I and
others they assail -- are patriotic heretics. Here too readers can judge."
Cohen, Stephen F.. War with Russia (Kindle Locations 131-139). Hot Books. Kindle
Edition.
Professor Cohen is indeed a patriot of the highest order. The American and "Globalists"
elites, particularly the dysfunctional United Kingdom, are engaging in a war of nerves with
Russia. This war, which could turn nuclear for reasons discussed in this important book, is
of no benefit to any person or nation.
Indeed, with the hysteria on "climate change" isn't it odd that other than Professor
Cohen's voice, there are no prominent figures warning of the devastation that nuclear war
would bring?
If you are a viewer of one of the legacy media outlets, be it Cable Television networks,
with the exception of Tucker Carlson on Fox who has Professor Cohen as a frequent guest, or
newspapers such as The New York Times, you have been exposed to falsehoods by remarkably
ignorant individuals; ignorant of history, of the true nature of Russia (which defeated the
Nazis in Europe at a loss of millions of lives) and most important, of actual military
experience. America is neither an invincible or exceptional nation. And for those familiar
with terminology of ancient history, it appears the so-called elites are suffering from
hubris.
I cannot recommend Professor Cohen's work with sufficient superlatives; his arguments are
erudite, clearly stated, supported by the facts and ultimately irrefutable. If enough people
find Professor Cohen's work and raise their voices to their oblivious politicians and
profiteers from war to stop further confrontation between Russia and America, then this book
has served a noble purpose.
If nothing else, educate yourself by reading this work to discover what the *truth* is.
And the truth is something sacred.
America and the world owe Professor Cohen a great debt. "Blessed are the peace
makers..."
I have followed Stephen Cohen for a while and read all his books. This is undoubtedly my
favorite, it has a good balance between history and current events. If you are interested in
current events and want to get informed about Russia, which seems to be on the mind of
everyone right now, buy this book. Read more
Stephen Cohen is a well respected scholar who has studied Russia and the Soviet Union for
over 50 years. He provides facts often neglected in today's agenda driven media.
An interesting quote found in the book from a surprising source, Henry Kissinger: "The
demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy. It is an alibi for not having one." And then
notes Cohen, "But Kissinger was also wrong. Washington has made many policies strongly
influenced by the demonizing of Putin -- a personal vilification far exceeding any ever
applied to Soviet Russia's latter-day Communist leaders."
Cohen's calm reasoned analysis regarding Russia is sadly all too uncommon. It is difficult to
overstate the importance of his work
On the planet I live on, detente was a tactical strategy adopted by Nixon and Kissinger in
a moment of weakness after the US defeat in the Vietnam War. With two equally powerful
superpowers on the globe capable of mutually-assured destruction, detente was based on the
idea that the USSR wasn't inherently evil and worthy of active opposition. Detente was
abandoned by Carter after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
On Mr. Cohen's planet, detente is as appropriate a strategy today as it was in the 1970s.
Only the situation is now vastly different: The former Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern
Europe have switched sides and joined NATO Half of the former USSR is now independent from
Russia. Cohen believes that detente remains the appropriate strategy for the last 50 years no
matter what Russian has done. Abandoning detente in the wake of Afghanistan and Crimea is the
wrong strategy, even though the former led to the US's greatest foreign policy success since
WWII.
On Mr. Cohen's planet, an aggressive trade pact offered by the EU prompted Mr.
Yanukovich's downfall. On my planet, Mr. Yanukovich backed out of a highly popular trade deal
negotiated over five years with two Ukrainian administrations. He backed out three days
before signing. Since much of the public believed the deal offered a route to greater
economic prosperity and less corruption, peaceful occupation of the Euromaidan began
immediately. The situation was initially very similar to the peaceful Orange Revolution of
2004-5, that began after Yanukovich was declared a winner (by 3%) despite exit polling
showing him losing by 11%. Only in 2013-2014, the government's efforts to remove the
demonstrators turned violent. Mr Putin claims the demonstrators (500,000 on Dec 8) were
merely hirelings of the CIA and Mr. Cohen doesn't challenge this claim. As the violence grew
worse, the US and EU negotiated a settlement between Mr. Yanukovich and his political
opponents, but by then it was too late. When publicly informed of the agreement by opposition
leaders, the demonstrators (a coalition of many groups who had seen 50 killed the previous
day) unanimously rejected the settlement and warned Yanukovich they would be coming for him
tomorrow. The police had melted away, many officials had resigned and no one left was willing
to protect Yanukovich. He fled to Russia that night. The next day Parliament voted 338-0 to
declare the Presidency vacant (17 votes short of the constitutional 3/4), appointed an
interim government and scheduled elections. Ignoring Yanukowich's complete lack of internal
support and his flight, Cohen calls this a "coup" (p17). The same night Yanukovich fled,
Putin launched the operation to seize Crimea and annexed it less than 1 month later. The US
has recently undertaken questionable military operations in a number of countries beginning
with Kosovo, but never without first taking the time to attempt to negotiate a peaceful
settlement.
In my world, Ukraine, Russia, the US and the UK signed the Budapest Memorandum pledging to
respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine in return for decommission Ukraine's nuclear
forces. This agreement isn't found in the index of Cohen's book.
On my planet, the evidence linking Putin to the assassination of Litvinecko, Nemtsov, and
Politkovskaya and the attempt on the Skripals is strong and consistent with spending his
formative years in the KGB. The naive view from Cohen's planet is presented on p 6 and
170.
The worst sins in this book arise from its structure. The first 10 pages of the book
comprise an overview, and the remaining 200 pages are paste ups of talks, articles and blog
posts since 2014, and mostly since 2016. In most cases, these articles consist of Cohen
defending Putin's position in response to breaking news. For example, we get Cohen's initial
12/15/16 response to reports that Russia hacked the DNC on p74-75, but we aren't told about
the large amount of information collected since then, including reports that the Dutch had
hacked into the Russian operation that hacked the DNC. Mueller has indicted several dozens
Russians in connection with the break in. Cohen is supposed to be an important scholar and
historian. He knows that biased first impressions from breaking news do not constitute
history.
This "scholarly work" was published to some organization called Hot Books, whose website
was non-functional at the time of this review. The book covers contain only one ambiguous
comment from a reviewer I don't recognize. The remaining comments are refer to Cohen's
previous books. Praise from that Russia scholar Tucker Carlson is mentioned at Amazon.
Cohen's previous books were publisher by major publishers. Apparently they agree with me that
Cohen is the one living on a different planet.
I bought this book hoping to hear a different perspective on our deteriorating
relationship with Russia. I had doubts about the expansion of NATO into countries with large
numbers of ethnic Russians - countries that need to reach compromises with their powerful
neighbor. The Ukraine is a classic example. It has maintained a marginally separate national
identity and language, but the east is predominantly Russian. Western Ukraine contains the
Polish territory Hitler gave to Stalin and is anti-Russian. The Ukrainians twice drove the
Red Army from Kiev during the civil war that followed the overthrow of the tsar. Millions of
Ukrainians saw Hitler as a potential liberator of the Ukrainian people and Nazism is a
powerful force in some areas. I was hoping to hear some nuanced and realistic information
about these issues, not an apologist for Putin.
This is the same domino theory that led to Vietnam war.
Notable quotes:
"... The same company and Ukrainians that refused the FBI access and from whom the FBI has failed to obtain a warrant for that system to investigate threats to the nation's national security -- excuse me but that strangely like "obstruction of justice" yet according to some commenters here -- the FBI is just too incompetent to conduct such a technically difficult task. ..."
"... And for more than three years the democrats have been leading the country down a road of impeachment for imagined --- nonexistent crimes based on nonexistent evidence. ..."
"... Only thing more astonishing than the democratic investigations is that half of the population actually thinks there's merit. But when Vice President Biden brazenly boasts about coercing the the Ukrainian government to stop a criminal investigation and that boast is on tale for all to hear --- it's not a fact -- it's a made up conspiracy theory ..."
"... That sounds like the kind of delusional remark one might here from somebody with a severe mental illness. Frightening to think that the person who said it is a mover and shaker in the foreign policy world. ..."
"... I agree with the other posters that this impeachment is a textbook play by play narrative of entrenched interests lobbying to maintain the status quo as well as foreign lobbyists pursuing their own interest I personally find the comment of fighting Russia in Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russia here a sign of imbecility if they weren't speaking seriously. ..."
| One-time U.S. presidential advisor on Russia and Europe to the White House National Security Council Timothy Morrison testified
in his opening
statement
to the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon that "the United States aids Ukraine and her people so they can fight Russia
over there and we don't have to fight Russia over here."
This is another example of what I have been saying about this, that while the impeachment stuff is boring the geopolitical takes
from these neocons in the government are telling. They show exactly why nothing changes on foreign policy no matter who gets elected
President. They have an agenda, such as the anti-Russian agenda, and they see their job to pursue this no matter what happens.
This is what the opposition to Trump from the establishment is largely about, that he is going against their foreign policy interests,
such as the current US-Russia proxy war.
They want to spread globalism/liberalism to the entire world, including Russia. Russia does not accept this and is defending
itself. The current crisis was caused entirely by the US, everything Russia has done has been in a defensive and very restrained
response.
The impeachment is about . . . Uuuhhh, hmmmm . . let's see how to take on Russia.
I suspect that the shift here is the direct result of all the evidence concerning how the US was involved in a violent revolution
that has brought Ukraine or "the Ukraine" to the brink if not actual civil war.
That in the wake of that violence Sec Clinton's bid for the WH failed and that in turn has upended the push for a forceful
confrontation with Russia in which a women would be seen as tough and capable --- utterly missing the point of how and why we
select our government leaders.
Notwithstanding this same leader gas a history of failed foreign policy prescriptions:
Now certainly she was not alone in these endeavors. But I find it interesting that the democrats are besides themselves over
her loss given the record. Nevermind how all of that now suggests that she underminded the president she served whose policies
were to tamp down against aggressive foreign policy that created needless tensions. Her tenure was anything but realistic and
tempered.
Her domestic policy was comprised of two agendas: healthcare, supporting WS, using the Clinton Foundation as a pay to play
gatekeeping operation to influence and power , protecting her uranium Russia deal, and calling her fellow citizens names as well
as importing as many foreigners to fill the coffers of big tech companies and democratic party numbers . . .
That name calling included accusations that the president was acting in accord with the Russians to overthrow US elections
and at the enter of these allegations is a company responsible for securing the Sec's computer system who just happens to be owned
by ----
a Ukrainian.
The same company and Ukrainians that refused the FBI access and from whom the FBI has failed to obtain a warrant for that system
to investigate threats to the nation's national security -- excuse me but that strangely like "obstruction of justice" yet according
to some commenters here -- the FBI is just too incompetent to conduct such a technically difficult task.
And for more than three years the democrats have been leading the country down a road of impeachment for imagined --- nonexistent
crimes based on nonexistent evidence.
Only thing more astonishing than the democratic investigations is that half of the population actually thinks there's merit.
But when Vice President Biden brazenly boasts about coercing the the Ukrainian government to stop a criminal investigation and
that boast is on tale for all to hear --- it's not a fact -- it's a made up conspiracy theory
If the policy geniuses that created these messes for the Ukraine and the US had an ounce of courage they simply would have
on their own accord sent US troops into the Ukraine en mass and that would include the Crimea. Given their depth of power, it
seems that they could have done rather easily. Good grief why bother with a messy revolution and all the trappings of multiple
interest groups -- just do it ourselves.
""the United States aids Ukraine and her people so they can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia over here.""
That sounds like the kind of delusional remark one might here from somebody with a severe mental illness. Frightening to
think that the person who said it is a mover and shaker in the foreign policy world.
I agree with the other posters that this impeachment is a textbook play by play narrative of entrenched interests lobbying
to maintain the status quo as well as foreign lobbyists pursuing their own interest I personally find the comment of fighting
Russia in Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russia here a sign of imbecility if they weren't speaking seriously.
1) There is more evidence of Chinese PLA buying off politicians in the US, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Europe, Australia, etc
2) There is more evidence of leftists whether they be Chinese communists, Israeli leftists, George Soros globalists on college
campus's than students sympathetic to Russia. China's PLA have Chinese students and Chinese Émigré communities under surveillance
for any anti-Chinese sentiment. Infact, newspapers in Chinese Émigré communities are owned by the PLA.
2a) Our college campus's have become crucibles for civil war. US college campus are rife with anti-American protests, anti-while
protests, anti-male protests, anti-Christian protests, anti-citizenship protests,....etc. Furthermore our college campus's have
become centers denying freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, etc (even though these
students stand for every pillar and foundation of our nation...no students are ever expelled even when they commit threats, harassment,
violence and property damage).
3) China takes US retirement funds (civil service and military), offers higher yields and uses the money to buy research and new
leading technology companies. moves the businesses to China where the technology can be shared between the civilian sector and
the military sector.
4) The Chinese have infiltrated our nuclear labs, our defense weapons labs, our R&D labs
5) At the same time this is going on China is militarizing the South China Sea, China is using North Korea to test fire missiles
over South Korea and Japan, as well as threaten Guam and Hawaii.
NOW I CAN UNDERSTAND IF RUSSIA WAS AMONG A GROUP OF NATIONS INFLUENCING OUR ELECTIONS AND OUR DOMESTIC AND OUR FOREIGN POLICY
BUT IT STRIKES ME AS BOTH SUSPICIOUS AND SINISTER THAT ALL THE FOCUS IS ON RUSSIA WHILE OTHER NATIONS WITH MUCH STRONGER CASES
OF INFLUENCING OUR ELECTIONS, DOMESTIC ESPIONAGE AND SUBVERSION ARE IGNORED. ACCORDING TO VOLTAIRE'S LOGIC THEY WOULD BE
EXCLUDED FROM SCRUTINY AND VISIBILITY BECAUSE THEY ARE STRONGER AND INFLUENCING US THE MOST WHILE RUSSIA WOULD BE TARGETED BECAUSE
THEY ARE INFLUENCING US THE LEAST.
"... their ground on which to impeach Trump -- and thereby to install the current Vice President Mike Pence as being America's President -- Trump's having colluded with Russia in order to win the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton, but that effort failed because it was false and was based on highly questionable evidence, supplied largely through a firm, Crowdstrike, that the Democratic National Committee had hired in order to find dirt against then-candidate and now-President Trump. ..."
"... Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me. ..."
"... These matters are likelier to be publicly discussed afterward, when the case goes to the Senate, but might be too 'sensitive' to be brought up even there -- especially if they make both Democratic and Republican officials look bad, such as, for example, if both Democrats and Republicans had participated in a February 2014 coup against, and overthrowing, Ukraine's democratically elected Government, and -- if that happened, as we will show it did -- how this fact might affect Trump's relationship with Zelensky. So: a lot is to be shown here, and this will be information that the 'news'-media have been hiding from the public, not reporting to the public. ..."
"... Without understanding the reality of Obama's coup in Ukraine , there is no way of honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obama's 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but of different types. ..."
"... Obama had selected Yovanovitch because he knew that (just like Pyatt) she supported his polices regarding Ukraine and would adhere to his instructions. Yovanovitch was part of Obama's team, just as she had previously been part of George W. Bush's team. All three of them were staunch neoconservatives, just as Ambassador Pyatt had been, and just as Victoria Nuland had been, and just as Joe Biden had been. ..."
"... A neoconservative believes in the rightfulness of American empire over this entire planet, even over the borders of the other nuclear superpower, Russia. Obama's standard phrase arguing for it was "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation" , meaning that all other nations are "dispensable." ..."
"... Yovanovich stated her views regarding what America's policies toward Ukraine should be, and these were Obama's policies, too; these views are the neoconservative outlook [and my own comments in brackets here will indicate her most egregious distortions and lies in this key passage from her]: ..."
...the American public should have been far more skeptical about the Ukrainegate
narrative than they were, because, at first, Democrats were trying to use, as their ground on
which to impeach Trump -- and thereby to install the current Vice President Mike Pence as being
America's President -- Trump's having colluded with Russia in order to win the 2016 election
against Hillary Clinton, but that effort failed because it was false and was based on highly
questionable evidence, supplied largely through a firm, Crowdstrike, that the Democratic
National Committee had hired in order to find dirt against then-candidate and now-President
Trump. Now the Democrats' ground, for replacing President Donald Trump by his Vice President
Mike Pence, is that in Trump's 25 July 2019 phone-call to Ukraine's new President Volodmyr
Zelensky, Trump supposedly pressured Zelensky to have Joe Biden investigated.
One of the first signs of a liar is that the person switches his story -- changes to a new
and different reason for 'justifying' his actions (in this case, impeachment) -- and this
clearly is being done now by the Democrats and the 'news'-media, in order to replace President
Donald Trump by his Vice President Mike Pence. Consequently: Americans are insufficiently
suspicious against the present impeachment hearings. Americans need to examine carefully beyond
the mere surface -- much deeper. The links here are provided in order to facilitate the
reader's direct access to the highest quality (i.e., most trustworthy) evidence in the case, so
that the reader may see, on one's own , what the 'news'-media do not report.
25 September 2019 was when
a clear and copyable version of the transcript of that complete July 25th phone
conversation finally became published, online, by Rhode Island's Providence Journal; and
here is the only passage in the complete transcript where Trump mentioned Biden (three times,
in fact -- the only three times that the word "Biden" appears in the entire transcript):
Rudy [Giuliani] very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you
could speak to him, that would be great. The former ambassador [to Ukraine] from the United
States, the woman [Marie Yovanovitch] , was bad news and the people she was dealing with in
the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there's a lot
of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to
find out about that so whatever you can do with the [U.S.] Attorney General [William Barr]
would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can
look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.
What "prosecution," of whom, for what, and why? The media ignore those questions. when they
aren't simply assuming an answer to them. But no such answer ought to be assumed. Nor should
these important questions be ignored. Here, the answers to those questions will be
documented.
Furthermore, elsewhere in that conversation, Trump said:
I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and
Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole
situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike. I guess you have one of your wealthy people.
The server, they say Ukraine has it.
Zelensky responded by asserting that "the next prosecutor general [in Ukraine] will be 100%
my person" and that "he or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company
[Crowdstrike] that you mentioned in this issue." Nothing at all was said by Zelensky about any
Biden, at any point in the entire phone-call. It wasn't mainly about the Bidens such as the
press alleges to be the case.
In fact: the "favor" that Trump was asking about wasn't concerning the Bidens, but it
instead concerned the investigation that Trump's Attorney General (referenced here when Trump
said "whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great") is now heading, into the
question of why Obama's FBI and entire intelligence community had proceeded with the highly
suspect Christopher Steele and Crowdstrike report that the Democratic National Committee had
hired under Obama in order to come up with allegations to use against Trump, and why the Obama
Administration never demanded to inspect the DNC's own server in order to examine the key
physical evidence in the alleged Russiagate case against Trump -- much less, what testimony and
evidence Julian Assange might have in the alleged Russiagate case . What did Trump mean when he
said "The server, they say Ukraine has it"? Did Trump actually think that Zelensky could supply
that physical evidence? What did he mean? What was he asking of Zelensky when Trump said, "The
server, they say Ukraine has it"?
One can't understand the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump unless one understands
accurately what was happening in Ukraine and what the motivations were of the persons who were
involved in U.S.-Ukraine policy, first under U.S. President Barack Obama, and then under his
successor Donald Trump. Information will be presented here, about those matters, which probably
won't come up in the House impeachment hearings. These matters are likelier to be publicly
discussed afterward, when the case goes to the Senate, but might be too 'sensitive' to be
brought up even there -- especially if they make both Democratic and Republican officials look
bad, such as, for example, if both Democrats and Republicans had participated in a February
2014 coup against, and overthrowing, Ukraine's democratically elected Government, and -- if
that happened, as we will show it did -- how this fact might affect Trump's relationship with Zelensky. So: a lot is to be shown here, and this will be information that the 'news'-media
have been hiding from the public, not reporting to the public.
There are many instances of U.S. coups that the Government lied about and that afterward had
negative blowback. The 1953 U.S. coup against Iran's democratically elected Government wasn't
revealed to the American public until decades after it had happened. It had long been alleged to have been a
'democratic revolution' in Iran . Our Government and media have been lying to us for a long
time, and not only about 'WMD in Iraq'. We shall be documenting here that that 1953 coup in
Iran (and other similar instances by the U.S. Government) is being repeated (yet again) in the
case of the February 2014 U.S. coup that occurred in Ukraine. The regime is very effective at lying , at deceiving , at manipulating , its public, no less now than it was then . Without
understanding the reality of Obama's coup in Ukraine , there is no way of
honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic
Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obama's 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but
of different types.
PART TWO: TRUMP'S PURPOSE IN THE 25 JULY
2019 CALL TO ZELENSKY
The argument to be presented here is that Trump, in this phone-call, and generally, was
trying not only to obtain help with evidence-gathering in the "Crowdstrike" matter (which A.G.
Barr is now investigating, and which also is the reason why Trump specifically mentioned
"Crowdstrike" at the only instance in the phone-call where he was requesting a "favor" from
Zelensky), but to change the policy toward Ukraine that had been established by Obama (via
Obama's coup and its aftermath). This is a fact, which will be documented here. Far more than
politics was involved here; ideology was actually very much involved. Trump was considering a
basic change in U.S. foreign policies. He was considering to replace policies that had been
established under, and personnel who had been appointed by, his immediate predecessor, Barack
Obama. Democrats are extremely opposed to any such changes. This is one of the reasons for the
renewed impeachment-effort by Democrats. They don't want to let go of Obama's worst policies.
But changing U.S. foreign policy is within a President's Constitutional authority to do.
Trump fired the flaming neoconservative John Bolton on 10 September 2019. This culminated a
growing rejection by Trump of neoconservatism -- something that he had never thought much about
but had largely continued from the Obama Administration, which invaded and destroyed Libya in
2011, Syria in 2012-, Yemen in 2015-, and more -- possibly out-doing even George W. Bush, who
likewise was a flaming neocon. Trump's gradual turn away from neoconservatism wasn't just
political; it was instead a reflection, on his part, that maybe, just maybe, he had actually
been wrong and needed to change his foreign policies, in some important ways. (He evidently
still hasn't yet figured out precisely what those changes should be.)
For example, on 15 November 2019, the impeachment focus was on the testimony of Marie
Yovanovitch, whom Trump had recently (
in May 2019 ) fired as the Ambassador to Ukraine. Democrats presented her as having been
the paradigm of professionalism and nonpartisanship in America's foreign service. She was
actually a neoconservative who had been appointed as an Ambassador first by President George W.
Bush on 20 November 2004, after her having received an M.S. from the National War College in
2001. Obama appointed her, on 18 May 2016, to replace Geoff Pyatt ( shown and heard in this video confidentially
receiving instructions from Obama's agent controlling Ukraine-policy, Victoria Nuland ) as
the Ambassador to Ukraine. Obama had selected Yovanovitch because he knew that (just like
Pyatt) she supported his polices regarding Ukraine and would adhere to his instructions.
Yovanovitch was part of Obama's team, just as she had previously been part of George W. Bush's
team. All three of them were staunch neoconservatives, just as Ambassador Pyatt had been, and
just as Victoria Nuland had been, and just as Joe Biden had been.
A neoconservative believes in the rightfulness of American empire over this entire planet,
even over the borders of the other nuclear superpower, Russia. Obama's standard phrase arguing
for it was "The United States is and remains
the one indispensable nation" , meaning that all other nations are "dispensable." This
imperialistic belief was an extension of Yale's 'pacifist' pro-Nazi America
First movement , which was supported by Wall Street's Dulles brothers in the
early 1940s , and which pro-Nazi movement Trump himself has prominently praised. Unlike the
progressive U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had planned the U.N. in order to be
the anti -imperialist emerging first-ever global world government of nations, which would
democratically set and ultimately enforce international laws of a new global federation of
nations -- a global democratic federation of sovereign republics -- neoconservatives are U.S.
imperialists, who want instead to destroy the U.N., and to extend American power over the
entire world, make America not only the policeman to the world but the lawmaker for the world,
and the judge jury and executioner of the world, the global dictator. The U.N. would be
weakened to insignificance. This has gradually been occurring. It continued even after what had
been thought to have been the 1991 end of the Cold War, and after Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize
in 2009 for his deceptive rhetoric. Yale's John
Bolton was the leading current proponent of the America First viewpoint, much more straightforward in his advocacy of
it than the far wilier Obama was; and, until recently, Trump supported that unhedged
advocacy for the neoconservative viewpoint: U.S. imperialism. Regarding the campaign to take
over Russia, however, he no longer does -- he has broken with Bolton on that central
neoconservative goal, and he is trying to reverse that policy, which had been even more extreme
than Obama's policy towards Russia was (which policy had, in fact , produced the coup in Ukraine).
When the Cold War had supposedly ended in 1991, it ended actually only on the Russian side, but secretly it continued and continues on
as policy on the American imperialists' side . The neoconservative side, which controlled
the U.S. Government by that time (FDR's vision having been destroyed when Ronald Reagan entered
the White House in 1981), has no respect whatsoever for Russia's sovereignty over its own land,
and certainly not over the land of Russia's neighbors, such as Ukraine, which has a 1,625-mile
border with Russia. Neoconservatives want U.S. missiles to be pointed at Moscow all along
Russia's border. That would be as if Russia had wanted to position Russian missiles all along
Canada's and Mexico's borders with the U.S.; it would disgust any decent person, anywhere, but
neoconservatives aren't decent people. Neoconservatives (U.S. imperialists) seek for all of
Russia's neighbors to become part of the U.S. empire, so as to isolate Russia and then become
able to gobble it up. All neoconservatives want this ultimately to happen. Their grasp for
power is truly limitless. Only in the tactical issues do they differ from one-another.
In her testimony behind closed doors to Senators, on
11 October 2019 , Yovanovich stated her views regarding what America's policies toward
Ukraine should be, and these were Obama's policies, too; these views are the neoconservative
outlook [and my own comments in brackets here will indicate her most egregious distortions and
lies in this key passage from her]:
Because of Ukraine's geostrategic position bordering Russia on its east, the warm waters
of the oil-rich Black Sea to its south, and four NATO allies to its west, it is critical to
the security of the United States [this is like saying that Mexico and Canada are crucial to
the security of Russia -- it's a lie] that Ukraine remain free and democratic [meaning, to
neoconservatives, under U.S. control] , and that it continue to resist Russian expansionism
[like Russia cares about U.S. expansionism over all of the Western Hemisphere? Really? Is
that actually what this is about? It's about extending U.S. imperialism on and across
Russia's border into Russia itself] Russia's purported annexation of Crimea [but, actually,
"Clear and
convincing evidence will be presented here that, under U.S. President Barack Obama, the U.S.
Government had a detailed plan, which was already active in June 2013, to take over Russia's
main naval base, which is in Sevastopol in Crimea, and to turn it into a U.S. naval
base." ] , its invasion of Eastern Ukraine, and its defacto control over the Sea of Azov,
make clear Russia's malign intentions towards Ukraine [not make clear Russia's determination
not to be surrounded by enemies -- by U.S.-stooge regimes. For Russia to avoid that is
'malign', she says] . If we allow Russia's actions to stand, we will set a precedent that the
United States will regret for decades to come. So, supporting Ukraine's integration into
Europe and combating Russia' s efforts to destabilize Ukraine [Oh, America didn't do that destabilization ?]
have anchored our policy since the Ukrainian people protested on the Maidan in 2014 and
demanded to be a part of Europe and live according to the rule of law [But Ukrainians before
Obama's takeover of Ukraine in February 2014 didn't actually want to be part of the EU nor of
NATO, and they considered NATO to be a threat to Ukraine. "In 2010,
Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean 'protection of your
country,' 40% said it's 'a threat to your country'." ] That was U.S. policy when I became
ambassador in August 2016 [after Obama's successful coup there took over its
media and turned Ukrainian opinion strongly against Russia] , and it was reaffirmed as that
policy as the policy of the current administration in early 2017. [Yes, that's correct,
finally a truthful assertion from her. When Trump first came into office, he was a
neoconservative, too.] The Revolution of Dignity [ you'll see here the 'dignity' of it ]
and the Ukrainian people's demand to end corruption forced the new Ukrainian Government to
take measures to fight the rampant corruption that long permeated that country's political
and economic systems [and that still do, and perhaps more now than even before] .
That's just one example -- it's about the role of Ambassador Yovanovitch. But the focus of
Ukrainegate isn't really that. It's not Yovanovitch. It is what Trump was trying to do, and
what Joe Biden was trying to do, and what Obama had actually done. It is also about Joe Biden's
son Hunter, because this is also about contending dynasties, and not only about contending
individuals. Trump isn't certain, now, that he wants to continue being a full-fledged
neoconservative, and to continue extending Obama's neoconservative policies regarding Ukraine.
So: this is largely about what those policies actually were. And here is how Joe Biden comes
into the picture, because Democrats, in trying to replace President Donald Trump by a President
Mike Pence, are trying to restore, actually, Barack Obama's policy in Ukraine, a policy of
which the Bidens themselves were very much Obama's agents, and Mike Pence would be expected to
continue and extend those policies. Here will be necessary to document some personal and
business relationships that the U.S. news-media have consistently been hiding and even lying
about, and which might not come up even in the expected subsequent Senate hearings about
whether to replace Trump by Pence:
PART THREE: THE CENTRALITY OF UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH IHOR
KOLOMOYSKY
The real person who was the benefactor to, and the boss of, Vice President Joe Biden's son,
Hunter Biden, at the Ukrainian gas-exploration company Burisma Holdings, was not the person
that the American press says was, Mykola Zlochevsky, who had been part of the Ukrainian
Government until Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in February 2014, but it
was instead Ihor Kolomoysky, who was part of the newly installed Ukrainian Government, which
the Obama Administration itself had actually just installed in Ukraine (and that
phone-conversation appointing Ukraine's new leader is explained here ), in what the head of the "private CIA" firm Stratfor has
correctly called "the most blatant coup in
history." ( Here's more
explanation of that coup which was done by Obama. )
One cannot even begin accurately to understand the impeachment proceedings against America's
current President Donald Trump ("Ukrainegate"), unless one first knows and understands
accurately what the relationships were between Trump and the current Government of Ukraine, and
the role that the Obama Administration had played in forming that Government (installing it),
and the role that Hunter Biden had been hired to perform for his actual boss at Burisma,
Kolomoysky, soon after Obama (via Obama's agent Victoria Nuland) had installed Ukraine's new
Government.
As I had written on
28 September 2019 , "In order to understand why Ukraine's President Voldomyr Zelensky
doesn't want the dirt about Joe Biden to become public, one needs to know that Hunter Biden's
boss and benefactor at Burisma Holdings was, at least partly, Zelensky's boss and benefactor
until Zelensky became Ukraine's President, and that revealing this would open up a can of worms
which could place that former boss and benefactor of both men into prison at lots of places
."
That article, at the phrase "
dug up in 2012," discussed and linked to a careful 2012 study of Burisma which had actually
been done in Ukraine by an investigative nonprofit (Antac)
funded by America's billionaire George Soros (who was another major funder of the 2014 Ukrainian coup , as well as of Barack
Obama's political career itself) in order to help to bring down Yanukovych. However, what this
study found was not the incriminating evidence against Zlochevsky which had been hoped.
It
found instead that the person who owned the controlling interest in Burisma was not really the Yanukovych-supporter Mykola Zlochevsky; it was, in fact, the Ukrainian billionaire Ihor
Kolomoysky, who supported Yanukovych's overthrow. Kolomoysky, shortly after the coup, became
appointed as the governor in a region of Ukraine, by the Obama Administration's post-coup
Ukrainian Government. Obama's financial backer Soros knew, or should have known, that
Zlochevsky had sold almost all of his Burisma holdings to Kolomoysky in 2011, but Obama's
Administration was nonetheless trying to get the newly installed Ukrainian Government to
prosecute Zlochevsky because Zlochevsky was associated with the Ukrainian President whom Obama
had just overthrown. Hunter Biden's function was to help to protect Mr. Kolomoysky against
being targeted by the newly installed Government in the anti-corruption campaign that the Obama
Administration and the EU were pressing upon that new Ukrainian Government. Hunter Biden was to
serve as a U.S. fixer for his new boss Kolomoysky, to deflect the anti-corruption campaign away
from Kolomoysky as a target and toward Zlochevsky as a target. And Hunter's father, Joe Biden,
followed through on that, by demanding that Ukraine prosecute Zlochevsky, not Kolomoysky.
Soros isn't really against corruption; he is against corruption by countries that he wants to
take over, and that he uses the U.S. Government in order to take over. Neoconservatism is
simply imperialism, which has always been the foreign-affairs ideology of aristocrats and of
billionaires. (In America's case, that includes both Democratic and Republican billionaires.)
So, it's just imperialism in America. All billionaires who care at all about international
relations are imperialists; and, in America, that's called "neoconservative." The American
issue regarding Ukraine was never actually Ukraine's corruption. Corruption is standard and
accepted throughout the U.S.-and-allied countries; but against countries they want to take over
it becomes a PR point in order to win acceptance by the gulls, of their own country's
imperialism and its own associated corruption. "Our country's corruption is acceptable, but
yours is not," is the view. That's the standard imperialist view. Neoconservatism --
imperialism anywhere, actually -- is always based on lies. Imperialism, in fact, is part of
nationalism, but it is excluded by patriotism; and no nationalist is a patriot. No patriot is a
nationalist. Whereas a nationalist supports his country's billionaires, a patriot supports his
country's residents -- all of them, his countrymen, on a democratic basis, everyone having
equal rights, not the richest of the residents having the majority or all of the rights. A
nationalist is one-dollar-one-vote; a patriot is one resident one vote. The only people who are
intelligently nationalist are billionaires and the agents they employ. All other nationalists
are their gulls. Everyone else is a patriot. Ordinarily, there are far more gulls than
patriots.
Information hasn't yet been published regarding what Trump's agent Rudolph Giuliani has
found regarding Burisma, but the links in the present article link through to the evidence that
I am aware of, and it's evidence which contradicts what the U.S.-and-allied press have been
reporting about the Bidens' involvement in Ukraine. So: this information might be what Trump's
team intend to reveal after the Democratic-Party-controlled House of Representatives indicts
Trump (send to the Republican Senate a recommendation to replace him by Mike Pence as America's
President), if they will do that; but, regardless, this is what I have found, which
U.S.-and-allied news-media have conspicuously been not only ignoring but blatantly
contradicting -- contradicting the facts that are being documented by the evidence that is
presented here . Consequently, the links in this article prove the systematic lying by
America's press, regarding Ukrainegate.
After the Soros-funded Antac had discovered in 2012 that Kolomoysky ruled Burisma, the great
independent Australian investigative journalist who has lived for 30 years in and reported from
Moscow, John Helmer , headlined on 19
February 2015 one of his blockbuster news-reports,
"THE HUNT FOR BURISMA, PART II -- WHAT ROLE FOR IGOR KOLOMOISKY, WHAT LONDON MISSED, WHAT
WASHINGTON DOESN'T WANT TO SEE" , and he linked there not only to Ukrainian Government
records but also to UK Government records, and also to corporate records in Cyprus, Panama, and
elsewhere, to document that, indeed, Kolomoysky controlled Burisma. So, all of the
U.S.-and-allied 'news'-reporting, which merely assumes that Zlochevsky controlled this firm
when Hunter Biden became appointed to its board, are clearly false. (See
this, for example, from Britain's Guardian , two years later, on 12 April 2017, simply
ignoring both the Antac report and the even-more-detailed Helmer report, and presenting
Zlochevsky -- Kolomoysky's decoy -- as the appropriate target to be investigated for Burisma's
alleged corruption.) So: when Joe Biden demanded that Ukraine's Government prosecute
Zlochevsky, Biden was not, as he claims he was, demanding a foreign Government to act against
corruption; he was instead demanding that foreign Government (Ukraine) to carry out his own
boss, Barack Obama's, agenda, to smear as much as he could Viktor Yanukovych -- the Ukrainian
President whom Obama had overthrown. This isn't to say that Yanukovych was not corrupt; every
post-Soviet Ukrainian President, and probably Prime Minister too, has been corrupt. Ukraine is
famous for being corrupt. But, this doesn't necessarily mean that Zlochevsky was corrupt.
However, Kolomoysky is regarded, in Ukraine, as being perhaps the most corrupt of all
Ukrainians.
Perhaps Kolomoysky's major competitor has been Victor Pinchuk, who has long been famous in
Washington for donating heavily to Bill and Hillary Clintons' causes. For example, on 11 March
2018, the independent investigative journalist Jeff Carlson, bannered "Victor
Pinchuk, the Clintons & Endless Connections" and he reported that
He is the founder of Interpipe, a steel pipe manufacturer. He also owns Credit Dnipro
Bank, some ferroalloy plants and a media empire.
He is married to Elena Pinchuk, the daughter of former Ukrainian President Leonid
Kuchma.
Pinchuk's been accused of profiting immensely from the purchase of state-owned assets at
severely below-market prices through political favoritism.
Pinchuk used his media empire to deflect blame from his father-in-law, Kuchma, for the
September 16, 2000 murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze. Kuchma was never charged but is
widely believed to have ordered the murder. A series of recordings would seem to back
up this assertion.
On April 4 through April 12 2016, Ukrainian Parliamentarian Olga Bielkov had
four meetings – with Samuel Charap (International Institute for Strategic Studies),
Liz Zentos (National Security Council), Michael Kimmage (State Dept) and David Kramer (McCain
Institute).
Doug Schoen filed FARA documents
showing that he was paid $40,000 a month by Victor Pinchuk (page 5) – in part to
arrange these meetings.
Schoen attempted to arrange another 72 meetings with Congressmen and media (page 10). It
is unknown how many meetings took place.
Schoen has worked for both Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Schoen helped Pinchuk establish ties with the Clinton Foundation. The Wall Street Journal
reported
how Schoen connected Pinchuk with senior Clinton State Department staffers in order to
pressure former Ukrainian President Yanukovych to release Yulia Tymoshenko – a
political rival of Yanukovych – from jail.
The relationship between Pinchuk and the Clintons continued.
A large network of collaborators, all connected to NATO's PR agency the Atlantic Council,
were also discussed and linked to; and, in one of the video clips, Victoria Nuland headed a
panel discussion in Munich Germany at which numerous leading Democratic Party neoconservatives,
and neoconservative foreign leaders, discussed how wonderful the "Deep State" is, and praised
the Republican neocon John McCain, who had helped Victoria Nuland to install the fascist
Government of Ukraine.
Joe Biden's campaign for president, as well as his defence against charges of corrupt
influence peddling and political collusion in the Ukraine, are being promoted in Washington
by the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk through the New York lobbyist, candidate adviser and
pollster, Douglas Schoen (left).
This follows several years of attempts by Pinchuk and Schoen to buy influence with Donald
Trump, first as a candidate and then as president; with Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani; and
with John Bolton, Trump's National Security Adviser in 2018 and 2019. Their attempts
failed.
Pinchuk has been paying Schoen more than $40,000 every month for eight years. The amount
of money is substantially greater than Biden's son Hunter Biden was paid by Pinchuk's
Ukrainian rival Igor Kolomoisky through the oil company Burisma and Rosemont Seneca Bohai,
Biden's New York front company.
Pinchuk's message for the Democratic candidates and US media, according to Schoen's Fox
News [4] broadcast in August, is: "Stop killing your own, stop beating up on your own
frontrunner, Joe Biden."
On November 12th, the New York Times headlined "Ukraine's President Seeks Face-to-Face Meeting With Putin" and
reported that Zelensky is now sufficiently disturbed at the declining level of the EU's and
Trump Administration's continuing support for Ukraine's Government, so that Zelensky is
desperately trying to restore friendly relations with Russia. The next day, that newspaper
bannered "A Ukrainian Billionaire Fought
Russia. Now He's Ready to Embrace It." This report said: "Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as
Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently
elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time,
he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and
turn back toward Russia ." Kolomoysky, in other words, who had been on Obama's team in
Ukraine, no longer is on the U.S. team under Trump. A reasonable inference would be that
Kolomoysky increasingly fears the possibility of being prosecuted. Continuation of the Obama
plan for Ukraine seems increasingly unlikely.
Here are some crimes for which Kolomoysky might be prosecuted:
Allegedly, Kolomoysky, on 20 March 2015,
brought to a board meeting of Ukraine's gas-distribution company UkrTransNafta, of which
Kolomoysky was a minority shareholder, his hired thugs armed with guns , in an
unsuccessful attempt to intimidate the rest of the board to impose Kolomoysky's choice to
lead the company. Ukraine's President, Petro Poroshenko, soon thereafter, yielded to the
pressure from Ukraine's bondholders to fire
Kolomoysky as a regional governor, and then nationalized Ukraine's biggest bank,
PrivatBank, which had looted billions of dollars from depositors' accounts and secreted the
proceeds in untraceable offshore accounts, so that the bank had to be bailed out by Ukraine's
taxpayers. (Otherwise, there would have been huge riots against Poroshenko.)
Zelensky is squeezed between his funder and his public, and so dithers. For example, on 10
September 2019, the Financial Times reported
that "The IMF has warned Ukraine that backsliding on Privatbank's nationalisation would
jeopardise its $3.9bn standby programme and that officials expect Ukraine to push for recovery
of the $5.5bn spent on rescuing the bank." Stealing $5.5B is a big crime, and this was Obama's
Ukrainian Government. Will it also be Trump's?
There are others, but those could be starters.
So, both Kolomoysky and Zelensky are evidently now considering to seek Moscow's protection,
though Kolomoysky had previously been a huge backer of, and helped to fund, killing of the
Donbassers who rejected the Obama-imposed Russia-hating Ukrainian regime.
Any such prosecutions could open up, to international scrutiny, Obama's entire Ukrainian
operation. That, in turn, would expose Obama's command-complicity in the ethnic cleansing operation , which Kolomoysky's co-planner
of the 2 May 2014 massacre inside the Odessa Trade Unions Building, Arsen Avakov,
euphemistically labelled the "Anti Terrorist Operation" or "ATO," to eliminate as many as possible of the residents in the former
Donbass region of Ukraine, where over 90% of the voters had voted for Yanukovych.
PART FOUR: TRUMP'S MANY POLICY-DILEMMAS REGARDING UKRAINE
If Putin offers no helping hand to Zelensky, what will happen to Ukraine, and to Ukrainians?
Might Trump finally campaign for the United States to become one of the "States Parties" to the
International Criminal Court , so that Obama, Nuland, Soros, and others who had overthrown
Ukraine's
democratically elected Government could be tried there? How would Trump be able to immunize
himself for such
crimes as his own 14 April 2018 unprovoked missile-attack against Syria ? How likely is it
that he would ever actually become a supporter of international law, instead of an imperialist
(such as he has always been) and therefore opponent of international law? He, after all, is
himself a billionaire, and no billionaire has ever fought for international law except in an
instance where he benefited from it -- never for international law itself . Trump isn't likely
to be the first. But here's how it could happen:
Donald Trump has surrounded himself with neoconservatives. There's not much distance between
his policies toward Ukraine versus Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's. However, after Trump becomes
impeached in the House (if that happens) and the impeachment trial starts in the Republican
U.S. Senate, there will then be a perfect opportunity for Trump to embarrass the Democratic
Party profoundly by exposing not only Joe Biden but Biden's boss Obama as having
caused the war in Ukraine . In order for him to do that, however, he'd also need to expose
the rot of neoconservatism. Nobody in Washington does that, except, perhaps the rebelling
Democrat, Tulsi Gabbard, and she's
rejected in the national polls now by the public within her own Party . Neoconservatism is
the uniform foreign-policy ideology of America's billionaires, both Republican and Democratic,
and this is why Washington is virtually 100% neocon. In America, wealth certainly doesn't
trickle down, but ideology apparently does -- and that's not merely neoliberalism but also its
international-affairs extension: neoconservatism. Nonetheless, if a Trump re-election ticket
were Trump for President, and Gabbard for Vice President, it might be able to beat anything
that the Democrats could put up against it, because Trump would then head a ticket which would
remain attractive to Republicans and yet draw many independents and even the perhaps 5% of
Democrats who like her. Only Sanders, if he becomes the Democratic nominee (and who is the
least-neoconservative member of the U.S. Senate), would attract some of Gabbard's supporters,
but he wouldn't be getting any money from the 607 people who mainly fund American politics. The
2020 U.S. Presidential contest could just go hog-wild. However, America's billionaires probably
won't let that happen. Though there are only 607 of therm, they have enormous powers over the
Government, far more than do all other Americans put together. The U.S. Supreme Court made it
this way, such as by the 1976 Buckley decision , and the 2010 Citizens United
decision .
So: while justice in this impeachment matter (and in the 2020 elections) is conceivable, it
is extremely unlikely. The public are too deceived -- by America's Big-Money
people.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
And you know, I'll say this to President Trump. You want to investigate Joe Biden? You
want to investigate Hunter Biden? Go at it. Do it. Do it hard. Do it dirty. Do it the way you
do, do it. Just don't do it by asking a foreign leader to help you in your campaign. That's
your job, it's not his.
My goal in these hearings is two things. One is to get an answer to Colonel Vindman's
question ["Is it improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign
government investigate a United States citizen and political opponent?"] . And the second
coming out of this is for us as a Congress to return to the Ukraine policy that Nancy Pelosi
and Kevin McCarthy both support, it's not investigations, it's the restoration of democracy
in Ukraine and the resistance of Russian aggression.
He wants a return to Obama's anti-Russian Ukraine-policy. Though Zelensky had won Ukraine's
Presidency by a record-shattering 73% because he had promised to end the war (which the U.S.
had started), America's Deep State are refusing to allow that -- they want to force him to
accept more U.S.-made weapons and more U.S. training of Ukraine's troops in how to use them
against its next-door neighbor Russia.
Furthermore, in some respects, Trump is even more neoconservative than Obama was. Trump
single-handedly nullified Obama's only effective and good achievement, the Iran nuclear deal.
Against Iran, Trump is considerably more of a neocon than was Obama. Trump has squeezed
Iranians so hard with his sanctions as to block other countries from buying from and selling to
Iran; and this blockade has greatly impoverished Iranians, who now are rioting against their
Government. Trump wants them to overthrow their Government. His plan might succeed. Trump's
biggest donor, Sheldon
Adelson , hates Iranians, and Trump is his man. On Iran, Trump remains a super-neocon.
Perhaps Adelson doesn't require him to hate Russians too.
Furthermore, on November 17th, the same day when riots broke out in Iran against Iran's
Government, Abdullah Muradoğlu headlined in Turkey's newspaper Yeni Safak ,
"Bolivia's Morales was overthrown by a Western coup just like Iran's Mosaddeg" , and he
presented strong circumstantial evidence that that coup, too -- which had occurred on November
10th -- had been a U.S. operation. How could Trump criticize Obama for the coup against Ukraine
when Trump's own coup against Bolivia is in the news? America is now a two-Party fascist
dictatorship. One criminal U.S. President won't publicly expose the crimes of another criminal
U.S. President who was his predecessor.
The next much-discussed witness that the Democrats brought forth to testify against Trump
was America's Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, on November 20th. Sondland was a hotels
and real-estate tycoon like Trump. Prior to Trump's becoming President, Sondland had had no
experience in diplomacy. At the start of 2017, "four companies registered to Sondland
donated $1 million to the Donald Trump inaugural committee" ; and, then, a year later,
Trump appointed him to this Ambassadorial post. Sondland evasively responded to the aggressive
questioning by Senate Democrats trying to get him to say that Trump had been trying to "bribe"
Zelensky. Then, the Lawfare Blog of the staunchly neoconservative Brookings Institution's
Benjamin Wittes headlined "Gordon Sondland
Accuses the President of Bribery" and Wittes asserted that "today, Amb. Gordon Sondland,
testifying before the House in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, offered a crystal clear account
of how President Trump engaged in bribery." But Sondland provided no evidence except his
opinion, which can be seen online at "Opening Statement before
the United States House of Representatives" , when he said:
Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for
arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make
a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr.
Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that
these investigations were important to the President.
I asked the President, what do you want from Ukraine? The President responded, nothing.
There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro. No quid pro quo multiple times.
This was a very short call. And I recall that the President was really in a bad mood. I tried
hard to address Ambassador Taylor's concerns because he is valuable and [an] effective
diplomat, and I took very seriously the issues he raised. I did not want Ambassador Taylor to
leave his post and generate even more turnover in the Ukraine Mission."
The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and
was therefore extremely hostile toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on
the front line of America's war to conquer
Russia . Trump might be too stupid to understand anything about ideology or geostrategy,
but only if a person accepts neoconservatism is the anger that these subordinates of his
express toward him for his being viewed by them as placing other concerns (whether his own, or
else America's for withdrawing America from Obama's war against Russia) suitable reason for
Congress to force Trump out of office. Given that Trump, even in Sondland's account, did say
"The President responded, nothing. There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro.
No quid pro quo multiple times," there is nothing that's even close to a "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standard which is provided by their personal feelings that Trump had a quid-pro-quo
about anything regarding Ukraine -- a policy of Obama's that Trump should instead firmly have
abandoned and denounced as soon as he became President. Testimony from his own enemies, whom
Trump had been stupid enough to have appointed, when he hadn't simply extended Obama's
neoconservative policies and personnel regarding Ukraine, falls far short of impeachable. But
right and wrong won't determine the outcome here anyway, because America has become a
two-party, one-ideology, dictatorship.
This is what happens when billionaires control a
country . It produces the type of foreign policies the country's billionaires want, rather
than what the public actually need. This is America's Government, today. It's drastically
different than what America's Founders had hoped. Instead of its representing the states
equally with two Senators for each, and instead of representing the citizens equally, with
proportional per-capita representation in the U.S. House, and instead of yet a third system of
the Electoral College for choosing the Government's Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief, it
has become thoroughly corrupted to being, in effect, just one-dollar-one-vote -- an aristocracy
of wealth controlling the entire Government -- exactly what the Founders had waged the
Revolution in order to overthrow and prevent from ever recurring: a dictatorial aristocracy, as
constituting our Government, today.
* * *
PS: Though I oppose almost everything that the hearings' Ranking Minority Member, the
neoconservative (and, of course, also neoliberal) Republican Devin Nunes , stands for, I close here with
his superb summary of the hearings, on November 21st , in which he validly described the
Democrats' scandalously trashy Ukrainegate case against Trump (even though he refused to look
deeper to the issues I raise in this article -- he dealt here merely with how "shoddy" the case
the Democrats had presented was):
Throughout these bizarre hearings, the Democrats have struggled to make the case that
President Trump committed some impeachable offense on his phone call with Ukrainian president
Zelensky. The offense itself changes depending on the day ranging from quid pro quo to
extortion, to bribery, to obstruction of justice, then back to quid pro quo. It's clear why
the Democrats have been forced onto this carousel of accusations. President Trump had good
reason to be wary of Ukrainian election meddling against his campaign and of widespread
corruption in that country. President Zelensky, who didn't even know aid to Ukraine had been
paused at the time of the call, has repeatedly said there was nothing wrong with the
conversation. The aid was resumed without the Ukrainians taking the actions they were
supposedly being coerced into doing.
Aid to Ukraine under President Trump has been much more robust than it was under President
Obama, thanks to the provision of Javelin anti-tank weapons. As numerous witnesses have
testified, temporary holds on foreign aid occur fairly frequently for many different reasons.
So how do we have an impeachable offense here when there's no actual misdeed and no one even
claiming to be a victim? The Democrats have tried to solve this dilemma with a simple slogan,
"he got caught." President Trump, we are to believe, was just about to do something wrong and
getting caught was the only reason he backed down from whatever nefarious thought crime the
Democrats are accusing him of almost committing.
I once again urge Americans to continue to consider the credibility of the Democrats on
this Committee, who are now hurling these charges for the last three years. It's not
president Trump who got caught, it's the Democrats who got caught. They got caught falsely
claiming they had more than circumstantial evidence that Trump colluded with Russians to hack
the 2016 election. They got caught orchestrating this entire farce with the whistleblower and
lying about their secret meetings with him. They got caught defending the false allegations
of the Steele dossier, which was paid for by them. They got caught breaking their promise
that impeachment would only go forward with bipartisan support because of how damaging it is
to the American people.
They got caught running a sham impeachment process between secret depositions, hidden
transcripts, and an unending flood of Democrat leaks to the media. They got caught trying to
obtain nude photos of President Trump from Russian pranksters pretending to be Ukrainians,
and they got caught covering up for Alexandra Chalupa, a Democratic National Committee
operative, who colluded with Ukrainian officials to smear the Trump campaign by improperly
redacting her name from deposition transcripts, and refusing to let Americans hear her
testimony as a witness in these proceedings. That is the Democrats pitiful legacy in recent
years. They got caught.
Meanwhile, their supposed star witness testified that he was guessing that President Trump
was tying Ukrainian aid to investigations despite no one telling him that was true, and the
president himself explicitly telling him the opposite, that he wanted nothing from Ukraine.
Ladies and gentlemen, unless the Democrats once again scramble their kangaroo court rules,
today's hearing marks the merciful end of this spectacle in the Impeachment Committee,
formerly known as the Intelligence Committee. Whether the Democrats reap the political
benefit they want from this impeachment remains to be seen, but the damage they have done to
this country will be long lasting. Will this wrenching attempt to overthrow the president?
They have pitted Americans against one another and poison the mind of fanatics who actually
believe the entire galaxy of bizarre accusations they have levelled against the president
since the day the American people elected him.
I sincerely hope the Democrats in this affair [end this] as quickly as possible so our
nation can begin to heal the many wounds it has inflicted on us. The people's faith in
government and their belief that their vote counts for something has been shaken. From the
Russia hoax to this shoddy Ukrainian sequel, the Democrats got caught. Let's hope they
finally learn a lesson, give their conspiracy theories a rest, and focus on governing for a
change. In addition, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1), the Republican
members transmit a request to convene a minority day of hearings. Today you have blocked key
witnesses that we have requested from testifying in this partisan impeachment inquiry. This
rule was not displaced by H.Res.660, and therefore under House Rule 11 clause 1(a), it
applies to the Democrats impeachment inquiry. We look forward to the chair promptly
scheduling an agreed upon time for the minority day of hearings so that we can hear from key
witnesses that you have continually blocked from testifying.
I'd also like to take a quick moment on an assertion Ms. Hill made in the statement that
she submitted to this Committee, in which she claimed that some Committee members deny that
Russia meddled in the 2016 election. As I noted in my opening statement on Wednesday, but in
March, 2018, Intelligence Committee Republicans published the results of a year long
investigation into Russian meddling. The 240 page report analyzed 2016 Russian meddling
campaign, the US government reaction to it, Russian campaigns in other countries and provided
specific recommendations to improve American election security. I would [have] asked my staff
to hand these reports to our two witnesses today just so I can have a recollection of their
memory. As America may or may not know, Democrats refused to sign on to the Republican
report. Instead, they decided to adopt minority views, filled with collusion conspiracy
theories. Needless to say, it is entirely possible for two separate nations to engage in
election meddling at the same time, and Republicans believe we should take meddling seriously
by all foreign countries regardless of which campaign is the target.
The latest (2019) Reuters international survey in which over 2,000 people in each one of 38
countries were asked whether they agree that "You
can trust most news most of the time" shows that the United States scores #32 out of the
38, at the very top of the bottom 16% of all of the 38 countries surveyed, regarding trust in
the news-media. Reuters had previously found, in their
2018 edition , that, among Americans, "those who identify on the left (49%) have almost
three times as much trust in the news as those on the right (17%). The left gave their support
to newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times while the right's alienation from
mainstream media has become ever more entrenched." In the 2019 edition, what had been 49% in
America rose now to 53%, and what had been 17% sank now to 9%: the billionaires' (i.e.,
mainstream) media are trusted almost only by liberals here. What the media report is considered
trustworthy almost only by liberals, in today's America. By 53% to only 9% -- an almost 6 to 1
ratio -- the skeptics of the billionaires' press are Republicans. Of course, if the media are
distrusted, then the nation can't be functioning as a democracy. But the media will be
distrusted if they lie as much as America's do. Untrusted 'news'-media are a sure indication
that the nation is a dictatorship (such as it is if the billionaires control the media) . In
America, only liberals think that America is a democracy and therefore might possess the basic
qualification (democracy) to decide what nations need to be regime-changed (such as America did
to Iran, Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Bolivia, and is still trying to do to Venezuela, Cuba,
Nicaragua, Iran again, Syria, and Yemen; but not to -- for examples -- Saudi Arabia, UAE, and
Israel); and which ones don't (such as America's governmentally-annointed 'allies', including
some barbaric dictatorships). Liberals trust America's dictatorship as if it were instead a democracy.
Conservatives do not; nor, of course, do progressives. FDR's vision, of a United Nations which
would set and enforce the rules for international relations (neither the U.S. nor any other
country would do that), is now even more rejected by the Democratic Party than it is by the
Republican Party. And the politically topsy-turvy result is Democrats trying to impeach the
Republican Trump for his trying to cut back on Obama's imperialistic ( anti -FDR) agenda.
Trump, after all, didn't do the coup to Ukraine; Obama did
.
The same reason they give it to most countries - there is no oversight once the funds are transferred, then have kickbacks
funnelled into private accounts that belong to the very politicians who argue for the aid. That's one way these scumbag career
pols become multimillionaires.
The "NATO crowd" (aka neocon sh*t bags, aka 'the war party') is always still fighting the last war. NATO is totally obsolete
agents irrelevant. Wars are no longer fought with arms bombs & bullets. The NATO crowd are all fascists wearing american colors.....
they don't really care about america or her values. They only care about power; their bankrupt vision. They don't care what uniform
their SS storm troopers wear as long as they can be the chess players moving the pieces
The meaning of the events in Ukraine in 2014 is very simple. In 2014, a group of Ukrainian oligarchs of Jewish nationality
(Poroshenko-Valtsman, Kolomoisky, Rabinovich, ... + the entire Rada of 2014, consisting mainly of ethnic Jews) carried out a coup
(read - treason), violated the Constitution, overthrew the democratically elected president , made a provocation in the form of
murder (with the assistance of hired Polish, Georgian, American snipers) people on the Maidan from both sides, declared Russian-speaking
Ukrainians in the east of the country as second-class people + arranged terror with the help of Nazis from Galicia and Volhynia,
hired by Kolomoisky's money and obeying him (the Nazis obey a *** - a "funny" fact), they burned 297 people alive in Odessa (3
of them children and 1 and a pregnant woman), and then ~ 300 more people were killed on the streets (in total ~ 600 people were
killed that day in Odessa).
The beautiful Jewish boy (Zelensky), who portrays the president of Ukraine, is a protege of Kolomoisky (like Obama was the
protege of Chicago bankers), Ukraine's gold reserves in New York, gas transit from Russia is lost, relations with Russians are
completely lost, the United States got into the "Ukrainian swamp like a pigs in the mud".
Bottom line: Only Zionist Jews won in the United States and the former Ukraine, all the rest lost.
People will judge the Zionists as the German National Socialists for their crimes in the international trebunal, because
now according to the methods of doing business, American Zionism is no different from German National Socialism. If our American
and Israeli Jewish friends do not like this, what can I say? These are your problems, for crimes against humanity you will be
responsible and you will not get out of this.
"The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and was therefore extremely hostile
toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on the front line of
America's war to conquer Russia ."
And THIS is exactly what its all about.
Liberals supporting this insanity are now imperialist boot lickers. When war on Russia comes, every Dem voter should be immediately
sent to Ukraine to fight on the front lines.
Democrats get away with this because for 8 years MSM and the political elite white washed or were silent on Obama war crimes.
The sheep know not what they do and if they do: **** THEM
The entire history of man has been centered around the politic class skimming money off the working class. Although the current
exposition may phrase some particular politic, the virus at large is incurable.
Eric Ciamarella has close ties with Joe Biden and obviously knows all about his corruption
and collaboration with Ukraine's Nazis. He is a registered Dem.
Ciaramella travelled with Biden to Kiev and was invited by Biden to lunch at the White
House, a very unusual event for a low level CIA "analyst" indicating Ciamarella has political
connections above his CIA rank.
Ciaramella also has close links to John Brennan - the primary pusher of the Russiagate Hoax
from within the Obama Regime in 2016.
Brennan set up a CIA Task Force in late 2015 or early 2016 to target Trump and prevent him
winning the election, in what has become known as "Spygate".
Brennan conspired with the FBI, British Intelligence (MI6/MI5) and GCHQ to illegally spy on
Trump and members of his campaign.
This also involved entrapment operations and attempted smears against General Michael Flynn,
George Papadopoulos and Trump himself using long time CIA asset Stefan Halper (who was paid $1m
by Obama), MI6/MI5 asset Joseph Mifsud and long term FBI/CIA informer (since ~1999) and loose
Trump associate Felix Sater.
There was also of course MI6 agent Christopher Steele's Fake "Dossier". Nothing in the
Steele dossier is true, except for Carter Page's visit to an oil investment conference in
Moscow in mid 2016, as part of his job as an Oil Investment Consultant. This information has
always been freely available on the net and was known to the CIA and the FBI at the time.
Carter Page was regular debriefed by, and freely cooperated with, U.S. Intelligence after each
of his regular visits to Russia
The above is the REAL Foreign Meddling in the 2016 election.
There is no credible evidence whatsoever of any Russian government meddling in the 2016 US
election (see below).
The CFR is the leading Globalist organization funded by Big Banks, large Multinationals and
Oligarchs and works directly against the best interests of the 99% of ordinary Americans (and
everyone else on the planet).
Ciaramella also has close links with Dem Operative Alexandra Chalupa who went to the Ukraine
Embassy in DC in early 2016, asking for them to dig up any dirt they could find on Manafort or
Trump.
Ukraine became a geopolitical pawn. In signing up with the US and EU, there is one guaranteed loser – the Ukrainian people.
Notable quotes:
"... This unique situation gave Zelenskiy and his team the opportunity to kick-start an ambitious programme of policy and law-making in both domestic and foreign affairs. But rather than sustaining popular enthusiasm for his new approach to politics, the so-called turbo-regime of rapid policy and legislative change has already had a sobering effect on the Ukrainian public and triggered the first public protests against Zelenskiy. ..."
"... Zelenskiy's decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively short-lived, but prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in light of this domestic opposition. ..."
"... Since then, Zelenskiy has reiterated his commitment to achieving a deal, visiting the disengagement zone and ordering those war veterans who actively oppose the agreed withdrawal to disarm. In another sign of progress, government and rebel forces have also started withdrawing from the village of Petrivske. If this direction of travel continues, a meeting of Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany in the so-called Normandy format of negotiations could be back on the agenda and Donbas could be set for elections. However, a recent survey in the east indicates a deep divide remains on what people want for the region's future. ..."
"... The high public trust that Zelenskiy still enjoys as president and the hopes that a majority of Ukrainians still have for positive changes under his administration have so far prevented more and growing mass protests. However, the government's program of domestic reform for 2020 could change this. ..."
"... At the same time, "de-oligarchisation" is proceeding slowly. The return from self-imposed exile of Igor Kolomoyskiy, Zelenskiy's principal backer in the presidential campaign, has intensified oligarchic turf wars, pitting Kolomoyskiy against another businessman Rinat Akhmetov, and his increasing power base in the east. This power struggle further contributes to continuing instability in Ukraine and decreases the near-term prospects of the political clean up and economic recovery that Zelenskiy had promised. ..."
"... A deteriorating socio-economic situation and lack of visible and tangible progress on "de-oligarchisation" will not only affect already radicalised veterans but could also galvanise a much larger cross-section of Ukraine's population into yet another mass protest movement. ..."
"... Ukraine's continuing domestic instability is, in part, driven by the larger geopolitical game of competitive influence seeking between Russia and the West in the contested post-Soviet neighbourhood. ..."
"... For the time being, Zelenskiy still enjoys very high levels of public support of around 70 percent of respondents in one survey published in early October. Worryingly, however, only 42 percent of these respondents trust his government and 47 percent trust his parliamentary faction. ..."
"... Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well, a new wave of protests, like those which drove the Maidan Revolution, may yet be possible. If that happens, there will only be one winner from Ukraine's continuing instability: Russia. ..."
"... The Maidan coup was staged and orchestrated largely by the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID, and the U.S. Department of State with the likely assistance of the British Secret Service. The staged Maidan Revolution and coup against a democratically-elected president was the real aggression in Ukraine; the Russians naturally reacted to this aggression by protecting their self-interest and their defensively strategic warm-water flank, Crimea. ..."
"... But Gabbard has been dumped on daily since she announced she was running, by who? Hillary the Billionaire (yes! billionaire!) and the NYT that she controls policy-wise via a little clutch of her billionaire intimates and NYT stockholders and power brokers from Ariadne Getty to Barry Diller. They are super-rich militants from NY and Hollywood and Wall Street, primarily backing Buttigeig. ..."
"... Eventually, there is going to have to be a negotiated settlement between the breakaway republics and whichever puppet is the president in Kiev. The longer the wait till such negotiations start, the worse conditions will get in rump Ukraine. Russia has no advantage in whether negotiations start this year, next year or some distant point in the future. ..."
"... How does Russia win with an unstable Ukraine on it's western border? ..."
"... His western partners the cia and soros ngos are his problem, I do hope he can succeed but the powers to be are against him and the Ukraine citizens. ..."
The country's new president faces a series of domestic and foreign policy challenges reminiscent, though not identical, to the
events that preceded the 2013 Euromaidan, write Stefan Wolff and Tatyana Malyarenko.
It's been six years since the start of the Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine, which led to the
ousting of then-President Viktor Yanukovych. By the time his successor Petro Poroshenko
was elected in May 2014, the domestic political scene in Ukraine and the geopolitical dynamics in the contested EU-Russia neighbourhood
surrounding it had fundamentally altered
.
Today, the country's new president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who
replaced Poroshenko in April 2019, is now facing a series of domestic and foreign policy challenges reminiscent, though not identical,
to the events that preceded the 2013 Euromaidan.
Presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine in April and July 2019 created a political situation in Ukraine with an unprecedented
concentration of political power. Zelenskiy and his Servant of the People party have a majority in the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's
parliament, and so complete control over
the appointment of the government . The president also
separately
appointed the prosecutor general, the minister of foreign affairs and the minister of defence.
This unique situation gave Zelenskiy and his team the opportunity to kick-start an ambitious programme of policy and law-making
in both domestic and foreign affairs. But rather than sustaining popular enthusiasm for his new approach to politics, the so-called
turbo-regime of rapid policy and legislative change has already had a sobering effect on the Ukrainian public and triggered the first
public protests against Zelenskiy.
Foreign Policy Controversy
Zelenskiy's decision in early October to
accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern Ukraine
resulted in an outcry
from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively
short-lived, but prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became
more remote
in light of this domestic opposition.
Ukraine, Russia, and the separatists
also disagreed over who needed to fulfill which preconditions for negotiations, when and in what sequence.
Since then, Zelenskiy has reiterated his commitment to achieving a deal, visiting the disengagement zone and
ordering those war veterans who actively oppose the
agreed withdrawal to disarm. In another sign of progress, government and rebel forces
have also started withdrawing from the village of Petrivske. If this direction of travel continues, a meeting of Ukraine, Russia,
France, and Germany in the so-called Normandy format of negotiations
could be back on the agenda and Donbas could be set for elections. However, a
recent survey in the east indicates a deep divide remains on what people want for the region's future.
Opinion polls from September show that 23 percent of Ukrainians support military confrontation in eastern Ukraine, up from 17
percent a few months previously. As the prospects of reintegration increase under Zelenskiy's administration, so does domestic opposition
to it.
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two parliamentary factions, European Solidarity and Voice,
whose supporters are predominantly located in western Ukraine. Crucially, however, they can also rely on right-wing paramilitary
groups composed of veterans from the hottest phase of the war in Donbas in 2014-5.
The initial motivation of these veterans to protest may have been what they saw as Zelenskiy's
alleged surrender by entering into direct talks with Russia. Zelenskiy has directly confronted them now by ordering them to withdraw
from the disengagement zone, but their opposition to the president's plans
continues .
Domestic Dissatisfaction
What might prove particularly dangerous for Zelenskiy is a possible convergence of so far distinct political camps that oppose
different policies of the new government. If the veterans who are at odds with Zelenskiy over his foreign policy choices were to
join forces with those who oppose him over a number of controversial domestic policies, the potential for destabilisation would significantly
increase.
The high public trust that Zelenskiy still enjoys as president and the hopes that a majority of Ukrainians still have for
positive changes under his administration have so far prevented more and growing mass protests. However, the
government's program of domestic reform
for 2020 could change this.
Proposed budget cuts will particularly
affect public spending on healthcare, education, social security, and local governance.
New labor laws will curtail the rights of employees. A land
privatization bill, also planned for 2020, has proved
highly
unpopular as people fear a repeat of the highly corrupt post-Soviet privatization process in the 1990s when criminal groups (some
of them linked to current oligarchs) managed to capture the main Soviet industrial assets at the expense of the population at large.
In our view, these measures may, in the long term, contribute to turning Ukraine into a more stable and better functioning state.
However, their short-term consequences include decreasing social standards, higher unemployment, and a
continuation of Ukraine's brain and skills drain.
About 1m people leave Ukraine every year.
At the same time, "de-oligarchisation" is proceeding slowly. The
return from self-imposed
exile of Igor Kolomoyskiy, Zelenskiy's principal backer in the presidential campaign, has intensified oligarchic turf wars, pitting
Kolomoyskiy against another businessman Rinat Akhmetov, and his increasing power base in the east. This
power struggle
further contributes to continuing instability in Ukraine and decreases the near-term prospects of the political clean up and
economic recovery that Zelenskiy had promised.
A deteriorating socio-economic situation and lack of visible and tangible progress on "de-oligarchisation" will not only
affect already radicalised veterans but could also galvanise a much larger cross-section of Ukraine's population into yet another
mass protest movement.
Geopolitical Reset?
Ukraine's continuing domestic instability is, in part, driven by the larger geopolitical game of
competitive influence seeking between
Russia and the West in the contested post-Soviet neighbourhood.
By being drawn
into the domestic politics of the U.S. and the ongoing impeachment
inquiry of Donald Trump , Zelenskiy has exposed Ukraine's vulnerability to external pressure, including from its Western partners.
Add to this Trump's personal antipathy to Ukraine (allegedly
describing it
as a "corrupt country full of terrible people") and the willingness of European leaders
to reset relations with Russia, and Ukraine's room for manoeuvre
appears even more diminished.
If Kyiv does resist negotiations with Russia over Donbas this will play well domestically, but it could further strain relations
with Ukraine's main backers in the West on whose support it continues
to depend heavily, including for
the implementation of much-needed domestic reforms.
For the time being, Zelenskiy still enjoys very high levels of public support of around 70 percent of respondents in
one survey published in early October. Worryingly, however, only 42 percent of these respondents trust his government and 47
percent trust his parliamentary faction.
Zelenskiy's own approval ratings also dropped from their previous high of around 80 percent by 10 percent in early September after
he secured a prisoner exchange with Russia. This indicates
that political capital may be ebbing away from the reform project with which he is identified because
popular expectations of fast and painless change cannot be met by Ukraine's new political class.
Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well, a new wave of protests,
like those which
drove the Maidan Revolution, may yet be possible. If that happens, there will only be one winner from Ukraine's continuing instability:
Russia.
The views expressed are solely those of the authors and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Before commenting please read Robert Parry's Comment Policy . Allegations unsupported by
facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive or rude language toward other commenters or our writers
will be removed. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. For security reasons,
please refrain from inserting links in your comments.
The U.S.A. and the D.O.D. should not have American military trainers and advisors stationed in Ukraine nor should our government
be providing war material (some of it lethal) to the government of Ukraine. This military aid threatens the stability of the entire
region. The flagrant aggression of the U.S. A., Great Britain, and NATO into Ukraine's domestic affairs is a textbook example
of blatant balance-of-power geopolitics. As usual, this aggression is being directed and driven by such think tanks as the Atlantic
Council, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and its junior American partner, the Council on Foreign relations. This
is a dangerous game that these two leading NATO countries are playing.
The Maidan coup was staged and orchestrated largely by the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID, and
the U.S. Department of State with the likely assistance of the British Secret Service. The staged Maidan Revolution and coup against
a democratically-elected president was the real aggression in Ukraine; the Russians naturally reacted to this aggression by protecting
their self-interest and their defensively strategic warm-water flank, Crimea.
Ukraine has an extremely diverse set of cultures and ethnicities within its borders. It has never been a truly independent
and unified nation. Throughout is long history that stretches back into antiquity it has been a battleground and a highway for
invading armies in both directions. NATO's gradual buildup in Ukraine follows in the footsteps of Napoleon and Hitler. Stephen
F. Cohen's new edition of "War with Russia?" is coming out in January 2020. Whether you agree with Professor Cohen's premises
for his argument it is worth taking a look at this gentleman's argument.
The U.S. military should depart immediately from Ukraine and the USG should stop funding Ukraine's government with any military
aid and assistance. Ukraine is looking a lot like the early pre-war stages in Vietnam. Nevertheless, Ukraine's governing system
is far more corrupt than the governing system of South Vietnam ever was.
Eugenie Basile , November 21, 2019 at 05:20
It is true that the only winner of the first Maidan was Russia. It got rid of a totally corrupt and financially broke snake
pit called Ukraine, while managing to secure Crimea and the strategic military port of Sevastopol. Now it is up to the EU and
US revolution organisers to keep on distributing cookies in order to prevent a total collapse of what is left of a divided country.
If a second Maidan occurs that would be a way for the West to get out of there in a hurry. The West has more to win than Russia,
this time.
Jimmy gates , November 21, 2019 at 01:19
CN live coverage of this, coupled with Oliver Stones two films "Ukraine on Fire " and "Revealing Ukraine " should help clear
up the confusion and crap that has been ladled on the public for over five years.
What we are seeing is not only a coup in Ukraine, but the destabilization of both the US and Russia in the stages of coup.
Crazily, the possibles for peace might be the collapse of the impeachment hoax and exposure of the plot that went haywire: that
two game show hosts were elected, in the US and Ukraine. The gods must be crazy.
Bob , November 22, 2019 at 03:20
Question; What happens now with Gazprom's offer to extend for another year the present contract due to lapse soon? Will the
new Prez be allowed to accept or even negotiate the offer?
Anonymot , November 20, 2019 at 22:16
The very small, but vigorous group who object loudly and the small, but vicious group that want to go to war over the Russian
province are probably the same crowd who were paid by our corrupt and one-eyed backers of the coup in the first place. Permanent
war is not desired by any citizenry anywhere, just those who sit in offices and decide by hocus pocus that it's a good idea. Our
one-eyed people (yes, there are some blood thirsty women at the top, too) need a pair of one-eye-correcting glasses. One-eyedness
causes a loss, not of vision so much as perspective.
Either they have made a brainless mess and lost everywhere they have initiated war since Korea or else endless wars and permanent
conflict are their policies. The latter is as stupid as the former. In each case, there is nothing realistically to be done to
stop it. It is ingrained into the way our entire political parties think as well as into the entire class of decision-makers in
each and every one of Washington's agencies. It's a mindset, not a few people. It was just as much both Clintons and Obama as
it was the Bush and Cheney gang. Trump is a wee bit special, because he has that mindset, but he's also foul and intellectually
retarded.
Note that those we prefer, Sanders, Warren, have not even whispered beyond a platitude here and there about foreign policy,
foreign affairs or foreign wars. The sole person who is running with a presidential mindset is strangely enough, a woman warrior,
Tulsi Gabbard! And her platform is to break up that mindset and deal with competitors with all of the strength this country has
left via diplomacy – and with peace as a goal. She also has her own progressive, but realistic domestic platform.
But Gabbard has been dumped on daily since she announced she was running, by who? Hillary the Billionaire (yes! billionaire!)
and the NYT that she controls policy-wise via a little clutch of her billionaire intimates and NYT stockholders and power brokers
from Ariadne Getty to Barry Diller. They are super-rich militants from NY and Hollywood and Wall Street, primarily backing Buttigeig.
The kind of intelligence, thoughtfulness, and independence that Gabbard has is anathema to The Bushes and Clintons, the Deep
State folks.
Otherwise there will be and endless supply of think tankers and one-eyed profs to stir up pots like Kiev and Zelenskis ad infinitum.
Robert Carl Miller , November 20, 2019 at 20:29
The US orchestrated the coup of 2014 using the fascists already in Ukraine and Ukrainian Americans (and children and grandchildren)
who were OUN-B and were brought to the US under the Crusade For Freedom. The first generation were stone-cold fascists who fought
alongside the Nazis during their invasion of the USSR. The current DNC/CIA alliance has planned for Ukraine to heat up the cold
war with Russia.
The problem is that the Ukrainian army is broken and aside from the fascist units most average Ukrainians don't want to fight
the Russians or their brothers in Donbas. The US is calculating that its military aid and some unmentioned US troops will be able
to overcome the Donbas by force. If the US and Ukraine somehow draw Russia into this fight, which is exactly what the US militarists
want, there will be one of two outcomes: Either Ukraine will be wiped out quickly by Russian forces or there will be a nuclear
war.
As Russia finishes its Nord Stream 2 and with multiple other gas pipelines in the works to feed Europe's energy needs the US
energy industry, which constructed LNG terminals along the Atlantic Coast, has seen its dreams dashed. No longer does selling
LNG to Europe make any economic sense for.
Wait! We spent 5 Billion on regime change, a color revolution that succeeded only because we hired neo-Nazi shock troops to
spearhead the ouster of Yanukovych, a duly elected oligarch. Months later, after Ukraine's public sector had crumbled, in came
Biden with Burisma and Cargill with its GMO, which highlighted the neoliberal intentions behind the Western coup sponsorship.
Fortunes were made in the energy and agricultural sector, during the same winter that many Ukrainians were without enough heat
and food. But, that 's neoliberalism for you. Their suffering was just what we intended.
The civil unrest began only when Yanukovych rejected the EU-IMF austerity package in the November preceding the February coup
d'etat. That package required that Ukraine assist NATO militarily, buy weapons from US defense contractors, cut pensions, cut
social services, and slash the already tattered safety net while privatizing commonly held state assets. But, interestingly enough,
it required Ukraine to increase its military spending
The world bankers were intent upon squeezing the last bit of juice left in the Ukrainian turnip, In other words, we wanted
Yanukovych to become as pliant as the drunken Yeltsin was in the hands of Bill Clinton in 1993, which marked the beginning of
a disastrous and deadly decade for the Russian Federation.
Instead, Yanukovych, sounding the death knell for his own regime, rejected the EU -IMF austerity package, compounding this
mortal sin by signing an energy deal with the Russian Federation, which agreed to finance Ukrainian debt at 5% when international
bankers were charging 12% to finance this crippled country's loan. Putin was actually nicer to this basket case than we were,
though his motives are not altruistic, though perhaps not as draped in pretext as our own.
All the above is true and verifiable, but no one in the Lamestream Corporate Media, which includes MSNBC as well as FOX, will
report the current Ukrainian crisis in the context of the above facts. Those who master the world economy, having already mastered
the politicians and the media, can dominate and set the parameters of the debate without notice or without drawing attention to
themselves and their agendas.
vinnieoh , November 21, 2019 at 12:28
John: Very good to remind us of these facts. I too remember that as Ukraine floundered in bankruptcy both Russia and the EU/US
proffered competing $15b rescue packages. Thanks for revealing the contrasting details of those offerings, which I wasn't fully
aware of.
As many here have already noted, how does it favor Russia to have a broken, unstable neighbor on its border? Even before these
authors served up that closing bon motte, their claim that the usual austerity cruelty measures of the IMF, WB, etc. will "in
the end" help Ukraine, was a dead giveaway.
And I am head-scratchingly curious why CN would post a piece such as this. To give us some light entertainment, like shooting
ducks in a barrel? I do agree with one of the authors' assertions though, that Zelenskiy's situation is precarious, as is anyone,
anywhere the US is intent on spreading its tentacles.
So Zelenskiy wins an election by 70% on a platform to normalize relations with Russia and in addition his Servant of the People
party have a majority in the Verkhovna Rada. What is the threat he faces? What "challenge"? Is the writer thinking of the extremists
from western Ukraine rising again to produce a new anti-Russia hate-fest on Maidan, supported by the usual western meddlers? Not
many of the comments seem very convinced.
Mark Thomason , November 20, 2019 at 15:48
The Maidan events were protest against specific problems. None of those problems have changed. They have not even been addressed.
It has just been revolving abusers, "new boss same as the old boss."
Overlaid on that has been war, and all that entails, draining what remained of Ukraine's hopes.
The West has seen in that only what it wanted to see, which has little to do with what motivated the Maidan events. Those were
used, manipulated by the West, not addressed or helped.
The new guy could do better, perhaps only because he could hardly do worse. However, to say it might all blow up on him is
only to say that pressure has been building since failure of the last effort, and someday it is likely to blow.
Anna , November 20, 2019 at 12:34
"Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well there will only be one winner
from Ukraine's continuing instability: Russia." By Stefan Wolff, professor of international security at the University of Birmingham
and Tatyana Malyarenko, a professor of international relations at the National University Odesa Law Academy.
Why does the tenor of this article bring to mind the Integrity Initiative? See: mintpressnews.com/the-integrity-initiative-and-the-uks-scandalous-information-war/253014/
"The Integrity Initiative claims that it is "counter[ing] Russian disinformation and malign influence," and indeed, the main players
behind it appear intent on hyping the Russian threat to justify ramped up military budgets and a long-term war footing."
Guy , November 20, 2019 at 12:31
The deep state will continue to milk this Ukraine nightmare for their continuous mfg.of weapons and creating animosities between
the West and Russia. The deep divisions within Ukraine will play into the hands of the nefarious ones that crave chaos, the destroyers
of nations.
TimN , November 20, 2019 at 08:20
I see I'm not the person who was flummoxed by the conclusion of the article. The biggest outside obstacle to peace and stability
is the "West," of course. The "West?" You mean the US. Say that, not the euphemism.
Guy , November 20, 2019 at 13:11
I know what you mean and I hear you, as I am just as guilty of using the term "West" .It is the US which is driving this nightmare
and not the total of Western nations either .Both the Democrats and the Republicans are really not in control of the governance
of the United States .That control of the corrupted system as I see it ,is politically and judicially .The recently disclosed
Epstein pedophilia affair which is now clear that it had/has CIA and Mossad connections leads me to believe most of the politicians
and the legal system apparatus is deeply compromised and therefore have lost all control of good and fair governance if ever there
was such a thing .
Good point though ,it has become a habit to blame the West when in reality just certain factors of the West .I would certainly
include the UK in with the US as both being very compromised .
Donald Duck , November 20, 2019 at 05:45
The present situation in Ukraine is just how the US/EU wanted it. A permanent irritant on Russia's western borders. Unfortunately
this means that Ukraine is a malfunctioning state – the poorest in Europe – which is literally bleeding people at the rate described.
As a failed state Ukraine is going deeper into a hole of poverty and misery which will eventually lead to a national disintegration
as the various oblasts decided to go their own way.
Hans Zandvliet , November 19, 2019 at 21:49
It sounds to me like a rather russophobic article, like very many Ukranians are. I find it quite srtiking that the authors
are still using the term Maidan Revolution, while Stratfor's CEO George Friedman called it "the most blatant coup in history".
Anyone who still has doubts that it was a coup should watch Oliver Stone's documentary "Ukraine on Fire"
Russia is not even a signatory of the Minsk Agreements. Russia, just like France and Germany were only mediators in the negotiations
between the ethnic Russians of the Donbas region and the fascist regime in Kiev. Russia has absolutely nothing to "win" from a
divided and failed Ukrainian state on its borders. To Russia it's just a pain in the arse, which is what the military industrial
complex in Washington has gained by their Ukrainian coup.
John A , November 20, 2019 at 10:37
Exactly. As a rule of thumb, if an article uses 'Kyiv', a recent Ukrainianisation of the long accepted 'Kiev' in English, it
is going to be anti-Russia.
Eventually, there is going to have to be a negotiated settlement between the breakaway republics and whichever puppet is
the president in Kiev. The longer the wait till such negotiations start, the worse conditions will get in rump Ukraine. Russia
has no advantage in whether negotiations start this year, next year or some distant point in the future.
Alan MacDonald , November 19, 2019 at 21:47
Promising situation for new alignment of interests
DavidH , November 19, 2019 at 20:58
Something doesn't seem right.
If Kyiv does resist negotiations with Russia over Donbas this will play well domestically, but it could further strain relations
with Ukraine's main backers in the West on whose support it continues to depend heavily, including for the implementation of
much-needed domestic reforms.
If the majority elected him to end the war, why would it play well domestically? There seems to be a wave of this, and then
a wave of that. Sort of same picture in Bolivia too.
Thanks to CN and the writers for news we never hear (though we certainly should). Great embeds too. How's the new prosecutor
doing? And how is the war in the east presently being fought? I think I heard remarks on these things on Loud&Clear. But
I switched to a "hotspot" in August. Was thinking then that all Loud&Clear shows were "saveable" and also that "CN Live!" was
saveable the former aren't, the latter only a few. And turns out I don't always feel like going out after work seeking free YiFi
to stream all this stuff while I'm sit'n in a joint like I imagined I would. So, for me for the most part it's gotta be in "print."
It would be nice if yall could do like Nader's Radio Hour, and make all the old CN Lives saveable.
Consortiumnews.com , November 19, 2019 at 22:05
Every minute of every episode of CN Live! can be found on our YouTube page.
Personanongrata , November 19, 2019 at 19:27
Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well, a new wave of protests,
like those which drove the Maidan Revolution, may yet be possible. If that happens, there will only be one winner from Ukraine's
continuing instability: Russia.
How does Russia win with an unstable Ukraine on it's western border?
AnneR , November 20, 2019 at 08:17
You have pointed out to me – thank you – another crystal clear indicator that these two authors are anti-Russian, profoundly
so.
It absolutely does not favor Russia to have an unstable, chaotic, fascist and US supported, instigated, militarized Ukraine
on its border. That is utter baloney, and they have to know that.
After all, that was one of the reasons for Soviet Russia spreading beyond its national borders after WWII – to create a buffer
zone against any more invasions from the west, to stop western nations killing Russians by the millions, to stop any attempt by
the west to grab Russian resources (still on NATO's cards).
Russia wants a peaceful, friendly neighbor, borderland country – not a virulent, dangerous chaotic mess one.
jo6pac , November 19, 2019 at 19:07
"Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well"
His western partners the cia and soros ngos are his problem, I do hope he can succeed but the powers to be are against
him and the Ukraine citizens.
RJB , November 19, 2019 at 18:01
What does Russia gain by Ukraine's continued instability?
luke , November 19, 2019 at 16:35
Poor analysis. Am I as a working class lad seriously that much more informed than a professor whos life should be dedicated
to studying this?
No mention of the US involvement in the coup. No mention of the word coup. No mention of fascists, the term used to describe
US armed autonomous fascist battalions was 'right wing militias'. Top it off with the opinion that neoliberal budget cuts will
eventually help things, because a quick look at the history books tells us no such thing.
Makes me think of a professor I know who told me how proud he was that the US has the freedom to make a film documenting Cheney's
war crimes.
I responded that it made me sick that he could watch such films and still be a pathetic apologist.
He shrugged it off and went back to his overpaid position poisoning the youth. If he had the opinions I have, he wouldn't be
a professor though would he?
vinnieoh , November 21, 2019 at 11:54
luke: You are my father.
Remember all the hokum and "experts" paraded on the MSM during W's assault on Iraq? There was one ever-present talking head
from the ME (I've forgotten his name) that was so obviously a US boot-licker that he made me nauseous each time I saw him.
Very good observations and comment.
Martin - Swedish citizen , November 19, 2019 at 15:59
Thank you for this overview. It is good that the corruption and economic disaster are pointed out – as they have been in polls
as the biggest problem in the minds of the citizens. 1 million emigrants per year is a catastrophe.
You write:
"If Kyiv does resist negotiations with Russia over Donbas this will play well domestically, but it could further strain relations
with Ukraine's main backers in the West "
As you explain, this would please the far right (fascist) paramilitary groups and extreme nationalists from Galicia and Volhynia,
quite a small minority.
How about the Russian-speaking half or more of Ukrainians and the Russian ethnic group, making up a majority? Those who share
most of their culture with citizens of Russia? That have lots of ties there?
Because of this and also common sense, wouldn't many think that peace and stability with Russia would benefit Ukraine?
What do you see that Russia stands to gain from continued problems in Ukraine? Surely, Russia (and Ukraine) would be much better
off with peace, safety, stability and close ties and trade between these very close sibling nations.
This concluding remark lacks argument, is reasonably unfounded and quite simply silly.
Martin - Swedish citizen , November 19, 2019 at 16:02
To clarify: with "This concluding remark", I mean the concluding remark in the article, that only Russia stands to win.
Jeff Harrison , November 19, 2019 at 15:43
In signing up with the US and EU, there is one guaranteed loser – the Ukrainian people.
This is another remnant for Bush neocon team, a protégé of Bolton. Trump probably voluntarily appointed this rabid neocon, a
chickenhawk who would shine in Hillary State Department.
Interestingly she came from working class background. So much about Marx theory of class struggle. Brown, David (March 4, 2017).
"Miner's daughter
tipped as Trump adviser on Russia" . The Times.
She also illustrate level pf corruption of academic science, because she got
PhD in history from Harvard in 1998 under Richard
Pipes, Akira Iriye, and
Roman Szporluk. But at least this was history, not
languages like in case of Ciaramella.
Such appointment by Trump is difficult to describe with normal words as he understood what he is buying. So he is himself to blame for his current troubles and his inability
to behave in a diplomatic way when there was important to him question about role of CrowdStrike in 2016 election and creation of Russiagate
witch hunt.
There is something in the USA that creates conditions for producing rabid female neocons, some elevator that brings ruthless female
careerists with sharp elbows them to the establishment. She sounds like a person to the right of Madeline Albright, which is an achievement
With such books It is unclear whether she is different from Max Boot. She buys official Skripal story like hook and sinker. The
list of her book looks like produced in UK by Luke Harding
Being miner daughter raised in poverty we can also talk about betrayal of her class and upbringing.
This also rises wisdom of appointing emigrants to the Administration and the extent they pursue policies beneficial for their
native countries.
She testified in public before the same body on November 21, 2019. [12] While being
questioned by Steve Castor , the counsel for the House Intelligence
Committee's Republican minority, Hill commented on Gordon
Sondland 's involvement in the Ukraine matter: "It struck me when (Wednesday), when you put up on the screen Ambassador Sondland's
emails, and who was on these emails, and he said these are the people who need to know, that he was absolutely right," she said.
"Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And
those two things had just diverged." [13] In response
to a question from that committee's chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff
, Hill stated: "The Russians' interests are frankly to delegitimize our entire presidency. The goal of the Russians [in 2016]
was really to put whoever became the president -- by trying to tip their hands on one side of the scale -- under a cloud."
[
"... Trump also said that he wants Schiff to testify more than Hunter Biden , and repeated his claim that former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was "not an angel" and that she was speaking poorly of him to others. ..."
"... Trump repeated the claim that the hacked DNC server was given to Crowdstrike, "a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian." ..."
Bring It On! Trump Wants Senate Trial 'Of Some Length' If House Impeaches by Tyler Durden Fri, 11/22/2019 -
10:40 0 SHARES
After two weeks of public testimony revealed that Democrats' impeachment case against
President Donald Trump is largely made up of hurt feelings and foreign policy disagreements ,
the White House and allies say Trump is looking forward to a 'trial of some length' in the
Senate if the House votes to impeach so he can expose what a flimsy case has been built against
him.
"He wants to be able to bring up witnesses like Adam Schiff, like the whistleblower, like
Hunter Biden, like Joe Biden, " said Hogan Gidley, principal deputy press secretary for the
White House.
Trump spent much of Thursday and Friday tweeting highlights from recent impeachment
testimony:
On Thursday morning, a group of Republican senators met with White House counsel Pat
Cipollone, Kellyanne Conway, Jared Kushner and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to discuss
strategy for a potential Senate trial which would likely take place in January, according to
Politico .
Two attendees said that the White House wants the Senate to hold a trial of some length
and not immediately dismiss any articles of impeachment with the GOP's majority, as some
Republicans have suggested.
The White House and Trump's GOP allies decided instead "they want some kind of factual
affirmative defense on the merits , " said one attendee.
One attendee noted that the White House wants to show a commitment to due process,
particularly since Republicans have criticized House Democrats for how they've conducted
their impeachment proceedings.
... ... ...
A White House official said the meeting "wasn't so much about the details, it was about
the Democrats' weak case and we want to show just how weak it is ." -
Politico
President Trump, meanwhile, has been tweeting and retweeting highlights from the last week -
and spent nearly an hour with Fox and Friends on Friday where he said he knows "exactly" who
the
Ukraine whistleblower is . Trump also said that he wants Schiff to testify more than
Hunter Biden , and repeated his claim that former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was "not
an angel" and that she was speaking poorly of him to others.
Trump also praised Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) for her performance during the public
impeachment hearings (23:40 in video above), as well as Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) - tweeting and
retweeting clips related to Schiff's hearings.
"... Ukraine is the largest nation in Europe, with a 1400 mile land border with Russia. The U.S. government under administrations since Bill Clinton's has sought to integrate Ukraine into the anti-Russian NATO military alliance. ..."
"... NATO forces were never deployed against Soviet or Warsaw Pact forces during the Cold War. But Clinton (prompted by bellicose Hillary) used them to pound Serbian positions in Bosnia in the 1990s and to bomb Belgrade during the 1999 war to sever Kosovo from Serbia and convert it into a NATO base. ..."
"... For NATO strategists and supporters, Ukraine is the ultimate prize. ..."
"... After the coup of February 18-21, 2014, Aseniy Yatsenyuk, handpicked by Nuland, became prime minister ..."
"... After the February 2014 coup (depicted in the western press as a "revolution" toppling a "pro-Russian" leader), Ukraine informally joined the U.S. imperialist camp ..."
"... There is, in fact, no formal alliance, but Ukraine is now depicted as an ally, indeed one in desperate need of U.S. arms to resist the Russian invasion. ..."
Ukraine is the largest nation in Europe, with a 1400 mile land border with Russia. The U.S. government under administrations
since Bill Clinton's has sought to integrate Ukraine into the anti-Russian NATO military alliance.
NATO is an artifact of the early Cold War and the Truman Doctrine, vowing any means necessary to stop the spread of Communism.
Founded in 1949, when the U.S. ruled most of the world, it included most of the countries of Europe except for those liberated
from Nazism by the Soviets, including Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, and Yugoslavia and Albania where
anti-fascist partisans seized power.
After the dissolution of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact (a defense alliance formed in 1956 after West Germany was included in
NATO) in 1990, and the full restoration of capitalism to the countries of the former Soviet Union, there was no ideological east-west
conflict or another rationale to maintain the NATO alliance. It gradually redefined its mission as "maintaining stability" in
the post-Soviet era, in the wake of ethnic conflicts across Eurasia, and "counter-terrorism." Later "humanitarian" missions were
added.
In 1989 President George W. Bush promised Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev that, following the reunification of
Germany with Moscow's assent, NATO would not "move one inch" eastwards. But while Bill Clinton was president in 1999, Poland,
Hungary and Czechoslovakia joined the alliance. Under Bush's son, in 2004, the list grew: Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia all joined. NATO now bordered Russia itself. Obama added Albania and Croatia. Under Trump, Montenegro
joined and North Macedonian entry is in the cards. The U.S. is obviously trying to incorporate every European nation possible
into an anti-Russian coalition for future deployment.
NATO forces were never deployed against Soviet or Warsaw Pact forces during the Cold War. But Clinton (prompted by bellicose
Hillary) used them to pound Serbian positions in Bosnia in the 1990s and to bomb Belgrade during the 1999 war to sever Kosovo
from Serbia and convert it into a NATO base. (In both instances Clinton claimed "humanitarian" motives.) They were used too
in Afghanistan and Libya, far away from the North Atlantic, at U.S. direction to topple the Taliban, thereby producing an ongoing
insurgency, and to destroy Gadhafi's modern state of Libya. They are not a force of good in the world.
Russia has responded, angrily but cautiously, to NATO's incessant, inexplicable expansion. The three crucial moments have
been in 1999, when Russian troops rushed to Pristina Airport in Kosovo to preserve some national pride following the expansion
of NATO and the U.S. humiliation of the Serbs; in 2008 when Russia briefly invaded Georgia to punish it for attacks on South Ossetia
(and its just announced pursuit of NATO membership); and in 2014 when in response to the U.S.-backed Kiev putsch Moscow moved
to secure ongoing control of the Crimean Peninsula. These were obviously moves to discourage NATO expansion.
For NATO strategists and supporters, Ukraine is the ultimate prize. (Thereafter only Belarus and Georgia need absorption.)
It is still slated for NATO membership; this year its Secretary General Jens Soltenberg reiterated this commitment in Kiev. It
remains the position of the U.S. that both Ukraine and Georgia should join NATO. The German government on the other hand, far
more sensitive to the historical issues involved, notes that Ukrainian or Georgian membership would "cross a red line" with Russia.
The Ukrainian people are divided on the issue. It is good if the Germans and others can block bloc expansion.
From February 2010 to February 2014, Ukraine was headed by a democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, who opposed
NATO membership . He had been elected despite routine U.S. election meddling. He has been depicted in the U.S. press as "pro-Russian"
and opposed to Ukraine's membership in the European Union. In fact, he sought entry into the EU, using his U.S. aide Paul Manafort
towards that end, and backed out of an agreement after realizing the political costs of the austerity program required. He was
"pro-Russian" in that he is ethnic Russian in a multi-ethnic country, and was while in power inclined to maintain good relations
with the northern neighbor. He was targeted by Hillary Clinton appointee Victoria Nuland (wife of neocon warmonger Robert Kagan)
for removal. He was charged with denying the Ukrainian people's "European aspirations" -- meaning, he was resisting an association
with the EU (and NATO).
He was indeed overthrown, succeeded by an new regime that provoked revolt among the ethnic Russians in the east from the outset.
The U.S. attempt to install a regime that could quickly align with the west, joining the EU and NATO as the usual package, resulted
in civil conflict and the Russian re-annexation of Crimea. Finally, the NATO effort to dominate Eurasia met a snag when the Russians
said: No way we'll concede to you the base port of the Black Sea Fleet since Empress Catherine's time, in 1785.
After the coup of February 18-21, 2014, Aseniy Yatsenyuk, handpicked by Nuland, became prime minister. Russia refused
to recognize the government he headed, stacked with NATO supporters. Only when Ukraine held a presidential election, and a candidate
acceptable to Moscow, Petro Poroshenko, was elected, did the Russians actively engage in diplomacy with Kiev. The result is the
Minsk Accords and an ongoing process of negotiations between Kiev, the Donbas separatists, Moscow, Germany and France. The key
issue of Donbas autonomy as a precondition for peace has met with opposition in the parliament but since the election of Volodomir
Zelensky, there have been concrete moves towards peace. Not that there has been much heavy fighting since 2015. Russia and Ukraine
are working with Europe to find a solution. It would be good for the U.S. to avoid interfering.
After the February 2014 coup (depicted in the western press as a "revolution" toppling a "pro-Russian" leader), Ukraine
informally joined the U.S. imperialist camp. There is, in fact, no formal alliance, but Ukraine is now depicted as an
ally, indeed one in desperate need of U.S. arms to resist the Russian invasion. But there has been no real Russian invasion,
just lots of hype; nowadays the talking heads refer to "Russian-backed" forces in Ukraine, referring to ethnic Russian-Ukrainians;
they exploit the general ignorance of people in this country about history and geography and fudge Russians with Russian-Ukrainians
(or sometimes any Slavs). And the annexation of Crimea was bloodless and popularly supported. The provision of $ 380 million in
Javelin anti-tank missiles and other weaponry to the Kiev government is unlikely to contribute to a settlement of the Donbas problem.
***
Amidst all the attention to detail, to phone calls and transcripts and secret visits, those pressing for Trump's impeachment (on
bribery grounds) never discuss the context of this little scandal.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please enter a valid
email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again.
The fact that Ukraine has been hopelessly corrupt since it became independent with the dissolution of the USSR in 1991;
the fact that the U.S. underwrote the 2014 coup;
the fact that Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma Holdings two months after the coup (while his father was the Obama team's
point man on Ukrainian corruption) and served to April 2019;
and most of all, the fact that the U.S. wants to get Ukraine into NATO, surrounding European Russia and grabbing Crimea for
itself.
Trying to acquire dirt on the Bidens by strong-arming a foreign leader, threatening an arms supply cut-off, is bad I suppose,
by definition. But providing arms to stoke a conflict ignited by U.S. interference in Ukraine is worse. Had the U.S. not spent $
5 billion (Nuland's figure) to "support the Ukrainian people's European aspirations;" had John McCain and Lesley Graham not passed
out cookies with Nuland in Maidan; had NATO not declared its intention to include Kiev in the alliance, the east would be quiet as
usual. The coup and immediate rescinding of the law respecting Russian speakers' linguistic rights provoked rebellion.
The Ukraine scandal could be a teaching opportunity: this is where U.S. aggression leads. You provoke Russia again and again,
with each new admission into NATO. At some point, Russia has to take action. It cannot let a Texas-size country on its southern flank
join a military alliance directed at itself. Especially it cannot accept loss of control of the Crimean Peninsula.
That Nuland in the days before the planned coup did not anticipate this Russian reaction is puzzling. Did she really think the
conquest of Ukraine would be so easy? Or did she expect the Russian counter-moves, thinking that once Ukraine was in NATO Russia
would have to back off? Is that still the dominant assumption in the State Department?
Now a president with zero concern about Ukraine and its people is accused of a shocking reluctance to deliver weapons to a country
invaded by Russia, "our greatest adversary" according to cable anchors.
May he be impeached, of course! But if he falls, replaced by leadership more bent on provoking Russia by NATO expansion, the world
will be more dangerous than it is now under Trump.
When wall in Berlin felt down in 1989 some regions in USSR took step ahead and asked Highest soviet to be recognized as autonomous
region (oblast) of USSR instead of being homogenous part of Soviet Republics: Crimea, Karabakh, S Osetia, Podnestria. Reason for
it was that in those regions lived mostly Russians as USSR was developing since 1917. For example Poroshenko's dady was head of
steel mill in Podnestria.
Everything went smooth even thru transformation of USSR to CIS. Belovezha accord was dealing with this issue and all agreed
that they will recognize current status of those regions as Autono omous oblast of USSR until referendum in those regions about
selfdeclaration where they want to be.
But all this were just sweet words that later turned into conflicts because those guys did not keep their words.
As A US citizen who spends about half his time in Ukraine (and I was there during the fictitious "Russian Invasion" of Lugansk
in April 2014) I can attest that every point made in this article is true.
"Massive Pay-For-Play" Soros-Ukraine Scheme Facilitated By US Diplomats
They took all the corruption cases away from the prosecutor general, they gave it to the anti-corruption bureau, and they got
rid of all the cases that offended Soros, and they included all the cases against Soros' enemies
All plans were cooked under obama and continue under hillary. Never thought The Donald will win and nothing but troubles to
the easy massive wealth coming.
This impeachment is becoming a blessing to expose the mob corruption.
7. Ukraine is the ultimate prize...because it allows the spoiled children of Pelosi and Biden and Kerry to redirect US "Aid"
back into the financial interests of their families.
Otherwise, Ukraine is of negative value. Hence, Macron has ruled out Ukraine being brought into the EU until such time as the
EU has solved all of its many issues (ie never).
When actually seeing the historical crime line of the giant octopus absorbtion of countries into NATO..... The conspricy "
theory is fact.
Proof positive of the restructuring of a one world military not ruled by souverign countries but a conglomerate of " untied
Nations" run by ..... Ummmm hold, hold, hold ... Drum roll....
INTERNATIONAL BANKERS:
Who are the ONLY ones who profit from war or "maintaining stabilizers" who stir the pot on both sides for perpetual arms deals
( while urging individual non gun legislatiin for citizens) and weapons manufacturing and of course cyber internet control by
Google search engines.
Author glosses over the UKR Separatists' Declarations of Independence as LNR, DNR, and the Republic of Crimea; and the 3 Breakaway
States' requests to Join the Russian Federation.
Author also forgets to mention Crimea being of Russia until Kruschev's Reassignment; and Clarifying Sevastopolis always being
a Naval Base and City for Moscow.
RUS Annexation of Crimea occured AFTER the Secession and Reunification Votes by Resident Crimeans.
*****Conclusion:
**** Troll Article written by an USA/NATO/EU/UKR Apologist.
The provision of $ 380 million in Javelin anti-tank missiles and other weaponry to the Kiev government is
..likely to lead to Javelin atms and other ending up enriching corrupt Ukrainians and their partners Stateside and in the hands
of 3rd world dictators and or America's Muslim Jihadist legions anywhere there's an uncooperative government.
Trying to acquire dirt on the Bidens by strong-arming a foreign leader, threatening an arms supply cut-off, is bad I suppose,
by definition.
I stopped reading right there.
Biden admitted to threatening Ukraine with his own damn mouth. Four (4) DNC hacks have kids getting insane paychecks from Ukraine
for basically nothing more than a skim/bribery flowchart.
Hunter Biden is a crackhead, his father is useless but thinks he will be the next President. What a joke..
No mention, because it has now become irrelevant. Nordstream 2 and Turkstream will deprive the Ukranian government of the several
billion dollars per year in revenue. Of course, the American taxpayer will be asked to make that money up. Dead weight.
And by the way, if they had any gas reserves, they wouldn't be depending on the Russian Federation to pay them transit fees.
They've got that black, productive soil. I'll give them that. But France has pretty productive soil too. No mention of the French
farmer's protest on not being able to sell their crops to the Russian Federation, either.
On November 6, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted a link to a
Breitbart article about Ciaramella and wrote, "Because of course he did!!! Alleged
'Whistleblower' Eric Ciaramella Worked Closely with Anti-Trump Dossier Hoaxer." The tweet led
to anger and the president's son responded, "The entire media is #Triggered that I (a private
citizen) tweeted out a story naming the alleged whistleblower. Are they going to pretend that
his name hasn't been in the public domain for weeks now? Numerous people & news outlets
including Real Clear Politics already ID'd him."
Ciaramella could not be reached for comment by Heavy. The whistleblower's attorneys issued a
statement saying they neither confirm nor deny Ciarmella is the whistleblower. Ciaramella's
father told Real Clear Investigations he doubts his son is the whistleblower, saying, "He
didn't have that kind of access to that kind of information. He's just a guy going to work
every day."
The whistleblower's attorneys and Democrats have fought to keep his identity concealed,
while Trump and his Republican allies have called for him to be identified publicly, saying he
should be questioned about why he came forward and possible political bias because of his
background. The existence of whistleblower complaint regarding Trump's conduct with Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky was first revealed in September.
After Real Clear Investigation's report, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, whose
nationally syndicated show reaches millions of listeners, named Ciaramella on air.
While Fox News has banned its hosts and contributors from mentioning Ciaramella's name,
according to CNN,
one of the network's guests, syndicated radio host Lars Larson, said the name during a segment
on November 7 on "Outnumbered Overtime" with Harris Faulkner. She did not respond or mention
his use of Ciaramella's name.
Mark Zaid and
Andrew Bakaj , the
attorneys who are representing the whistleblower, issued a statement about Ciaramella being
identified as possibly being their client, "Our client is legally entitled to anonymity.
Disclosure of the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower places that
individual and their family in great physical danger. Any physical harm the individual and/or
their family suffers as a result of disclosure means that the individuals and publications
reporting such names will be personally liable for that harm. Such behavior is at the pinnacle
of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless."
Zaid and Bakaj issued an additional statement after Trump Jr.'s tweet, saying, "We will
note, however, that publication or promotion of a name shows the desperation to deflect from
the substance of the whistleblower complaint. It will not relieve the president of the need to
address the substantive allegations, all of which have been substantially proven to be
true."
According to the Washington Examiner , Ciaramella is currently detailed by the CIA to the
National Intelligence Committee, where he works as a deputy national intelligence officer for
Russia and Eurasia. He reports to Trump's acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire . He likely
works closely with Alexander Vindman, the impeachment inquiry witness who is now Ukraine
director for the NSC, Ciaramella's former role.
A former Trump official told the Examiner, "It is close to a mathematical certainty that
(Vindman and the whistleblower) know one another and that (the whistleblower) is being used to
provide analytical support to the National Security Council on the topics of Russia and
Ukraine. And that is where they would have crossed paths. They would know who one another are."
Another former Trump official said Vindman and Ciaramella both spent time at the U.S. Embassy
in Ukraine during the Obama administration. And they have both been working on Ukraine issues
for several years.
Vindman said during his Congressional deposition, "I want the committee to know I am not the
whistleblower who brought this issue to the CIA and the committee's attention. I do not know
who the whistleblower is, and I would not feel comfortable to speculate as to the identity of
the whistleblower." Vindman testified that he listened in on the July 25 call at question in
the impeachment inquiry and was concerned. ""I was concerned by the call. I did not think it
was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried
about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine," he testified.
Here's what you need to know about Eric Ciaramella:
1. Ciaramella Is a Ukraine Expert for the CIA Whose Background Matches Details About the
Whistleblower Previously Reported by The New York Times
Eric Ciaramella, 33, is a Ukraine expert and his background matches the biographical details
reported
by The New York Times and other media outlets about the whistleblower. According to The
Times, the whistleblower is a CIA officer who was detailed to work at the White House before
returning to the CIA. The Times wrote, "His complaint suggested he was an analyst by training
and made clear he was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe,
demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge
of the law."
The whistleblower raised concerns that Trump had asked Zelensky during a July 2019 phone
call to investigate former Vice President and current Democratic presidential candidate
Joe Biden , and his son,
Hunter Biden . Trump
is accused of forcing a quid pro quo in which aid to Ukraine would only be released if an
investigation was launched.
In September, after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment, a redacted
version of the whistleblower's complaint and a summary of Trump's call with Zelensky were made
public. The complaint revealed that the whistleblower was not on the call, but learned of
concerning information from others with direct knowledge about it.
"The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had
transpired in the phone call. They told me that there was already a 'discussion ongoing' with
White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the officials'
retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain," the
whistleblower wrote.
In the weeks since, several current and former State Department and other government
officials have testified behind closed doors before House committees, with many providing
verification of the whistleblower's claims, according to multiple reports. Sources told Real
Clear Investigations that Ciaramella's name has been mentioned as the whistleblower during the
closed-door testimony.
Ciaramella has worked for the Central Intelligence Agency for several years and was assigned
to the White House during the end of the Obama administration. He worked closely with Biden in
his role as an expert on Ukraine. Ciaramella also has ties to Sean Misko, a former NSC
co-worker who now works for Representative Adam Schiff and the Intelligence Committee.
According to
The New York Times , the whistleblower first went to a CIA lawyer and then to an unnamed
Schiff aide before filing the whistleblower complaint. The aide told the whistleblower to
follow the formal process, but conveyed some of the information he learned from him to Schiff,
without revealing his name, The Times reported.
"Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and
Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on
how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community," said
Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Schiff, told The Times.
The whistleblower's ties to Democrats, including Biden, Schiff, former CIA Director John
Brennan, former Director of Intelligence James Clapper and former National Security Adviser
Susan Rice, have created controversy, with Trump and Republicans using his past work with them
in an attempt to discredit him. Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert told a local radio station in his
home state of Texas that many in Washington D.C. knew the whistleblower's identity, calling him
a "staunch Democrat," and former "point person on Ukraine," who never called out corruption in
the Eastern European country.
Ciaramella has been in the crosshairs of Republicans previously, after some on the far right
tied him to the Obama-associated "deep state" in 2017, accusing him of undermining Trump while
he was working in the White House.
The whistleblower's attorneys have received more than $220,000 in donations to a
GoFundMe campaign set up by the group Whistleblower Aid in support of his attorneys, Mark
Zaid and Andrew Bakaj.
"A U.S. intelligence officer who filed an urgent report of government misconduct needs your
help. This brave individual took an oath to protect and defend our Constitution. We're working
with the whistleblower and launched a crowdfunding effort to support the whistleblower's
lawyers," the GoFundMe states. "These whistleblowers took great personal risks, not for
politics or personal gain, but to defend our democracy. We need to have their backs."
The GoFundMe adds, "If we raise more than we need, Whistleblower Aid will use the money to
help more brave whistleblowers stand up to executive overreach."
2. Eric Ciaramella Grew Up in Connecticut,
Eric Ciaramella.
Eric Ciaramella grew up in Prospect, Connecticut, as one of three children. He spent time
attending Woodland Regional High School in Beacon Falls, Connecticut, and then graduated from
Chase Collegiate School, in Waterbury, Connecticut, in 2004, according to the prep school's
alumni magazine.
After high school, Ciaramella attended Yale University, graduating in 2008 as a Russian and
East European studies major. In 2007, he was awarded a grant by the Yale Macmillan Center
for European Union Studies to "research on the perceptions of the EU among rural Italian
residents."
While at Yale, Ciaramella, who speaks Russian, Ukrainian and Arabic, led a protest over the
departure of an Arabic department professor, according
to the Yale Daily News. The student newspaper wrote, "Students convened outside Silliman at
9 a.m., all dressed in white to symbolize their future goal of bridging the gap between the
United States and the Middle East through the use of the Arab language, said Eric Ciaramella
'08, one of the students who led the protest."
Ciaramella also studied at Harvard University, focusing on Russia, Eastern Europe, Central
Asia, according to the school's website. He
received a grant in 2009 for research on "Language in the Public Sphere in Three
Post-Soviet Capital Cities," Tbilisi, Georgia; Yerevan, Armenia; Baku, Azerbaijan. Ciaramella
was additionally a corresponding author for Harvard's Department of Linguistics and wrote a
paper in 2015 titled, "Structural ambiguity in the Georgian verbal noun."
Ciaramella worked at the World Bank after college,
according to a 2011 publication by the international financial institution. In the World
Bank report, "Russia: Reshaping Economic Geography," published in June 2011, Ciaramella is
listed in the acknowledgments for making "important contributions" to the research. On a
now-deleted Linkedin profile, he described himself as being a "Consultant, Poverty
Reduction/Economic Management" at World Bank. Ciaramella also deleted his Facebook profile page
and does not appear to have any other social media.
Public records show that Ciaramella was a registered Democrat while he lived in Connecticut.
According
to CNN , the inspector general for the intelligence committee mentioned and dismissed
concerns about political bias because the whistleblower is registered as a Democrat.
Inspector General Michael Atkinson wrote, "Further although the ICIG's preliminary reviewed
identified some indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in
favor of a rival political candidate, such evidence did not change my determination that the
complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible' particularly given the other
information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review."
Mark Zaid, an attorney for the whistleblower tweeted in response to the story, "We won't
comment on identifying info but if true, give me a break! Bias? Seriously? Most (people) are."
Another attorney for the whistleblower, Andrew Bakaj, told CNN that the whistleblower had
"contact with presidential candidates from both parties in their roles as elected officials --
not as candidates," and said the whistleblower "has never worked for or advised a political
candidate, campaign or party.
3. Ciaramella Was Detailed to the National Security Council at the White House in 2015 After
Joining the CIA as an Analyst Focusing on Ukraine & Russia
Eric Ciaramella joined the Central Intelligence Agency at some point during President
Obama's second term. According to reports by The Washington Post and The New York Times about
the whistleblower, prior to Ciaramella being named, and online records, Ciaramella was detailed
to the White House to serve as a Ukraine expert with the National Security Council in 2015. He
worked under National Security Advisor Susan Rice. The NSC is made up of analysts and staffers
from various intelligence agencies, including the CIA, who are detailed to the White House for
a period of time, before eventually returning to their parent agencies.
During his time with the National Security Council, Ciaramella also worked with then-Vice
President Biden, who was working closely on Ukraine issues at the end of Obama's time in
office. Ciaramella is also
listed as a guest at a 2016 luncheon to honor the prime minister of Italy, along with
Biden.
In November 2015, Ciaramella is named as one of
the officials who attended a White House meeting with Ukrainian religious leaders, along
with his boss, Charles Kupchan . The Ukrainian religious
leaders delivered a letter appealing to President Obama for aid for their country. Ciaramella
is listed as the "NSC Director for Ukraine." That position is now held by Alexander Vindman , a key witness
in the impeachment inquiry, who listened to the call between President Trump and President
Zelensky.
Ciaramella also has ties to former Democratic National Committee operative and opposition
researcher Alexandra Chalupa , a
Ukrainian-American who has been targeted by some conservatives as being behind an effort to
accuse the Trump campaign of Russian collusion. Chalupa, then with the National Democratic
Ethnic Coordinating Committee, was also in attendance at the November 2015 meeting with
Ukrainian religious leaders, according to public records.
While Republicans have accused Chalupa of being a leader of a conspiracy to bring down Trump
with false accusations of collusion with Russia, Democrats have said Chalupa was among the
first to bring forward credible information about wrongdoing by Paul Manafort and the Trump
campaign and say she has been smeared because of that.
4. Ciaramella Remained at the NSC During the Earlier Months of the Trump Administration
& an Email Ciaramella Sent While He Was Still Assigned to NSC Was Cited in the
Getty National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster speaks during a briefing at the White House
on May 16, 2017.
Eric Ciaramella did not leave the National Security Council at the end of the Obama
administration. He remained in place during the first few months of the Trump White House. The
NSC staff was at a barebones level at the time after the resignation of Lt. General Michael
Flynn, who had been Trump's first National Security Adviser. Ciaramella worked on Eastern
European issues along with another Obama administration holdover, Fiona Hil l.
When Lt. General
H.R. McMaster was named Trump's new national security adviser, Ciaramella served as
McMaster's personal aide. In the summer of 2017, Ciaramella returned to the CIA, where he is
still an active employee.
An email sent by Ciaramella while he was still assigned to the NSC was cited as a footnote in
Robert Mueller's report on the Trump investigation. The email was titled "(5/10/17 Email,
Ciaramella to Kelly et al.)," but details of the email are not included in the redacted
report.
Officials who worked with Ciaramella told Foreign Policy he is known for his professionalism
and taking a nonpartisan stance, telling Foreign Policy he is a "seasoned pro" and "one of the
best that the civil service has." His former boss, Charles Kupchan,
told Foreign Policy , Ciaramella is one of the, "worker bees of the federal government.
They want to serve the nation, and they care deeply about the issues they're working on."
Kupchan said Ciaramella was brought in to work on Ukraine, but, "He did such an impressive
job, I asked him to help share the burden on the counter-ISIL portfolio."
Trump administration officials also praised Ciaramella, telling Foreign Policy,""H.R.
thought he did a good job. Everybody was happy with his performance. He wouldn't have been
there if he weren't trusted."
Ciaramella is no stranger to drawing the ire of Trump supporters. He was named by the
far-right as a supposed member of the "deep state" in 2017 and was the subject of baseless
accusations accusing him of leaking information to the media, simply because of his ties to
former members of the Obama administration, including ex-National Security Adviser Susan Rice,
who has often been accused of trying to undermine Trump.
His ties to Rice, Brennan, Clapper and Obama made him an easy target for the right. He was
accused of leaking information to the media about Michael Flynn's conversations with Russian
Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, without any evidence.
Ciaramella was also accused of being a major leaker while working with McMaster. Several
far-right personalities waged an open war on social media and on pro-Trump websites
against McMaster during his time as national security adviser, constantly claiming he was
undermining Trump and had too many former Obama aides on his team. McMaster also worked with
Abigail Grace and Sean Misko, both also Obama holdovers. Grace and Misko are now aides to Rep.
Schiff. McMaster's staffers were frequently accused of being behind
leaks of embarrassing details about Trump's calls to foreign leaders. None of those
accusations were ever proven.
According to a March 2019 article in Politico:
Trump political appointees were believed to frequently talk to journalists who worked for
conservative media outlets. For months, those outlets published names of career Civil and
Foreign Service officers in the NSC and other government agencies whose loyalties they deemed
suspect. Career staffers who had joined the U.S. government many years, sometimes decades,
earlier were suddenly cast as Obama loyalists determined to derail Trump's agenda as part of
a "deep state." The people targeted included a State Department civil servant of Iranian
descent who'd joined the government under the George W. Bush administration; a highly
respected Foreign Service officer who dealt with Israeli issues; and an NSC staffer who dealt
with European and Russian issues. The latter, Eric Ciaramella, reportedly left the NSC after
receiving death threats.
Ciaramella was outed in a Medium article by the far-right figure Mike Cernovich in June
2017, claiming that the former Obama aide wanted to "sabotage" Trump. Foreign Policy
wrote in 2017 , "The piece described Eric Ciaramella as 'pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia' and
alleged, with no evidence, that he was possibly responsible for high-level leaks. Cernovich
wrote, "Nothing in his résumé indicates that Ciaramella will put America First.
His entire life arc indicates he will sabotage Trump and leak information to the press whenever
possible."
The response to the piece included online threats of violence against Ciaramella, which
contributed to his decision to leave his job at the National Security Council a few weeks
early, according to two sources familiar with the situation."
Charles Kupchan, who was the senior director for European Affairs on the NSC, was
Ciaramella's boss for two years during the Obama administration. Kupchan, a key Obama adviser,
told Foreign Policy the alt-right led an "unprecedented" attack on civil servants, calling the
"systematic hostility" against the "deep state" as "misplaced" and "dangerous."
As speculation about whether Eric Ciaramella is the whistleblower spreads online and in
conservative media and circles, elected Republican officials are calling for his identity to be
revealed.
"Well, as far as that particular person, regardless of whether or not he's a whistleblower,
he apparently worked for [former CIA Director John] Brennan. He worked for H.R. McMaster. He
worked for Biden. He was tasked to the National Security Council on Ukraine," Texas Republican
Rep. Louie Gohmert
told the Washington Examiner . "And, gee, sounds like he's got bigger problems than being a
whistleblower, regardless of whether he is or not."
Gohmert mentioned Ciaramella's name, out of the blue, during an open House hearing on
unrelated issues on October 22.
Gohmert was questioning Natalie Jaresko, who is the executive director of a fiscal board
that oversees Puerto Rico's debt, during a House Natural Resources Committee hearing. Jaresko
was previously Ukraine's finance minister. Gohmert asked Jaresko, if, in her previous role, she
was, aware of "Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko dispatching Olga Bielkova or any other
Ukrainian official to the U.S. in order to conduct an influence campaign on the 2016 election
here in the United States?" He then asked, "Are you aware of Ukrainian parliamentarian
Bielkova's April 12 meetings with Liz Zentos and Eric Ciaramella of the Obama National Security
Council?"
North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows told reporters, "I can't tell you what happens in the
depositions, but I can tell you there's one person in one's group of staff members who know who
the whistleblower is and that is Adam Schiff, and so you need to ask him whether this guy is
the real deal."
Senator Rand Paul tweeted, "It is being reported that the whistleblower was Joe Biden's
point man on Ukraine. It is imperative the whistleblower is subpoenaed and asked under oath
about Hunter Biden and corruption."
Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and the former chief of staff for the National Security
Council, told Real Clear Investigations, "Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington
Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president
knows who he is. They're hiding him. They're hiding him because of his political bias."
Democrats have sought to keep the name concealed and have criticized efforts by Republicans
to name the whistleblower. Democratic Rep. David Cicilline, of Rhode Island, tweeted, "If you
spent part of today Tweeting the name of a person you think is the whistleblower, you probably
need to re-evaluate your life."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters it would be "unpatriotic" to reveal the
whistleblower's identity:
Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor turned CNN legal analyst, tweeted, "Today
Trump's allies spread the name of a man they believe is the whistleblower. Some call for his
prosecution. They're ruining the life of a public servant who may not be the right guy. Plus
there's no evidence he did anything wrong. This is so desperate and irresponsible."
This is ******* brilliant. Trump is daring the loser Democrats to impeach him so the
Republicans in charge of the senate can hold their own propaganda filled media campaign.
This one will have 2 huge differences from the senate.
This is ******* brilliant. Trump is daring the loser Democrats to impeach him so the
Republicans in charge of the senate can hold their own propaganda filled media campaign.
This one will have 2 huge differences from the senate.
Trump knows more about politics than all of the Democrats and Republicans combined. Who
else could have
Won the presidency while being outspent over 2 to 1
Prospered while the Deep State and Democrats throw a myriad of smears against him.
Prospered while MSM has 90% coverage against him.
It's the Democrats who know nothing about politics. Otherwise they would have never
started the impeachment nonsense which has only energized Trumps base and ensured his
landslide victory in 2020.
Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade, and Tuesday's testimony before Adam's Schiff
Show by former NSC official Tim Morrison is just such an occasion. In spades!
In his opening statement, this paranoid moron uttered the following lunacy, and it's all you
need to know about what is really going on down in the Imperial City.
"I continue to believe Ukraine is on the
front lines
of a strategic
competition between the West and Vladimir Putin's
revanchist Russia
. Russia is
a failing power, but it is still a dangerous one.
The United States aids Ukraine and her
people so they can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here.
Folks, that just plain whacko.
The Trump-hating Dems are so feverishly set on a
POTUS kill that they have enlisted a veritable posse of Russophobic, right-wing neocon cretins –
Morrison, Taylor, Kent, Vindman, among others – to finish off the Donald.
But in so doing they have made official Washington's real beef against Trump crystal clear; and
it's not about the rule of law or abuse of presidential power or an impeachable dereliction of
duty.
To be sure, foolish politicians like Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the Clintonista
apparatus at the center of the Dem party are so overcome with inconsolable grief and anger about
losing the 2016 election to Trump that their sole purpose in life is to drive the Donald from
office. But that just makes them "useful idiots" or compliant handmaids of the Deep State, which
has a far more encompassing and consequential motivation.
To wit, whether out of naiveté, contrariness or just plain common sense, the Donald has declined
to embrace the War Party's Russian bogeyman and demonization of Putin. He thereby threatens the
Empire's raison d'être to the very core.
Indeed, that's the real reason for the whole concerted attack on Trump from the Russian
Collusion hoax, through the Mueller Investigation farce to the present UkraineGate and impeachment
inquisition. The Deep State deeply and profoundly fears that if Trump remains in office – and
especially if he is elected with a new mandate in 2020 – he might actually make peace with Russia
and Putin.
So in Part 1 we advert to the basics. Without the demonization of Russia, Ukraine
would be the no count failed state and cesspool of corruption it actually is, and not a purported
"front line" buffer against Russian aggression.
Likewise, it would not have been a recipient of vast US and western military and economic aid –
a condition that turned it into a honeypot for the kind of Washington influence peddling which
ensnared the Bidens, induced its officials to meddle in the 2016 US election, and, in return,
incited Trump's justifiable quest to get to the bottom of the malignancy that has ensued.
So the starting point is to identify Russia for what it actually is: Namely, a kleptocratic
state sitting atop an aging, Vodka-chugging population and third-rate economy with virtually zero
capacity to project 21st century offensive military power beyond its own borders.
That truth, of course, shatters the whole foundation of the Warfare State. It renders
NATO an obsolete relic and eviscerates the case for America's absurd $900 billion defense and
national security budget. And with the latter's demise, the fairest part of Washington's imperial
self-importance and unseemly national security spending-based prosperity would also crumble.
But in their frenzied pursuit of the Donald's political scalp, the Dems may be inadvertently
sabotaging their Deep State masters. That's because the neocon knuckleheads they are dragging out
of the NSC and State Department woodwork are such bellicose simpletons – just maybe their utterly
preposterous testimony about the Russkie threat and Ukrainian "front line" will wake up the
somnolent American public to the absurdity of the entire Cold War 2.0 campaign.
Indeed, you almost have to ask whether the bit about fighting the Russkies in the Donbas rather
than on the shores of New Jersey from Morrison's opening statement quoted above was reprinted in
the
New York Times
or
The
Onion
?
The fact is, the fearsome Russian bogeyman cited by Morrison yesterday – and Ambassador
Taylor, George Kent and Lt. Colonel Vindman previously – is a complete chimera;
and the
notion that the cesspool of corruption in Ukraine is a strategic buffer against Russian aggression
is just plain idiocy.
Russia is actually an economic and industrial midget transformed beyond recognition by
relentless Warfare State propaganda. It is actually no more threatening to America's homeland
security than the Siberian land mass that Sarah Palin once espied from her front porch in Alaska a
decade ago.
After all, how could it be? The the GDP of the New York City metro area alone is about $1.8
trillion, which is well more than Russia's 2018 GDP of $1.66 trillion. And that, in turn, is just
8% of America's total GDP of $21.5 trillion.
Moreover, Russia' dwarf economy is composed largely of a vast oil and gas patch; a multitude of
nickel, copper, bauxite and vanadium mines; and some very large swatches of wheat fields. That's
not exactly the kind of high tech industrial platform on which a war machine capable of threatening
the good folks in Lincoln NE or Worchester MA is likely to be erected.
And especially not when the Russian economy has been heading sharply south in dollar purchasing
terms for several years running.
GDP of Russia In Millions of USD
Indeed, in terms of manufacturing output, the comparison is just as stark. Russia's annual
manufacturing value added is currently about
$200 billion
compared to
$2.2
trillion
for the US economy.
And that's not the half of it. Not only are Russia's vast hydrocarbon deposits and mines likely
to give out in the years ahead, but so are the livers of its Vodka-chugging work force. That's a
problem because according to a recent Brookings study, Russia's working age population – even
supplemented by substantial in-migration and guest worker programs – is heading south as far into
the future as the eye can see.
Even in the Brookings medium case projection shown below, Russia's working age population will
be nearly 20% smaller than today by 2050. Yet today's figure of about 85 million is already just a
fraction of the US working age population of 255 million.
Russia's Shrinking Work Force
Not surprisingly, Russia's pint-sized economy can not support a military establishment anywhere
near to that of Imperial Washington. To wit, its
$61 billion
of military
outlays in 2018 amounted to less than
32 days
of Washington's current
$750 billion of expenditures for defense.
Indeed, it might well be asked how Russia could remotely threaten homeland security in America
short of what would be a suicidal nuclear first strike.
That's because the 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons on each side represent a continuation of
mutual deterrence (MAD) – the arrangement by which we we got through 45-years of cold war when the
Kremlin was run by a totalitarian oligarchy committed to a hostile ideology; and during which time
it had been armed to the teeth via a forced-draft allocation of upwards of 40% of the GDP of the
Soviet empire to the military.
By comparison, the Russian defense budget currently amounts to less than 4% of the country's
anemic present day economy – one shorn of the vast territories and populations of Belarus, Ukraine,
Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and all the Asian "stans" among others. Yet given those realities
we are supposed to believe that the self-evidently calculating and cautious kleptomaniac who runs
the Kremlin is going to go mad, defy MAD and trigger a nuclear Armageddon?
Indeed, the idea that Russia presents a national security threat to America is laughable. Not
only would Putin never risk nuclear suicide, but even that fantasy is the extent of what he's got.
That is, Russia's conventional capacity to project force to the North American continent is
nonexistent – or at best, lies somewhere between nichts and nothing.
For example, in today's world you do not invade any foreign continent without massive sea power
projection capacity in the form of aircraft carrier strike groups. These units consist of an armada
of lethal escort ships, a fleet of aircraft, massive suites of electronics warfare capability and
the ability to launch hundreds of cruise missiles and other smart weapons.
Each US aircraft carrier based strike group, in fact, is composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, at
least one cruiser, a squadron of destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70
aircraft. A carrier strike group also sometimes includes submarines and attached logistics ships.
The US has
eleven
such carrier strike groups. Russia has
zero
modern
carrier strike groups and one beat-up, smoky old (diesel) aircraft carrier that the Israeli paper,
Haaretz, described as follows when it recently entered the Mediterranean:
Russia's only aircraft carrier, a leftover from the days of Soviet power, carries a long
history of mishaps, at sea and in port, and diesel engines which were built for Russia's cold
waters – as shown by the column of black smoke raising above it. It needs frequent refueling and
resupplies and has never been operationally tested.
Indeed, from our 19th floor apartment on the East River in NYC, even we could see this smoke
belcher coming up Long Island Sound with an unaided eye – with no help needed at all from the high
tech spyware of the nation's $80 billion intelligence apparatus.
Yet Morrison had the audacity to say before a committee of the U.S. House that we are
aiding Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russians on the banks of the East River or the Potomac!
For want of doubt, just compare the above image of the Admiral Kuznetsov belching smoke in the
Mediterranean with that of the Gerald R. Ford CVN 48 next below.
The latter is the US Navy's new $13 billion aircraft carrier and is the most technologically
advanced warship ever built.
The contrast shown below serves as a proxy for the vastly inferior capability of the
limited number of ships and planes in Russia's conventional force. What it does have numerical
superiority in is tanks – but alas they are not amphibious nor ocean-capable!
Likewise, nobody invades anybody without massive airpower and the ability to project it across
thousands of miles of oceans via vast logistics and air-refueling capabilities.
On that score, the US has 6,100 helicopters to Russia's 1,200 and 6,000 fixed wing fighter and
attack aircraft versus Russia's 2,100. More importantly, the US has 5,700 transport and airlift
aircraft compared to just 1,100 for Russia.
In short, the idea that Russia is a military threat to the US homeland is ludicrous. Russia is
essentially a landlocked military shadow of the former Soviet war machine. Indeed, for the world's
only globe-spanning imperial power to remonstrate about an aggressive threat from Moscow is a prime
facie case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Moreover, the canard that Washington's massive conventional armada is needed to defend
Europe is risible nonsense. Europe can and should take care of its own security and relationship
with its neighbor on the Eurasian continent.
After all, the GDP of NATO Europe is $18 trillion or 12X greater than that of Russia, and the
current military budgets of European NATO members total about $280 billion or 4X more than that of
Russia.
More importantly, the European nations and people really do not have any quarrel with Putin's
Russia, nor is their security and safety threatened by the latter. All of the tensions that do
exist and have come to a head since the illegal coup in Kiev in February 2014 were fomented by
Imperial Washington and its European subalterns in the NATO machinery.
Then again, the latter is absolutely the most useless, obsolete, wasteful and dangerous
multilateral institution in the present world. But like the proverbial clothes-less emperor, NATO
doesn't dare risk having the purportedly "uninformed" amateur in the Oval Office pointing out its
buck naked behind.
So the NATO subservient think tanks and establishment policy apparatchiks are harrumphing up a
storm, but for crying out loud most of Europe's elected politicians are in on the joke. They are
fiscally swamped paying for their Welfare States and are not about to squeeze their budgets or
taxpayers to fund military muscle against a nonexistent threat.
Finally an American president has woken up to the fact that World War II, not to
mention the cold war, is over: there's no need for US troops to occupy Germany.
Vladimir Putin isn't going to march into Berlin in a reenactment of the Red Army
taking the Fuehrer-bunker – but even if he were so inclined, why won't Germany defend itself?
Exactly. If their history proves anything, Germans are not a nation of pacifists, meekly willing
to bend-over in the face of real aggressors. Yet they spent the paltry sum of
$43
billion
on defense during 2018, or barely 1.1% of Germany's $4.0 trillion GDP, which
happens to be roughly three times bigger than Russia's.
In short, the policy action of the German government tells you they don't think Putin is
about to invade the Rhineland or retake the Brandenburg Gate.
And this live action testimonial also trumps, as it were, all of the risible alarms that have
emanated from the beltway think tanks and the 4,000 NATO bureaucrats talking their own book in
behalf of their plush Brussels sinecures.
And as we will outline in Part 2, that's what Washington's Ukraine intervention is all
about, and why the Donald's efforts to get to the bottom of that cesspool has brought on the final
Deep State assault against his presidency.
Part 2 -
Democrats Empower a Pack of Paranoid Neocon Morons
Yet his related claim that Ukraine is a victim of Russian aggression is even more ludicrous. The
actual aggression in that godforsaken corner of the planet came from Washington when it instigated,
funded, engineered and recognized the putsch on the streets of Kiev during February 2014, which
illegally overthrew the duly elected President of Ukraine on the grounds that he was too friendly
with Moscow.
Thus, Morrison risibly asserted that,
Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty has been a bipartisan
objective since
Russia's military invasion in 2014
. It must continue to be.
The fact is, when the Maidan uprising occurred in February that year there were no
uninvited Russian troops anywhere in Ukraine.
Putin was actually sitting in his box on the
viewing stand, presiding over the Winter Olympics in Sochi and basking in the limelight of global
attention that they commanded.
It was only weeks later – when the Washington-installed ultra-nationalist government
with its neo-Nazi vanguard threatened the Russian-speaking populations of Crimea and the Donbas –
that Putin moved to defend Russian interests on his own doorstep.
And those interests
included Russia's primary national security asset – the naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea which
had been the homeport of the Russian Black Sea Fleet for centuries under czars and commissars
alike, and on which Russia had a long-term lease.
We untangle the truth of the crucial events which surrounded the Kiev putsch in greater detail
below, but suffice it here to note the whole gang of neocon apparatchiks which have been paraded
before the Schiff Show have proffered the same Big Lie as did Morrison in the "invasion" quote
cited above.
As the ever perspicacious Robert Merry observed regarding the previous testimony of Ambassador
Bill Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, the Washington rendition of the
Maidan coup and its aftermath amounts to a blatant falsehood:
The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that dominates
thinking within elite circles. Taylor's rendition of recent events in Ukraine was so one-sided
and
selective as to amount to a falsehood.
As he had it, Ukraine's turn to the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his
first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an extent that he tried
to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence, whereupon protests
emerged in Kyiv that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country in 2014. Then Putin
invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point of Russian army rifles." Putin sent
military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed formations and puppet
governments." And so the West extended military assistance to Ukraine.
"It is this security assistance," he said, "that is at the heart of the [impeachment]
controversy that we are discussing today."
Taylor's right that this narrative is at the center of UkraineGate, but there is not a shred of
truth to it. Nevertheless, defense of this false narrative, and the inappropriate military and
economic aid to Ukraine which flowed from it, is the real reason this posse of neocon stooges took
exception to the Donald's legitimate interest in investigating the Bidens and the events of 2016.
As Morrison put it Tuesday and Vindman said last week, their interest was in protecting not the
constitution and the rule of law, but the
bipartisan political consensus
on
Capitol Hill in favor of their proxy war on Putin and the Ukraine aid package through which it was
being prosecuted.
As I stated during my deposition, I feared at the time of the call on July 25 how its
disclosure would play in Washington's political climate. My fears have been realized.
Not surprisingly, the entire Washington establishment has been sucked into this scam. For
instance, the insufferably sanctimonious Peggy Noonan used her
Wall Street Journal
platform
to idolize these liars.
As she portrayed it, bow-tie bedecked George P. Kent appeared to be the very picture of
the old-school American foreign service official. And West Pointer Bill Taylor – with a military
career going back to (dubious) Vietnam heroism – was redolent of the blunt-spoken American military
men who won WW II and the cold war which followed.
As Robert Merry further noted,
She saw them as "the old America reasserting itself." They demonstrated "stature and
command of their subject matter."
They evinced "capability and integrity."
Oh, puleeze!
What they evinced was nothing more than the self-serving groupthink that has turned Ukraine into
a beltway goldmine. That is, a cornucopia of funding for all the think tanks, NGOs, foreign policy
experts, national security contractors and Warfare State agencies – from DOD through the State
Department, AID, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Board for International Broadcasting and
countless more – which ply their trade in the Imperial City.
But Robert Merry got it right. These cats are not noble public servants and heroes; they're
apparatchiks and payrollers aggrandizing their own power and pelf – even as they lead the nation to
the brink of disaster:
But these men embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous.
Perhaps no serious blame should accrue to them, since it is the same
geopolitical outlook embraced and enforced by pretty much the entire foreign policy
establishment, of which these men are mere loyal apparatchiks. And yet they are playing their
part in pushing a foreign policy that is directing America towards a very possible disaster.
Neither man manifested even an inkling of an understanding of what kind of game the
United States in playing with Ukraine. Neither gave even a nod to the long, complex relationship
between Ukraine and Russia. Neither seemed to understand either the substance or the intensity
of Russia's geopolitical interests along its own borders or the likely consequences of
increasing U.S. meddling in what for centuries has been part of Russia's sphere of influence.
They obviously didn't get it, but we must. So let us summarize the true Ukraine story, starting
with the utterly stupid and historically ignorant reason for Washington's February 2014 coup.
Namely, it objected to the decision of Ukraine's prior government in late 2013 to align itself
economically and politically with its historic hegemon in Moscow rather than the European Union and
NATO. Yet the fairly elected and constitutionally legitimate government of Ukraine then led by
Viktor Yanukovych had gone that route mainly because it got a better deal from Moscow than was
being demanded by the fiscal torture artists of the IMF.
Needless to say, the ensuing US sponsored putsch arising from the mobs on the street of Kiev
reopened deep national wounds. Ukraine's bitter divide between Russian-speakers in the east and
Ukrainian nationalists elsewhere dates back to Stalin's brutal rein in Ukraine during the 1930s and
Ukrainian collusion with Hitler's Wehrmacht on its way to Stalingrad and back during the 1940s.
It was the memory of the latter nightmare, in fact, which triggered the fear-driven outbreak of
Russian separatism in the Donbas and the 96% referendum vote in Crimea in March 2014 to formally
re-affiliate
with Mother Russia.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of
must-read stories.
Please enter a valid email
Thank you for subscribing!
Something went wrong. Please refresh and try
again.
In this context, even a passing familiarity with Russian history and geography would remind that
Ukraine and Crimea are Moscow's business, not Washington's.
In the first place, there is nothing at stake in the Ukraine that matters. During the
last 800 years it has been a meandering set of borders in search of a country.
In fact, the intervals in which the Ukraine existed as an independent nation have been few and
far between. Invariably, its rulers, petty potentates and corrupt politicians made deals with or
surrendered to every outside power that came along.
These included the Lithuanians, Poles, Ruthenians (eastern Slavs), Tartars, Turks, Muscovites,
Austrians and Czars, among manifold others.
At the beginning of the 16th century, for instance, the territory of today's Ukraine was
scattered largely among the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia (light brown area), the Kingdom
of Poland (dark brown area), Muscovy (bright yellow area) the Crimean Khanate (light yellow area).
The latter was the entity which emerged when some clans of the Golden Horde (Tartars) ceased
their nomadic life on the Asian steppes and occupied the light yellow stripped areas of the map
north of the Black Sea as their Yurt (homeland).
From that cold start, the tiny Cossack principality of Ukraine (blue area below), which had
emerged by 1654, grew significantly over the subsequent three centuries. But as the map also makes
clear, this did not reflect the organic congealment of a nation of kindred volk sharing common
linguistic and ethnic roots, but the machinations of Czars and Commissars for the administrative
convenience of efficiently ruling their conquests and vassals.
Thus, much of modern Ukraine was incorporated by the Russian Czars between 1654 and 1917 per the
yellow area of the map and functioned as vassal states. These territories were amalgamated by
absolute monarchs who ruled by the mandate of God and the often brutal sword of their own armies.
In particular, much of the purple area was known as "Novo Russia" (Novorossiya) during the 18th
and 19th century owing to the Czarist policy of relocating
Russian populations
to
the north of the Black Sea as a bulwark against the Ottomans. But after Lenin seized power in St.
Petersburg in November 1917 amidst the wreckage of Czarist Russia, an ensuing civil war between the
so-called White Russians and the Red Bolsheviks raged for several years in these territories and
elsewhere in the chaotic regions of the former western Russian Empire.
At length, Lenin won the civil war as the French, British, Polish and American contingents
vacated the postwar struggle for power in Russia. Accordingly, in 1922 the new Communist rulers
proclaimed the Union of Soviet Social Republics (USSR) and incorporated Novo Russia into one of its
four constituent units as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) – along with the Russian,
Belarus and Transcaucasian SSRs.
Thereafter the border and political status of Ukraine remained unchanged until the infamous
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Pursuant thereto the Red Army
and Nazi Germany invaded and dismembered Poland, with Stalin getting the blue areas (Volhynia and
parts of Galicia) as consolation prizes, which where then incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR.
Finally, when Uncle Joe Stalin died and Nikita Khrushchev won the bloody succession struggle in
1954, he transferred Crimea (red area) to the Ukraine SSR as a reward to his supporters in Kiev.
That, of course, was the arbitrary writ of the Soviet Presidium, given that precious few Ukrainians
actually lived in what had been a integral part of Czarist Russia after it was purchased by
Catherine the Great from the Turks in 1783.
In a word, the borders of modern Ukraine are the handiwork of Czarist emperors and
Communist butchers.
The so-called international rule of law had absolutely nothing to
do with its gestation and upbringing.
It's a pity, therefore, that none of the so-called conservative Republicans attending Adam's
Schiff Show saw fit to ask young Tim Morrison the obvious question.
To wit, exactly why is he (and most of the Washington foreign policy establishment) so
keen on expending American treasure, weapons and even blood in behalf of the "territorial integrity
and sovereignty" of this happenstance amalgamation of people subdued by some of history's most
despicable tyrants?
Needless to say, owing to this very history, the linguistic/ethnic composition of today's
Ukraine does not reflect the congealment of a "nation" in the historic sense.
To the contrary, central and western Ukraine is populated by ethnic Ukrainians who speak
Ukrainian (dark red area), whereas the two parts of the country allegedly the victim of Russian
aggression and occupation – Crimea (brown area) and the eastern Donbas region (yellow area with
brown strips) – are comprised of ethnic Russians who speak Russian and ethnic Ukrainians who
predominately speak-Russian, respectively.
And much of the rest of the territory consists of admixtures and various Romanian, Moldovan,
Hungarian and Bulgarian minorities.
Did the Washington neocons – led by Senator McCain and Assistant Secretary Victoria
Nuland – who triggered the Ukrainian civil war with their coup on the streets of Kiev in February
2014 consider the implications of the map below and its embedded, and often bloody, history?
Quite surely, they did not.
Nor did they consider the rest of the map. That is, the enveloping Russian state all around to
which the parts and pieces of Ukraine – especially the Donbas and Crimea – have been intimately
connected for centuries. Robert Merry thus further noted,
As Nikolas K. Gvosdev of the US Naval War College has written, Russia and Ukraine share a
1,500-mile border where Ukraine "nestles up against the soft underbelly of the Russian
Federation." Gvosdev elaborates: "The worst nightmare of the Russian General Staff would be NATO
forces deployed all along this frontier, which would put the core of Russia's population and
industrial capacity at risk of being quickly and suddenly overrun in the event of any conflict."
Beyond that crucial strategic concern, the two countries share strong economic, trade, cultural,
ethnic, and language ties going back centuries. No Russian leader of any stripe would survive as
leader if he or she were to allow Ukraine to be wrested fully from Russia's sphere of influence.
And yet America, in furtherance of the ultimate aim of pulling Ukraine away from Russia,
spent some $5 billion in a campaign to gin up pro-Western sentiment there, according to former
assistant secretary of state for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who spearheaded much of this
effort during the Obama administration. It was clearly a blatant effort to interfere in the
domestic politics of a foreign nation – and a nation residing in a delicate and easily inflamed
part of the world.
Indeed, Ukraine is a tragically divided country and fissured simulacrum of a nation.
Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard called Ukraine "a cleft country, with two distinct cultures"
causing Robert Merry to rightly observe that,
Contrary to Taylor's false portrayal of an aggressive Russia trampling on eastern
Ukrainians by setting up puppet governments and manufacturing a bogus referendum in Crimea, the
reality is that large numbers of Ukrainians there favor Russia and feel loyalty to what they
consider their Russian heritage. The Crimean public is 70 percent Russian, and its Parliament in
1992 actually voted to declare independence from Ukraine for fear that the national leadership
would nudge the country toward the West. (The vote was later rescinded to avoid a violent
national confrontation.) In 1994, Crimea elected a president who had campaigned on a platform of
"unity with Russia."
In short, in modern times Ukraine largely functioned as an integral part of Mother Russia,
serving as its breadbasket and iron and steel crucible under czars and commissars alike.
Given this history, the idea that Ukraine should be actively and aggressively induced to join NATO
was just plain nuts,
as we will amplify further in Part 3 (to come).
Tags
"In short, in modern times Ukraine largely functioned as an
integral part of Mother Russia, serving as its breadbasket and
iron and steel crucible under czars and commissars alike.
Given
this history, the idea that Ukraine should be actively and
aggressively induced to join NATO was just plain nuts,
as we
will amplify further in Part 3 (to come)."
This seemed like a sensible column until I got to this:
"... identify Russia for what it actually is: Namely, a
kleptocratic state sitting atop an aging, Vodka-chugging
population and third-rate economy with virtually zero capacity to
project 21st century offensive military power beyond its own
borders."
So the starting point is to identify Russia for what it
actually is: Namely, a kleptocratic state sitting atop an
aging, Vodka-chugging population and third-rate economy
Maybe the Russians are normal, intelligent people just trying
to improve themselves and their country. And are interested in
commerce not conquest no matter what their GDP.
Agree with Stockman that the Russian "threat" is a red herring.
But it's not because Russia is the pathological, bankrupt society
that he claims it to be.
Stockman is leftover reaganomics and we all know what that ****
turned out along with Thatcherite **** and Pinochet ****.
Trickle down economics.....but blood and not oligarch's piss
for the thirsting masses that clowns like Stockman and co.
despises..
Deluded as ever imaginging that USSA isn't burned
to the bone.
Stage 1: Financial collapse. Faith in "business as usual"
is lost.
Stage 2: Commercial collapse. Faith that "the market shall
provide" is lost.
Stage 3: Political collapse. Faith that "the government will
take care of you" is lost.
Stage 4: Social collapse. Faith that "your people will take
care of you" is lost.
Stage 5: Cultural collapse. Faith in "the goodness of humanity"
is lost.
Stockman writes the Russia has "virtually zero capacity to project
21st century offensive military power beyond its own borders."
Tell that to the tens of thousands of dead and defeated head
choppers in Syria.
Tell that to the tens of thousands of dead and defeated
head choppers in Syria.
The "head choppers" in Syria were Sunni jihadist lunatics
funded by the United States. The U.S. shoveled thousands of
tons of weapons to those cutthroats. For Washington, regime
change trumped the "collateral damage" slaughter of the Shia,
Alawite, Christian, Druze and Kurdish populations in Syria by
the U.S. proxy Sunni goons.
Here are some Christian communities in Syria celebrating
their holy days after they had been liberated from the U.S.
backed terrorists by the Syrian Army and the Russians:
The Russians are accustomed to survive, they went through too
many wars, their weapons are created for war and to kill. They
are nationalists (although not like the Chinese - without
extremes) and are very attached to their country. Mother Russia
- says a lot. The Americans suffered the last time in
1861-1865, in United States now clan-corporate "capitalism"
with the suppression of free markets and the dominance of
lobbyists whose interests do not coincide with the national
interests of the United States. That's why I stopped respecting
Americans. The irony of fate is that Russians are capitalists
now, and the Americans are now ******* USSR version 2.0.
To which the hunt for the bogeyman will bankrupt us whether it
be Putin, Xi, Kim, Assad buying all these toys many of which
haven't proven to be as reliable as the Russian stuff. Looking
at the Russian GDP cart you see the big fall after the seizure
of Crimea and the subsequent sanctions. Russian as now turned
inward and produces a lot of what was imported from Europe and
those markets will never return to the Europeans. Merkel's
business people are SCREAMING to lift the sanctions as their
economy flounders. Same with many other countries. The trade
war with China has irrevocably hurt our farmers. Russia and
their Jon Deere look-a like combines are now cranking out food
for the world.
The don't have to be huge, they have to be
within budget. Trust me, Russia hasn't found half the minerals
in their lands.
Israel's Secret Plan for a
Second Israel in Ukraine
A secret report provided to the Israeli government by a select
panel of scholars of Jewish history drawn from academia and other
research centers, concluded that that European Jews are in fact
descended from Khazars - Datelined Jerusalem and Zhitomir,
Ukraine, March 16, 2014
One of the main reasons why Ukrainian Jewish billionaire tycoon
Ihor
Kolomoisky
[Zelenskiy's main sponsor], the governor of
Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk province and citizen of Ukraine, Israel,
and Cyprus, is spending tens of millions of dollars on the
recruitment of right-wing Ukrainian nationalists and neo-Nazis
from other parts of Europe to fight against the Russian-speaking
majority in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine, is a fear that
plans to turn Ukraine into a second Israel
will be
derailed.
Russia's protective measures for the Donbass, as well as its
incorporation by referendum of Crimea, the latter prized by the
resurgent Khazarian Jewish nationalists, threaten the
transformation of Ukraine into a second homeland for Ashkenazi
Jews who are finding their hold on Israel prime tenuous, at best."
The Russian economy is based on the ruble, not the dollar.
Therefore, at purchasing power parity, IMF data, 2017 USD
1 PRC 23208
2 USA 19485
3 India 9474
4 Japan 5443
5 Germany 4199
6 Russia 4016
7 Indonesia 3250
8 Brazil 3247
9 United Kingdom 2925 As a result, the growth of the US economy
by 3% is 600 mln. dollars., and debt 1,2trl. dale so what is
growing in an economy like the US?
When I am in Australia, my weekly shopping for food costs me
US$150. In Ukraine or Russia, it is more like US$40. That suggests
that the GDP figures above should be multiplied by 3-5.
I want to remind you of Bill Barr's speech to the Federalist Society a week ago. He made a
specific point about the plot to sabotage
Donald Trump's Presidency :
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
available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration. Now, "resistance" is the language
used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously
connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous – 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 the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means
necessary, a duly elected government.
I believe that Bill Barr intentionally signaled that the sedition by the intelligence
community, the FBI and the Department of Justice will not be allowed to slide. But he is going
to do everything to punish them according to the law. He is committed to a rule of law and
enforcing the laws of this country.
In the late 1990s, Durham was tapped by Bill Clinton's justice department to investigate
Boston police and FBI agents' connections with infamous gangster James "Whitey" Bulger. That
investigation ultimately identified corrupt law enforcement officials who had given the killer
information he then used to kill informants and eventually became a part of the case that led
to Bulger's conviction.
Durham's investigation implicated Robert Mueller. According to knowledgeable sources, the
Clinton Justice Department would not allow Durham to
bring charges against Mueller :
In the 1980's, while Mr. Connolly was working with Whitey Bulger, Mr. Mueller was assistant
United States attorney in Boston in charge of the criminal division and for a period was the
acting United States attorney here, presiding over Mr. Connolly and Mr. Bulger as a
''top-echelon informant.'' Officials of the Massachusetts state police and the Boston Police
Department had long wondered why their investigations of Mr. Bulger were always compromised
before they could gather evidence against him, and they suspected that the F.B.I. was
protecting him.
Law enforcement officials also have said they wondered why the United States attorney's
office seemed to give Mr. Bulger impunity. But hearings by United States District Judge Mark
Wolf in 1998 found that Mr. Connolly had not told his bosses in the United States attorney's
office about his work with Mr. Bulger. In general, Judge Wolf found what he described as a
culture of secrecy in the F.B.I.'s handling of its informants that sometimes subverted the
purpose of the program.
I do not believe that Bill Barr is going to prevent John Durham from following the evidence
and charging those culpable with crimes. I suspect that this fact is weighing heavily on Jim
Comey, Andrew McCabe, John Brennab, Jim Clapper and others in the FBI, DOJ and intelligence
community. We will know more in a month.
The most important outcome is transparency, where the public gets to see the breadth &
depth of the activities including the collusion with the media to shape the narrative and the
use of Congressional committees to further the narrative.
The public needs to be able to read about the entire plot and all the sub-plots and the
cast of characters with the roles each played.
We need this to be able to comprehend the extent of violence to the rule of law by those
entrusted with enforcement of the law and the operation of the nations' intelligence
agencies.
We can judge when Durham is done if Barr's speech to the Federalist Society was just
rhetorical or if he really meant it.
Yes. Agree. Informing the public about the true scale of the operation would be very helpful.
That's the acid question: What will Barr deliver?
Of course if he does that the propaganda organs will unleash their vitriol on him and
claim he is Trump's bag carrier. It's not gonna change the minds of any NeverTrumper. It's
value will be a record for posterity.
It is worth pondering, what about Trump has got so many of the elites so riled up? After
all he is one of them. Bill & Hillary attended his wedding to Melania. He has been
photographed at parties with Epstein and moved in celebrity social circles. He's been more
zionist than others before him and he's fed the MIC handsomely. He's not reformed the
surveillance state one iota. It remains at least as secretive and powerful as before. He's
allowed multinational US corporations to repatriate overseas profits to buyback stock that
financially rewards the managerial class. He's done nothing that attacks elite interests. Is
it just that he beat them at their own game and their egos are bruised? In his first run for
public office he wins the biggest prize by defeating the Bush dynasty and Senators and
Governors long in Republican Party leadership and then the Most sure thing, the so entitled
Clinton machine.
You see similar smear operations on Tulsi too. At least with her one can argue that she
has never been a club member.
"what about Trump has got so many of the elites so riled up?"
I don't think it's that hard to figure out: he's too orange, he's too much of an outsider,
he broke Hillary's dream.
But the real crime was saying that the US should try to get along with Russia.
If he had never said the word "Russia" or "Putin" they'd still hate him but we'd be on the
level of psychiatrists speculating that Twitter makes you crazy or something. And it would
the the dims and their tame presstitutes saying that without the (powerful) back up of the
deepstate/borg/blob
You can't run much of an impeachment circus on POTUS's choice of hair product, but Russia
Russia Russia, that keeps going. He colluded with Putin; OK we can't prove that but he wasn't
exonerated; he weakened brave little Ukraine in its fight against Putin. That's all they've
got.
I did hear Barr's definition of "The Resistance" and was so happy that someone finally
explained how evil that idea is in our Democratic Republic. I was so sick of those smug
people I have met who proudly proclaim their allegiance to "The Resistance," as if they count
themselves equal to the French Resistance in WWII against the Nazis.
My wish is that any of the "Resistance" who have made their living on tax-funded salaries
are ripped out of those positions and placed in tax-funded prison cells. And this time, I
would like it if they would be properly guarded so that they can't escape their shame and
punishment through what will be judged as suicide.
In fact, I might enjoy it if the Smithsonian's National Zoo would add displays of the
Resistors right next to any sort of display of venomous snakes.
(There, I've vented my frustration about how long this process for justice has taken and
for the hours and hours of Adam Schiff on television screens. I am not usually a bitter
person, but this whole episode has taken its toll on many of us who are just mere citizens
and tax payers.)
Among the questions that Larry's contribution begs here, is whether branches of this
investigative trail lead back to Mueller himself. If we believe Durham will follow it to
Whitey Bulger and Mueller's potential involvement in enabling murder, then why not to Uranium
One, and his role in the approval of the sale, the (non)investigation of the bags of cash
changing hands, the contributions to the Clinton Foundation and the Bill Clinton speech in
Moscow for $500,000.
And if there, then why not to Mueller's role in the lead up, and follow up to 911?
Just as important, where is the proof the Russians hacked the DNC computers (hat tip always
to LJ) - since Roger Stone was banned from getting this information by the judge who just
sent him away for life.
CROWDSTRIKE's role in the Democrat impeachment smokescreen needs to keep moving forward
because, it is not going away. Democrats refusal to even mention it, let alone their
obsession trying to relentless label nameless CROWDSTRIKE as a loony, right wing conspiracy
theory simply does not pass the smell test.
Particularly since Schiff does his very best to deep six even mention of Trump's requested
Ukraine CROWDSTRIKE investigation. https://illicitinfo.com/?p=13576
Deep state CROWDSTRIKE collusion is starting to walk like a duck, quack like a duck and
look like a duck.
My bet is that the impeachment circus was started by those Dems who want to get rid of Biden.
So they start a circus where Biden's corruption case is a major issue. Moreover, this forces
Trump to open the evidence against Biden already during the impeachment process, and not only
after Biden winning the primaries.
Great analysis as usual. My comment is on your last line:
"It is beyond me why the Democrats think they can bring Trump down over this."
This is not necessarily about bringing Trump down via impeachment because though almost
certain to be impeached, he is almost as certain to be acquited in the Senate where a 2/3
majority is needed and even if some GOP Senators vote for conviction joining all Dem
Senators, reaching 67 is a tall order.
What then is all this about? It's obviously about the 2020 election and not just the
Presidency but the House and the 35 Senate seats (23 GOP and 12 Dem) up for grabs. This is
for all the marbles. The Dems/anti-Trump GOP have a formidable base made up of the powerful
coastal elites, establishment media and as importantly the so-called deep state in DC, the
bureaucrats in the State Dept/CIA/FBI/DOJ and the courts to back them. The Dems are
struggling to unify against a theme but the impeachment is one thing that's a clear litmus
test and what they will rally around in 2020.
That Trump will be impeached is a near certainty as much as that his conviction in the
Senate will fail. Look for:
- How many Dem Reps vote for impeachment or if those in GOP states flip.
- If any GOP Reps flip to impeachment.
- If any GOP Senators support conviction (almost certainly there are 4 including Mitt
Romney)
Meanwhile the GOP has tricks of its own and the upcoming FISA report due Dec 9 which
apparently will in-effect accuse the Obama admin of 2016 election meddling will be taken up
in the GOP controlled Senate.
Both these dramas will serve as the backdrop for the countdown to the 2020 election in
less than 12 months on Nov 3, 2020.
"... She looked to be a most convincing and dignified victim but it was difficult to work out quite what she'd been a victim of. ..."
"... I think our closest equivalent over here would be Lady Ashton, who headed up the pre-coup European negotiations with the Ukraine. It was Lady Ashton who gave the most famous diplomatic response in modern history, when she was told that the snipers might be provocateurs. "Gosh." ..."
"... And Chairman Schiff looked as scary as usual. If I could open my eyes that wide I'd make a fortune in horror movies. Which I suppose is more or less what he does. ..."
"... Colonel, your description of Ambassador Yovanovitch as "a secular nun" is spot on. Congratulations ! On the other hand, why is a nun continuing a civil war with 1% predatory oligarchs and Bandera thugs on our side, versus 99% of un-armed local nobodies who want a return to normalcy? ..."
"... Lastly, note that Representative Stefanik caught Ambassador Marie in a lie about Hunter Biden and Burisma. Marie claimed under oath that she had never encountered the issue pre-arrival in the Ukraine, while she had admitted earlier that Obama staff coached her about Hunter / Burisma responses for her Senate Confirmation Hearings. ..."
... She seems to live alone, alone with her work. She tried living with her 88 year old mother
three years ago but that did not last. What would the old girl have done with herself in Kiev
with her daughter working all the time?
So, the maman went home to the States. Marie is still employed as a Career Ambassador
(a high rank) in the Foreign Service of of the United States She is currently assigned at
Georgetown U.
That's the first time I've seen "winsome" used with an edge.
I watched her for some time and didn't know what on earth to make of her. She looked to
be a most convincing and dignified victim but it was difficult to work out quite what she'd
been a victim of.
I think our closest equivalent over here would be Lady Ashton, who headed up the
pre-coup European negotiations with the Ukraine. It was Lady Ashton who gave the most famous
diplomatic response in modern history, when she was told that the snipers might be
provocateurs. "Gosh."
A very safe pair of hands, is what would be said of both and almost certainly often
is.
I did know what to make of the histrionics just before the recess. They looked false. That
man wasn't really crying. And Chairman Schiff looked as scary as usual. If I could open my
eyes that wide I'd make a fortune in horror movies. Which I suppose is more or less what he
does.
EO,
Zelensky did not like her and suggested that she was involved with corrupt people and
undermining the President. I don't understand how Trump gets all of the blame for her being
relieved of her position.
Marie IMO was always the second best looking girl in the class but maybe teacher's pet,
and has never had anyone take anything away from her before. "Gosh." She doesn't look like
someone you could safely make a pass at unless you had an awful lot of rank.
Colonel, your description of Ambassador Yovanovitch as "a secular nun" is spot on.
Congratulations ! On the other hand, why is a nun continuing a civil war with 1% predatory
oligarchs and Bandera thugs on our side, versus 99% of un-armed local nobodies who want a
return to normalcy?
Then again, since when does a Presidential emissary not only criticize him and the
President of her host country, but also instruct local law enforcement on which oligarchs he
may investigate and which oligarch's (admittedly ours) he may not.
Lastly, note that Representative Stefanik caught Ambassador Marie in a lie about Hunter
Biden and Burisma. Marie claimed under oath that she had never encountered the issue
pre-arrival in the Ukraine, while she had admitted earlier that Obama staff coached her about
Hunter / Burisma responses for her Senate Confirmation Hearings.
To take your cue, Ambassador Marie is a secular nun with very bad ideas, who wandered to a
profession she is not at all suited.
"... Senator Rand Paul has urged President Trump to shut out neoconservative war hawks from the State Department, as it has emerged that Elliott Abrams , a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, could be appointed to serve in the number two spot. ..."
"... "Elliott Abrams is a neoconservative too long in the tooth to change his spots, and the president should have no reason to trust that he would carry out a Trump agenda rather than a neocon agenda," Paul writes in an opinion piece for the libertarian website Rare . ..."
"... "Congress has good reason not to trust him -- he was convicted of lying to Congress in his previous job," Paul notes in his piece. ..."
"... Abrams is also believed to have been involved in approving the attempted Venezuelan coup against Hugo Chávez in 2002 while serving as Special Assistant to the President and holding office in the National Security Council. ..."
"... It is believed that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is the one pushing for Abrams to join him at the State Department. ..."
Senator
Rand Paul has urged President Trump to shut out neoconservative war hawks from the State
Department, as it has emerged that Elliott Abrams , a senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations, could be appointed to serve in the number two spot.
"Elliott Abrams is a neoconservative too long in the tooth to change his spots, and the
president should have no reason to trust that he would carry out a Trump agenda rather than a
neocon agenda," Paul writes in an opinion piece for the libertarian website
Rare .
Abrams was intimately tied in with the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, and was even
convicted of withholding information from Congress about covert government activities in
Nicaragua and El Salvador. He was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.
"Congress has good reason not to trust him -- he was convicted of lying to Congress in his
previous job," Paul notes in his piece.
Abrams is also believed to have been involved in approving the attempted Venezuelan coup
against Hugo Chávez in 2002 while serving as Special Assistant to the President and
holding office in the National Security Council.
Senator Paul urges Trump not to appoint Abrams, adding that his "neocon agenda trumps his
fidelity to the rule of law."
Paul points out that during the election, Abrams publicly spoke out against Trump's
intention to withdraw from policing the world.
"He is a loud voice for nation building and when asked about the president's opposition to
nation building, Abrams said that Trump was absolutely wrong; and during the election he was
unequivocal in his opposition to Donald Trump, going so far as to say, 'the chair in which
Washington and Lincoln sat, he is not fit to sit,'" Paul writes.
It is believed that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is the one pushing for Abrams to join
him at the State Department.
Paul, a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, hopes Tillerson "will continue the
search for expert assistance from experienced, non-convicted diplomats who understand the
mistakes of the past and the challenges ahead."
The State (War) Department is really the neocons viper nest
Notable quotes:
"... Listening to our "world's best diplomats" convinced me that the deep state is real. These people think they, not elected officials, make policy. Plus, they are sneaky and conniving in trying to establish and protect their own little fiefdoms. They have never seen a foreign aid budget that in their humble yet expert opinion shouldn't be increased tenfold. They are political but pretend otherwise. And, their sanctimony is unbearable. Let's just say that I don't think that Foggy Bottom made a good impression with the general public this week. ..."
"... Oh, please. Every time it looks like we might actually pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, the generals pop up on the TV talk shows and in the Op-Ed pages warning of the dire consequences and pleading for more time. The neo-cons used to pull this "OMG, the military is the most competent part of the federal government" stuff back in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, and TAC is not the only publication that has blown up that myth. ..."
Listening to our "world's best diplomats" convinced me that the deep state is real. These
people think they, not elected officials, make policy. Plus, they are sneaky and conniving
in trying to establish and protect their own little fiefdoms. They have never seen a
foreign aid budget that in their humble yet expert opinion shouldn't be increased tenfold.
They are political but pretend otherwise. And, their sanctimony is unbearable. Let's just
say that I don't think that Foggy Bottom made a good impression with the general public
this week.
Straight fire out of Peter Van Buren. The State is the "The Blob." They're the ones who
want to promote a policy of interventionism and nation-building. The military actually
prefers to stay out of wars and don't want to pursue nation-building.
Oh, please. Every time it looks like we might actually pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan or
Syria, the generals pop up on the TV talk shows and in the Op-Ed pages warning of the dire
consequences and pleading for more time. The neo-cons used to pull this "OMG, the military
is the most competent part of the federal government" stuff back in the build-up to the
invasion of Iraq, and TAC is not the only publication that has blown up that myth.
"The ICA's blockbuster finding was presented to the public as the consensus view of the
nation's intelligence community. As events have unfolded, however, it now seems apparent that
the report was largely the work of one agency, the CIA, and overseen by one man, then-Director
John Brennan, who closely directed its drafting and publication with a small group of
hand-picked analysts.
Nearly three years later, as the public awaits answers from two Justice Department inquiries
into the Trump-Russia probe's origins, and as impeachment hearings catalyzed by a Brennan-hired
anti-Trump CIA analyst unfold in Congress, it is clear that Brennan's role in propagating the
collusion narrative went far beyond his work on the ICA. A close review of facts that have
slowly come to light reveals that he was a central architect and promoter of the conspiracy
theory from its inception. The record shows that:
Contrary to a general impression that the FBI launched the Trump-Russia conspiracy probe,
Brennan pushed it to the bureau – breaking with CIA tradition by intruding into
domestic politics: the 2016 presidential election. He also supplied suggestive but ultimately
false information to counterintelligence investigators and other U.S. officials.
Leveraging his close proximity to President Obama, Brennan sounded the alarm about
alleged Russian interference to the White House, and was tasked with managing the U.S.
intelligence community's response.
While some FBI officials expressed skepticism about the Trump/Russia narrative as they
hunted down investigative leads, Brennan stood out for insisting on its veracity.
To substantiate his claims, Brennan relied on a Kremlin informant who was later found to
be a mid-level official with limited access to Putin's inner circle.
Circumventing normal protocol for congressional briefings, Brennan supplied then-Senate
Minority Leader Harry Reid with incendiary Trump-Russia innuendo that Reid amplified in a
pair of public letters late in the election campaign.
After Trump's unexpected victory, Brennan oversaw the hasty production of the tenuous
Intelligence Community Assessment.
Departing from his predecessors' usual practice of staying above the political fray after
leaving office, Brennan has worked as a prominent analyst for MSNBC, where he has used his
authority as a former guardian of the nation's top secrets to launch vitriolic attacks on a
sitting president, accusing Trump of "treasonous" conduct."
realclearinvestigations
----------------
I know that Horowitz can't indict but he can forward recommendations to a prosecutor with
indictment authority. Would a Grand Jury in the Democratic Party stronghold of Washington, DC
actually indict Obama era conspirators? I doubt it.
The process should be moved to other venues.
I have a side bet with a friend. I no longer believe that the duopoly of parties in the US
will indict anyone over the matter of this article.
Here are transcripts by NSC personal where LTC Vindman 'judgement' is seriously
questioned. Was Vindman the NSC unauthorized/illegal leak? Will DoD take appropriate UCMJ
action against Vindman?
They sure got Flynn Cohen Manifort and Stone quickly.Giuliani associates were indicted to
open up another front.
Pity people that desperately need to be held accountable wil not be so.
That is how the rule of law fails.
Sorry to post twice, but, on a related note, George Elliason appears to show that the
so-called whistleblower inside information, upon which the impeachment is progressing, is
based on not even hearsay, but a Tweet:
Well, I am certainly saddened by this state of affairs.
It appears that the barn doors have been left totally opened for a complete free for all
for anyone who wants to to and has the money, the un-elected position, and the friends to
take over the workings of the U.S. government. Rule of law and rule of reason be damned.
Let's hope that by some miracle this coming election will be such that the people
recognize what has happened and will provide a strong message to those who feel they have a
right to rule from the offices of their unelected positions.
It'd sure be nice if we could get some MAGA candidates for congress going. Right now, Trump's
all alone in Washington; not much hope of getting any part of his agenda passed.
Any GOP candidate facing down the well-honed Democrat mean machine is a daunting prospect.
The well-calculated legacy of the Democrat ginned-up Kavanaugh hearings - we will do and
say anything to smear you, taint you and bring you down. Don't even think of going against us
because we will do the exact same thing to anyone Trump wants to bring on, or run in support
of his administration.
We see the Democrat mean machine in action a lot in California to the point we now have
increasingly "bye elections" where there is no opposition so the candidate does not even have
to face the voters and risk even a write-in opposition vote.
The system is rigged to quickly become a one-party hegemony. They say trends start in
California, so beware of the tricks they pulled out here and got away with it:
(1) term limits;
(2) jungle primaries;
(3) district elections and mandatory protected minority-majority districts;
(4) counting illegals as district resident numbers;
(5) bye election not facing a ballot;
(6) vote by mail lengthening the campaign season beyond all human endurance;
(7) vote- harvesting;
(8) same day voter registration;
(9) outlawing voter ID..
William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)
THE SECOND COMING
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
.........
"... Copeland @ 33 said; "It seems like the primary role of the investigation, so far, is to advance the national security narrative that portrays Russia as the perpetual enemy of the US." Yes, it "seems" like it, because it is. The corporate empire needs enemies to keep the $ flowing. ..."
Copeland @ 33 said; "It seems like the primary role of the investigation, so far, is
to advance the national security narrative that portrays Russia as the perpetual enemy of the
US." Yes, it "seems" like it, because it is. The corporate empire needs enemies to keep the $
flowing.
Confrontation is much more profitable than peace...
I included the following to make clear what is the above link is about..
@ Circe It would be a fair assumption that nothing on the internet is what it appears. When
it matters, it is controlled. Internet like media is source of information and manipulation.
One cannot rely on any single source. Everyone is lying much of the time. by: jared @ 55
Weapons of mass deception (WMDs)
Wireless weapons of mind control (WWMC_.
You will know when your government has begun to move in response to those that it governs
when it:==>
1. quits spying on you
2. makes infecting UR computer with spyware, malware, and viri not only criminally illegal
with 10 years automatic no early time release jail time but also makes actionable as a tort,
victim recovery from the perpetrator Jury trials to establish damages.
3. amends the constitution to make it a life time in jail offence to conduct the affairs of
government in secret or to classify any document as secret from anyone who is a citizen of
America and is also a citizen of the Untied States of America.
4. has a budget for domestic needs at least 4x the size of the armament budget.
5. transitions power generation from grid to place of use and transitions from fossil fuel,
nuclear fuel to solar and wind energy
6. gives free education and medical services at the highest level to all comers without
regard to prior qualification.
7. recognizes all people of all race and all religion as one in the same person
8. puts news fakers and propagandist under the jail
9. admits pearl harbor, 9/11 and
10. allows the masses to determine not only the candidates for offices in the USA but also
allows the masses to determine which candidate will serve the USA
11. allows any member of the governed masses to indite any sitting member of a government at
any level, in the independent of the civil government, court of human rights, and allows that
court of human rights to immediately remove the accused person from his or her position in
government until a verdict can be rendered, and if that verdict is guilty, allows to and
assist with enforcing the penalty assessed by the the human rights court for the human rights
violation while in office or as a result of the power of the office.
12. makes it illegal to be a member of government at any level if that persons holds any
citizenship but American and USA.
Just watching "the hate Russia circus" on MSM. If DJT wasn't such a greedy MF, this circus
wouldn't be going on.
Let's be clear, Russia, and every other nation on earth, has the absolute right to defend
itself, and it's people,
from being exploited by the U$A's corporate empire. The empire's record over time is
clear, if it wants something you have, they'll take it.
DJT has no problem following the empire's dictates, but when he deviates and pursues his
own personal enrichment at the expense of the empire's overall goals, things like the D.C.
circus ensues.
I'll say this again, Russia, and all countries on earth have the RIGHT to defend
themselves from our latest empires attacks, no matter in what form they appear..
Great parallel to Dems saying that the Ukrainian border is of vital importance for our
national security, yet they also say that our own border is not.
"... According to Deep State Bill Nye, the "Territorial integrity of Ukraine including Crimea and Donbas has been the goal of US foreign policy for 75 years" Crimea didn't begin that period as part of Ukraine though...are you saying the State Department convinced Stalin to transfer it to the Ukrainian SSR? ..."
You know that saying, "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world
he didn't exist." The Democratic Party have been doing their best to keep his existence from
the American people. But they can only hold him back for so long before he shows his face and
only a face a mother can love. And that face is Adam Schiff or I like to call him Mr. Mackey,
m'kay!
According to Deep State Bill Nye, the "Territorial integrity of Ukraine including Crimea
and Donbas has been the goal of US foreign policy for 75 years" Crimea didn't begin that
period as part of Ukraine though...are you saying the State Department convinced Stalin to
transfer it to the Ukrainian SSR?
The farting dems pretend to be scared of Russia, so how many of the illegal people that
they bring into our nation from the southern border that are murderers, rapists, drug
dealers, thieves, etc. are Russians ? Christians love Russian people, dems are filled with
hatred, they are Russiaphobes !
enderer-text" role="article"> When you take the red envelope from the fed and the
globalists, you must dance to their tunes. Schiff dances as if his and the lives of his loved
ones is at stake!! Russia has borders with China, the middle east etc. How many lost lives
from that war, a war that has always lit up the eyes of the white house and the EU until
Trump Governments no longer care about the lives of citizens, its all about the benjamins
people but NOT YOURS!
Both sides of my family came here from Russia in the early 1900's. My entire life Russia
has been the big scary enemy (which was difficult going to school and putting up with fear
and hatred for Russia). Anyway...I'm tired of it..
Great parallel to Dems saying that the Ukrainian border is of vital importance for our
national security, yet they also say that our own border is not.
The aristocratic morons in the Sate Department are totally appalled that Trump wants to
actually scrutinize problems and fix them using common sense, thereby disrupting their cushy,
do-nothing diplomatic corps jobs and lives.
The impeachment circus continued today with a refreshingly candid
opening statement from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU. Sondland was
involved in diplomatic efforts in Ukraine. Instead of stonewalling Sondland just let
it all out :
Gordon D. Sondland testified that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed off on the pressure
campaign, and that he told Vice President Mike Pence about an apparent link between
military aid for Ukraine and investigations of Democrats. Mr. Sondland confirmed there was
a "clear quid pro quo" for a White House meeting between President Trump and Ukraine's
president.
The anti-Trump media see
this as another "bombshell" that will hurt him.
But it is more likely that Sondland's testimony will help President Trump and those
involved on his side.
The President of the United States thought it to be in the interest of the United States
to press Ukraine's government into publicly announcing investigations into two issues:
The
evident intervention by then Vice President Biden into Ukrainian politics to the
benefit of the owner of a company that paid his son more than $50,000 per month.
Sondland and other U.S. officials were negotiating with the Ukrainians about these
demands. There were two potential points that they could use to pressure the Ukrainians into
announcing investigations:
The Ukrainian request for a visit by President Zelensky to the White House.
The Ukrainian desire to receive military aid that Congress had allocated for that
purpose.
It is not clear at all that Trump wanted those issues to be used to pressure Ukraine.
Trump never told Sondland that these issues were connected:
Posted by b at 20:08
UTC |
Comments (105) b- I suspect the reason the Dems have thrown themselves into this
impeachment circus is because they knew this investigation was in the works and possibly
others as well:www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukrainian
I shortened the link, if anyone has a problem with it please refer to zerohedge.com
This Ukraine investigation will take down Biden, Hunter, Kerry, Kerry's stepson and probably
Pelosi and her son. Although their scam is via a different Ukraine energy company. The link
mentions several other people from the Obama admin, Obama himself may be at the bottom of
this well.
From Jim Stone:
"The CEO of Burisma in Ukraine was arrested. He started talking. As it turns out, Biden's
kid, Hunter, was not getting paid $50, 000 a month, his base salary was closer to $200, 000 a
month, and now that someone is talking, Hunter received several payments "in the millions"
totaling $16.5million OUTSIDE of his regular pay.
Here is a quote from the original source at CD media
"In our extensive discussions with Onyshchenko, CD Media can report that he confirmed
Hunter Biden took 'off the books' payments totally millions from Burisma.
"There were 'official' and 'unofficial' payments to the Biden family, " Onyshchenko
stated.
Onyshchenko also confirmed that former FBI agent Karen Greenaway, who oversaw the Obama
administration's anti-corruption efforts in Eastern Europe, directed the coverup of the Biden
scandal at the time, in concert with the U.S. embassy in Kyiv, and other Deep State American
government assets 'in-country'.
In Onyshchenko's former oversight role over Ukrainian energy security, he was in a unique
position to acquire information on Burisma and their dealings with the Biden family.
My comment: The impeachment hearing is not going well. They keep chugging along with
absolute blowouts that should end their trip down the road to lunacy, but keep on going like
criminal nut cases that have nothing to lose, hoping the cops never catch up despite all the
flat tires, among which this report was a serious one. It is shocking that this report
relates directly to one of their guys they have in the race against Trump. It does not seem
to matter to them at all if they get revealed time after time after time for what they are,
it is becoming evident that the only thing that will stop them in their impeachment efforts
is a long overdue arrest."
And recall Guliani said that Romania and China pay to play deals are far worse than what
happened in Ukraine
In a riff on the D's line of questioning, they're trying to carry out their end of a quid pro
quo with their sponsors in the MIC. That idea came as a result of comments made during the
Keiser
Report I linked to on the open thread, that the D-Party is the War Party doing the
MIC's bidding against Trump's move from being militantly Geopolitical to wanting to resume
being the dominant Geoeconomic power the Evil Outlaw US Empire was once. As I suggested
earlier, listen twice to the entire show.
IMO, the change in direction/emphasis on what needs to be the basis of the Evil Outlaw US
Empire's power is what's driving the schism between the factions in the Current Oligarchy and
thus the Duopoly. One can also see the rationale for Gabbard and Sanders's political-economic
positions in
the materials I've linked to that justify my line of reasoning.
Why has Trump done the stupid things that have contributed to Russiagate and
Ukrainegate?
Russiagate
'America First' Trump hired Manafort as campaign manager of his 2016 Presidential election -
despite Manafort having been working in Ukraine for many years (thus having little, if
any, recent experience with US politics) , and despite Manafort's having been warned (by
people that were likely connected to CIA) that Manafort's political work for pro-Russia
parties was not appreciated.
Aside: IMO Deep State wanted to settle scores with Manafort, Flynn, and
Assange.
Ukrainegate
Trump made an issue of Biden on the phone call with Zelinsky. The fact that Trump sought no
quid pro quo is irrelevant. It's Trump's inadvisable mentioning of Biden that got
Ukrainegate started.
Lastly, in the Spring, Pelosi and Hillary had both come out strongly against impeachment
hearings, saying that an election was near and impeachment would be counter-productive. But
they both support impeachment hearings now - over the nonsensical Ukrainegate allegations
that lead nowhere except to a Democratic loss in 2020 after these 'witch hunt' hearings.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Kayfabe
It's Deep State orchestrated kayfabe. USA hates whistle-blowers. They don't get the benefit
of the doubt, like this one has.
Trump - Biden conflict helps Biden to get elected, just as Hillary's attack on Tulsi has
helped to keep Tulsi in the race. This "meddling" is consistent with previous political
manipulations:
In December 2018, Trump invites Pelosi to the White House to discuss his "Wall" - which
helps her to get elected Speaker of the House.
In 2016 Sanders is Hillary's sheep-dog and Hillary makes crucial mistakes that lead to
Trump's election (and the start of Russiagate's neo-McCarthyism).
"... I tend to agree and suspect Team Trump is keeping its powder dry for a potential/inevitable Senate trial. The patent illegality of the original complaint, as accurately described here, will be just one of many bombshells dropped I expect. Trump is a master at giving his enemies enough rope to hang themselves and the Pelosi-Schiff show appears to me to be a classic example. My hope is the fire is lit while the witch hunters are still busying themselves atop the fagot pile. ..."
You don't get it. IMO the present impeachment inquiry is illegal because the
whistleblower's complaint should not have bben allowed under the statute. If an impeachment
arrives in the senate it can be thrown out on that basis.
I do get your point, and agree, however the the legislation is deficient in that while the
whistle-blower can, and should, highlight questionable behaviour in his/her department it
does not seem to offer adequate cover against retribution from said department.
viz.
"ICWPA doesn't prohibit employment-related retaliation and it provides no mechanism, such as
access to a court or administrative body, for challenging retaliation that may occur as a
result of having made a disclosure"
In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act.
If your, or my, government is breaking its own laws I would like to see a clear route for
those in the know to report same to some body with the authority to act. They should be
independent of the department, have the power to investigate and protect the source. Better
that then dump it on Wikileaks and hope to stay anonymous.
On a separate point, is or should there be any restrictions on IGIC's authority to change the
scope of evidence to include hearsay, given the evidently limited intent of the whistleblower
legislation / directives?
You are referring to the change in the complaint form where the prior form required the
whistleblower to have direct knowledge of the issue complained about while the latest version
allows the whistleblower to blow the whistle using information obtained from someone else
(hearsay). The statute itself neither allowed not disallowed hearsay information. I believe
that the prior form should not have excluded hearsay. For example, if a foreign agent said
"I'm a foreign agent and taking photos of this top secret information" to a DNI employee,
that is a hearsay statement and could not be reported to the IG using the prior form. To me,
that's wrong.
Exactly right. Here is a link to the statute, 50 USC section 3033. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3033
The statute allows for the appointment of an Inspector General who reports to and has the
authority to investigate any activity that falls under the authority of the Director of
National Intelligence.
While I agree that Trump's phone call does not fall under the definition of an urgent
matter that can be reported to Congress, what's worse is that because the President's
activities cannot be investigated under this statute because the President is not under the
authority of nor supervised by the DNI. Thus, the intelligence Inspector General has no
authority to consider the complaint against Trump. Congress created the IG statute and placed
the IG under the supervision of the DNI because under the law the IG is to investigate only
problems that the DNI has the ability to rectify.
As the President of the United States is not supervised by the DNI, the IG has no
authority under this law to investigate the President's activities under this statute. The
complaint and the involvement of the IG in this matter was illegal from the start.
Never forget this particular "whistleblower" statute was changed at the 11th hour to suddenly
allow 2nd hand reports instead of the prior first hand report requirement.
It stunk from day one. Throw the book at the whole pack because they did not take out the
penalty part of the statute for filing false reports. Go get 'em FBI.
Right. The entire purpose of the phony and improper IG complaint was to manufacture an excuse
to have the matter reported to Congress where it would then be leaked to the public. It never
was a proper IG complaint, but the bell cannot be unrung.
Only way out is to call for the impeachment, have a vote and either lick their wounds if
they lose (mainly Schiff and Nadler get sacrificed - Fancy Nancy has been dancing on a tight
rope so she gets a pass); or vote to pass articles of impeachment and finally send this
turkey on to the senate.
Wild card, how many Democrats not engaged in this blatant publicity stunt also want no
part in it. What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella - there are penalties for filing
false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the
whistle-blower law.
Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint. Only
if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant.
Otherwise, all you have are the opening opinion statements in tonights DNC debate, sneered
out by Rachael Maddow, picked up with even more sneers by Kamala Harris and echoed by every
single DNC candidate as already a fait accompli.
The unocntested party line tonight is this "whistle blower" busted Trump wide open as a
crook and a self-confessed crook at that.
That political message flowing from this "irrelevant complaint "is hard to overcome as the
DNC debate crowd cheered, unless the perpetrator is brought to justice under the relevance of
this law. We shall wait patiently for that moment. As the Democrats all stated tonight - 2020
election is all about JUSTICE AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
I do, which is what I meant by
"In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act."
The point I was making is that, as drafted, there is in adequate redress/protection for
those who witness acts which are clearly covered. This is not conducive to keeping government
on the straight and narrow. The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been
massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and
saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job
isn't it?
The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal destruction.
While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint of irony)
to be the one candidate who can "bring the country together again" after Trump alone has torn
it asunder.
Exactly right. If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower
complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence
activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires.
Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating complaints
about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect luggage at the
airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint; an
intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information of
a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also
the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901)
originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of
the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes
Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the
DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA
court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI
contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations
as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter
of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
It seems to me that if Trump is serious about taking on the swamp, now might be a good time
to strike. Surely in this whole mess, there has to be one clear cut case that he could use an
excuse for strong action. Something so egregious, so requiring, dare I say, a righteous
response- one involving a highly public perp walk or something similar.
It is time to put the fear of a jury finding followed by a certain and just punishment,
perhaps a stay at Epstein's prison as a starter while awaiting a no bail trial.
I believe we are talking about the "Fruit of the poisonous tree" objection. That evidence
obtained illegally cannot be used and anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as
well.
Two questions: Was the whistle blower action illegal or just "improper"?
And if illegal, does the "attenuation doctrine" apply here?
"For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent
intervening factor to sufficiently "attenuate" the connection between the government's
illegal discovery of the witness and the witness's voluntary testimony itself. (United States
v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))"
Most likely, if this case were being heard in a court of law, it would be thrown out as fruit
of the poisoned tree doctrine. However, the problem here is there are no judges with the
authority to issue a ruling ordering Congress to stop these hearings.
However, it is certain that if Congress votes for impeachment, the Senate, same as the
House, can also do what it wants and the GOP majority may vote to throw the case out on the
grounds of fruit of the poisoned tree. However, I believe a full trial with witnesses
favorable to the president testifying and focusing on Biden corruption would show the
American people the impeachment process was bogus from the beginning and thus be more
favorable to Trump. In any event, it is highly unlikely that the GOP majority Senate will
provide the 67 votes necessary for impeachment.. So, at then end of the day, this is one big
show trial where the end result will be Trump serving out his elected term or terms.
I tend to agree and suspect Team Trump is keeping its powder dry for a potential/inevitable
Senate trial. The patent illegality of the original complaint, as accurately described here,
will be just one of many bombshells dropped I expect. Trump is a master at giving his enemies
enough rope to hang themselves and the Pelosi-Schiff show appears to me to be a classic
example. My hope is the fire is lit while the witch hunters are still busying themselves atop
the fagot pile.
The favor was for Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the 2016 DNC computer breach.
Reliance on Crowdstrike to investigate the DNC computer, and not an independent FBI
investigation, was tied very closely to the years long anti-Trump Russiagate hoax and waste
of US taxpayer time and money.
Why is this issue ignored by both the media and the Democrats. The ladies doth protest far
too much.
what exactly, to the extend I recall, could the Ukraine contribute the the DNC's server/"fake
malware" troubles? Beyond, that I seem to vaguely recall, the supposed malware was
distributed via an Ukrainan address.
On the other hand, there seems to be the (consensus here?) argument there was no malware
breach at all, simply an insider copying files on a USB stick.
If people discovered there had been a leak, it would perfectly natural that in order to
give 'resilience' to their cover-up strategies, they could have organised a planting of
evidence on the servers, in conjunction with elements in Ukraine.
So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an
actual 'false flag' hack. A possible calculation would have been that this could have made it
easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious questions about
the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility.
The issues involved become all the more important, in the light of the progress of Ty
Clevenger's attempts to exploit the clear contradiction between the claims by the FBI, in
response to FOIA requests, to have no evidence relating to Seth Rich, and the remarks by Ms.
Deborah Sines quoted by Michael Isikoff.
What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of
Rich's laptop, designed as part of a 'false flag' operation.
On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental
Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant
'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48.
Both are short, and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory
reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining the truth about 'Russiagate.'
It is eminently possible that Ms. Hines has simply made an 'unforced error.'
However, I do not – yet – feel able totally to discount the possibility that
what is actually at issue is a 'ruse', produced as a contingency plan to ensure that if it
becomes impossible to maintain the cover-up over Rich's involvement in its original form, his
laptop shows 'evidence' compatible with the 'Russiagate' narrative.
And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard
drives' can be changed, and that the level of computer skills that can be found throughout
the former Soviet Union is very high.
Another matter of some importance is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims'
site is back up online.
Looking at it from the perspective of an old television current affairs hack, I do think
that, while it is very helpful to have some key material available in a single place, it
would useful if more attention was paid to presentation.
In particular, it would be a most helpful 'teaching aid', if a full and accurate
transcript was made of the conversation with Seymour Hersh which Ed Butowsky covertly
recorded.
What seems clear is that both these figures ended up in very difficult positions, and that
the latter clearly engaged in 'sleight of hand' in relation to his dealings with the
former.
That said, the fact that Butowsky's claims about his grounds for believing that Hersh's
FBI informant was Andrew McCabe are clearly disingenuous does not justify the conclusion that
he is wrong.
It is absolutely clear to me – despite what 'TTG', following that 'Grub Street' hack
Folkenflik, claimed – that when Hersh talked to Butowsky, he believed he had been given
accurate information.
Indeed, I have difficulty seeing how anyone whose eyes were not hopelessly blinded by
prejudice, a\nd possibly fear of where a quest for the truth might lead, could not see that,
in this conversation, both men were telling the truth, as they saw it.
However, all of us, including the finest and most honourable of journalists can, from time
to time, fall for disinformation. (If anyone says they can always spot when they are being
played, all I can say is, if you're right, you're clearly Superman, but it is more likely
that you are a fool or knave, if not both.)
The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or
a deliberate attempt to disguise the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's
involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak before he was identified
as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.'
1. Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show
it was an internal download. What was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the
"Russian" conclusion instead.Why has that methodology been sealed?
2. Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or
independent investigation and prominently put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his
Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to help Trump and
harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and
unavailable computers.
3. What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Meuller team that
conspired to reach this Russian conclusion.
4. Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's
evidentiary demand to ascertain how exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking
conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian link.
5. Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -Crowsdtrike player links and
loyalties to see if there are any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more
information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question when you don't
already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth.
Isn't the ICIG another swamp careerist?
These swamp creatures are of one ilk (NOT a big deer):
They live in the same neighborhoods, their kids go to the same schools, they go to the same
Delaware beaches.
They will NEVER seriously investigate, much less bring down, a fellow swamp creature.
At the same time it was probably pre-emptive strike against Barr investigation (especially
Crowstryke portion of it) and newly acquired election strategy.
'UkraineGate' is potentially deathly to the Dems, so all / any issues are brandished..
I posted long ago. 2009. Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz (John Kerry's son) form an
International Private Equity firm, Rosemont Seneca. Devon Archer was the 'managing
partner.'
I wrote it was perhaps ? money laundering (as gas. cos don't have those kinds of sums on
hand .. to bribe .. for what?) I didn't know about Paul Pelosi at the time.
This is pure speculation, but it is beginning to look like the Obama Régime
was engaged in financial transfers a coy way of putting it - ex. Aid to Ukraine
(Russia 3x!) which was partly kicked back, through fronts like Burisma, to those who
organised the aid in the first place! -- Care of the US taxpayer of course.
The IMF was involved as well (in some role.. ?) Obiman delegated all that to Joe Biden and
pretended to ignore it, imho he knew but distanced himself.
To the point. The blared MSM and social media discourse of Intl. Geo-politics was: Ukraine
to join the EU, NATO, evil enemy Russia, a new age, are cover-ups and distractions for
Mafia-style Mega-Finance World Moves, run by a narrow clique of 'Capos.'
Following on (again, speculation ++, one angle only..), Yanukovitch for ex. was not
dislodged by "Maidan," a hapless victim of illegit-agit-prop, the usual régime-change
actions instigated by the US, supposedly successful in this case, but fell foul of some
corrupt plans/ppl, as he himself was corrupt. Ex. The story about how he suddenly realised
that 'joining the EU' would be detrimental to Ukr. and he needed to keep ties with Russia was
total BS right from day one.
@76 I was just going to post a link to Solomon's Ukrainian Timeline. It's an outstanding
piece filled with supporting documents that helps to bring greater focus to Ukraine and the
Obama team. Bookmark it.
As for the line in b's post that 'Trump is a crook' is baseless innuendo. Did he swim in a
pool of crooks and sharks while cutting real estate deals in dirty NYC and NJ? Of course he
did. Only through such association can one tag him with being a 'crook' yet neither he nor
his businesses have had any criminal charges brought forward during decades of doing
business.
Also according to the Dem's own focus group data, Dem's aren't buying into their Party's
impeachment circus - "Almost nobody in the groups said they are intentionally following
impeachment news. Several are avoiding it. There was a great deal of ambivalence about
impeachment and apparently more support for dropping it than pursuing it. The proceeding is
seen [as] a dominating the Democrats' agenda. At least one person in each group could clearly
articulate the charge against Trump and Ukraine. No one thought the charges were related to
Russia...So, the question in their minds was whether the significance of this rises to the
level of impeachment and whether this process will dominate the government's work. The
inherent sense of corruption of all politicians allowed space for many to believe that what
Trump did was commonplace, and ultimately several were ready to let Trump off the proverbial
hook by characterizing the charges as "politics" without digging deeper to determine [if] of
the charges were impeachable or not. Few called it a crime although some mentioned he abused
his power."
So, if conservatives/republicans/independents and now democrats aren't buying into the
fable then what's it really all about? This new info on Templeton, the DNC and the Atlantic
Council has a lot to do with answering the why. Just like the roll out of RussiaGate, time
will tell. Then, we had no idea how abused the entirety of the FISA system was. We have some
facts at hand such as Collyer and Boasberg's reports, however, Horowitz's pending report is
said to fill in the gaps. I'm hopeful the same process will unfold around
Ukraine/Burisma/Bidens/Obama/Soros/The Atlantic Council/State and many more. The sun is only
just now rising...
Aaron
Mate's thread notes the long public acknowledgement of Ukrainian meddling:
"Ukrainian officials bragged about it in August 2016 {link at original] & then came to
regret it after Trump won [link at original] It's fine if you reject Trump's Crowdstrike
theory, but to deny Ukrainian meddling is to deny a documented fact."
Mate notes furthermore:
"What's also funny is that Ukraine's meddling is similar to what Russia is accused of:
releasing dos [sic] that expose corruption in a presidential campaign. Ukraine's docs alleged
that Manafort received secret payments. Russia is often accused of an 'act of war.' How about
Ukraine?"
As I opined upthread, this circus is all about getting Warren the POTUS nomination, but
this article notes she must be seen as radioactive despite her
continuing attempts to portray herself as a frontstage populist, using the Clinton gambit
of telling her Big Donors it's all an act behind closed doors.
Rather than being amazed an appalled at behavior of the would be empire -
we chose sides and join the fray.
Consider that in the U.S. we (pretty much) literally have only two choices to select from
for any elected position and
in many cases one of those choices is certain to fail (run as a formality). This is
"democracy".
The "nation" is now overtly criminal on the international stage and this is now accepted
behavior.
Hang on. I'm still trying to figure out how exactly the Ukraine managed to influence the US
presidential campaign.
Wasn't it Russia? That's what we've all been told, left right and centre, without a shred
of evidence. Unless you uncritically believe Adam Schiff... or Fraudbook...
Now, what, it was Zelenski? Not Porky Poroshenko? Or Arseniy Yatsenyuik? Or Igor
Koloimenski? Or Arseniy Avekov?
Whose money do you wish to believe?
pogohere , Nov 21 2019 18:42 utc |
86c1ue , Nov 21 2019 18:52 utc |
87
@Ant #84
The oligarch most known for pouring money into US politicians is Victor Pinchuk.
He's put money into the Clinton Global Initiative, paid for both Clintons' to speechify,
supports Brookings and the Atlantic Council, has a full time registered lobbyist in
Washington, etc.
"A former top White House Russia expert testified Thursday that the 'fictional narrative'
embraced by President Donald Trump that Ukraine meddled in the US elections was fabricated by
Russia to wreak havoc in US politics."
So reports one of NATO's BigLie Media outlets. FYI, as I wrote in 2016, no outside nation
needs to "wreak havoc in US politics" as there're numerous home grown domestic sources
already doing that in an ongoing manner since the 1850s. Isn't it a felony to lie to
Congress?
Hill, in advanced testimony Thursday, warned lawmakers against believing a "fictional
narrative" that it was Ukraine and not Russia that interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential
election.
"This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian
security services themselves," Hill said in prepared remarks.
"The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked
our democratic institutions in 2016 . This is the public conclusion of our intelligence
agencies, confirmed in bipartisan Congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some
of the underlying details must remain classified."
Hill emphasized that she is a nonpartisan foreign policy expert, who has served under three
different Republican and Democratic presidents and that she has "no interest in advancing the
outcome of your inquiry in any particular direction, except toward the truth."
She warned that U.S. national security has been harmed by the politicization of support for
Ukraine.
"The Russian government's goal is to weaken our country -- to diminish America's global
role and to neutralize a perceived U.S. threat to Russian interests," she said.
"President Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter U.S. foreign policy
objectives in Europe, including in Ukraine, where Moscow wishes to reassert political and
economic dominance."
Hill added, "I respect the work that this Congress does in carrying out its constitutional
responsibilities, including in this inquiry, and I am here to help you to the best of my
ability. I f the President, or anyone else, impedes or subverts the national security of the
United States in order to further domestic political or personal interests, that is more than
worthy of your attention. But we must not let domestic politics stop us from defending
ourselves against the foreign powers who truly wish us harm."
Holmes testified behind closed doors earlier this month that he heard U.S. Ambassador to the
European Union Gordon Sondland telling President Trump over a phone conversation that Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky "loves your ass."
As an open-minded, astute observer, I'd say the Dems already had their impeachment
narrative in place before the hearings, then used the hearings to build supportive evidence
of conjecture, hearsay and supposition to come to their "guilty" conclusion.
What happens when 90% of the media is controlled/owned by (6) corporations?
What happens when those same corporations are operated and controlled by a political
ideology?
What happens when the news is no longer free from bias?
What happens when the news is no longer reliable and independent?
What happens when the news is no longer trustworthy?
What happens when the news simply becomes an extension/arm of a political party?
Fact becomes fiction?
Fiction becomes fact?
When does news become propaganda?
Identity creation?
How does the average person, who is under constant financial stress (by design), find time to
research and discern fact v fiction?
Majority of people more prone to believe someone in power sitting behind a big brand 'news'
name?
Do people [human psyche] tend to follow the 'majority/mainstream viewpoint' in fear of being
isolated and/or shunned?
'Mainstream' is used for a reason [dominate trend in opinion] .
[If majority of people believe 'x' then 'x' must be validated / true]
Why do 'mainstream' media heads, within different orgs, always use the same keywords and/or
catch phrases?
Coordinated? By who? Outside entity providing instructions?
Do they count on the fact that people [human psyche] are more prone to believe something if
heard over-and-over again by different 'trusted' sources?
Do 'echo chamber' tactics provide validation / credibility to the topic/point being
discussed?
Threat to intellectual freedom?
Would control over [of] these institutions/organizations allow for the mass control of a
populations viewpoint re: a desired topic?
Read again – digest.
Would control over [of] these institutions/organizations allow for the mass control of a
populations viewpoint re: a desired topic?
Logical thinking.
Why, after the election of 2016, did [D] 's and media corps jumpstart a [coordinated &
planned] divisive blitz intended to create falsehoods re: illegitimacy of election, character
assassination of POTUS through sexism, racism, every other 'ism'?
Pre/post 2016 election?
Why were violent [masked] terror orgs such as Antifa immediately created/funded?
Why were these orgs tasked w/ immediate intimidation/shut down of any pro-POTUS rally [s]
and/or events?
Why were marches immediately organized to counter and silence pro-POTUS rally [s] and/or
events?
Why were marches immediately organized which divided people into sex/gender, race, [ism]
?
When you control the levers of news dissemination, you control the narrative.
Control of the narrative = power
When you are blind, what do you see?
They want you divided.
Divided by religion.
Divided by sex.
Divided by political affiliation.
Divided by class.
When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not
those responsible [controllers] .
Divided you are weak.
Divided you pose no threat to their control.
When 'non-dogmatic' information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those
who attempt to control the narrative and/or stable [livestock kept – sheep] .
When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable ('group-think' collective), and
have 'free thought'.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should
be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition,
revelation, or dogma.
Q
Money quote: "I am now convinced that laws, justice, truth and honor don't amount to a hill
of beans in The Swamp. It's all wanton and vicious politics and power plays all the time. Then
mountains of BS, shoveled out by an allied scurrilous media machine to try to keep the public
buying into the Machiavellian machinations of the Swamp dwellers. "
"The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 ,
[1] amending the Central Intelligence Agency
Act of 1949 and the Inspector General Act of 1978
, sets forth a procedure for employees and contractors of specified federal intelligence
agencies to report complaints or information to Congress about serious problems involving
intelligence activities.
Under the ICWPA, an intelligence employee or contractor who intends to report to Congress a
complaint or information of "urgent concern" involving an intelligence activity may report the
complaint or information to their agency's inspector general or the Inspector
General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG). Within a 14-day period, the IG must determine
"whether the complaint or information appears credible," and upon finding the information to be
credible, thereafter transfer the information to the head of the agency. The law then requires
the DNI (or the relevant agency head) to forward the complaint to the congressional
intelligence committees, along with any comments he wishes to make about the complaint, within
seven days. If the IG does not deem the complaint or information to be credible or does not
transmit the information to the head of the agency, the employee may provide the information
directly to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. However, the employee must first
inform the IG of his or her intention to contact the intelligence committees directly and must
follow the procedures specified in the Act.
The Act defines a matter of "urgent concern" as:
[2]
a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order , or
deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity
involving classified
information , but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy
matters;
A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of
material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence
activity; or
An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee's
reporting an urgent concern.
ICWPA doesn't prohibit employment-related retaliation and it provides no mechanism, such as
access to a court or administrative body, for challenging retaliation that may occur as a
result of having made a disclosure.
[3] In 2006 Thomas Gimble, Acting Inspector General, Department of Defense ,
stated before the House Committee on
Government Reform that the ICWPA is a ' misnomer ' and that more properly the Act protects
the communication of classified information to Congress .
[4] According to Michael German with the Brennan Center for Justice , the
ICWPA, "provides a right to report internally but no remedy when that right is infringed, which
means that there is no right at all."
[3]
According to the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence , from 1999-2009, 10 complaints/disclosures were filed under this
law, four of which were found to be credible by the relevant Inspector General. In three of
these ten cases the whistleblower claimed that s/he was retaliated against: two CIA cases and one
DOJ case. Subsequent
investigations by the CIA and DOJ failed to find evidence of retaliation in any of these cases.
[3]
[5]
This law provides an intelligence official with a legal means within which to report
misdeeds in the world of intelligence operation, funding, etc. It has nothing to do with
government activities that are not intelligence activities. There was nothing in the now famous
25 July call between Trump and Zelensky that was intelligence business. None. Remember - the
two presidents ARE NOT intelligence officials.
IMO the complaint was and is invalid and should not have been entertained at all by the IC
IG. The original opinion by DoJ on this matter was correct. pl
Jack ,
Sir,
The Democrats are intent on impeaching Trump. As they have shown with the vote to launch
the impeachment inquiry, they're quite happy to do it on a purely partisan party line vote.
And they have the full support of the mainstream media and many in the bureaucracy including
serving officers in the military. The only question IMO, is how many Republican senators will
either abstain or vote to convict in the Senate trial?
The Resistance as Barr has called them are so blind with hatred for Trump that they can't
see beyond their nose. They will now create a precedent where a House majority of one party
can impeach at will the President of the opposing party while using a kangaroo court inquiry.
This must lead to complete chaos for our political system that each of our adversaries would
love. IMO, only the American voter can change this by stopping to vote the lesser evil and
electing candidates outside the duopoly. Of course that ain't happening in my life time as
most Americans are consumed with partisan warfare on the side of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle
Dum.
prawnik ,
The law doesn't matter. The IC and courts will interpret the laws however they wish.
This is the flip side of the fundamental problem in Sir Thomas More's famous formulation
of the law in "A Man for All Seasons". The laws of England or any other law are of no
protection to anyone if he cannot enforce them.
Similarly, even if the laws clearly condemn a action, even if the action is wrongful, that
is of no matter, if the people with power have decided that the law is to protect that action
regardless of what is written.
Moral: there is no such thing as law. There is only context.
K -> prawnik... ,
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your take (and I always appreciate a Thomas More
reference). However, I think where there is a widespread agreement amongst the population
that the law is just and that it is generally applied fairly to all--in that society you
empower leading voices to defend the law against would-be attackers (from either top or
bottom). But today we do not have that consensus in popular opinion, not all of us believe
the law is fair or evenly applied, and voices shouting for it to be abrogated are loud and
growing bolder.
Now, your moral is properly situated in its historical context.
Factotum ,
The favor was for Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the 2016 DNC computer breach.
Reliance on Crowdstrike to investigate the DNC computer, and not an independent FBI
investigation, was tied very closely to the years long anti-Trump Russiagate hoax and waste
of US taxpayer time and money.
Why is this issue ignored by both the media and the Democrats. The ladies doth protest far
too much.
Isn't the ICIG another swamp careerist?
These swamp creatures are of one ilk (NOT a big deer):
They live in the same neighborhoods, their kids go to the same schools, they go to the same
Delaware beaches.
They will NEVER seriously investigate, much less bring down, a fellow swamp creature.
I am now convinced that laws, justice, truth and honor don't amount to a hill of beans in The
Swamp. It's all wanton and vicious politics and power plays all the time. Then mountains of
BS, shoveled out by an allied scurrilous media machine to try to keep the public buying into
the Machiavellian machinations of the Swamp dwellers.
Members of the "in crowd" can do whatever they want without repercussion. If any of them
ever faces consequences it's because they fell from favor for secret reasons as opposed to
the publicly announced reason, or they got sleepy and were gunned down by a newer more
ambitious usurper.
The deep state exists to perpetuate itself. When 95% of all 2016 political contributions from
the deep state went to Clinton, trump's election created and existential crisis.
Trump promised he would expose and cleag out the deep state - look at his major2016
campaign video speech. Those were his very first words.
Deep state was put on notice even before the was elected. Apoplectic can be their only
response. Frog brains were engaged and we have these three long awful years of deep state
inflicted chaos.
Deep state = Democrats = big public sector unions How can you have $800 billion tax
dollars going to teachers union members nationwide without the teachers union deep state
doing all they can to bring Trump down. Including using K-12 students as front line storm
troopers.
Is that all you got? Smearing witnesses? Witnesses who happen to be offering sworn
testimony that nobody really is contesting. (Although, you know, the three amigos, Rudi,
etc could testify if they wanted to and rebut). In the meantime Lt. Col.
Vindman is now under 24-hour protection from the Army.
Careerists there (Vindman, Yovanovitch) and folks with little-to-no experience (Sondland
-- who, btw, was praised to the high heavens by Trump last month) are all saying the same
thing. And, really, as a veteran of State, surely you must agree that Rudi Giuliani
shouldn't have been inter-meddling (did i mention he's under FBI investigation and his two
side-kick cronies were indicted?).
This is corrupt mess through and through. Anybody who cares about even moderately clean
government should be appalled.
Rep. David Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, questioned Lt.
Col. Alexander Vindman, an Army officer who works for the National Security Council, and
Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, on Nov. 19, in a public hearing as
part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
In his line of questioning, Nunes attempted to glean more information that House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff said could lead to revealing the identity of
the whistleblower. Vindman told Nunes that his counsel suggested that he not answer questions
or "provide specifics" about members of the intelligence community. Vindman's counsel spoke up
saying he was following the rules set by Schiff and the committee.
Schiff interjected during Nunes' questioning to say, "These proceedings will not be used to
out the whistleblower." Vindman and Williams both listened in on a July phone call in which
Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate former vice president and 2020 presidential
candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.
They just confirmed that the other person he spoke with was the "whistleblower" and that
Schiff lied when he said he doesn't know who the "whistleblower" is. Why else would Schiff
stop the questioning when he asked who the other individual is and said that he is trying to
out the "whistleblower". Also if Schiff didn't know who the "whistleblower" is then why would
he stop the questioning claiming that it is meant to out the "whistleblower"?
I'm surprised anyone would believe this guy because he has "YES MAN" all over his face! He
would do or say anything to get ahead ! A WEASEL, ROSENBRUG IS ONE, along with SCHIFF. Easily
lead to do anything to please if they let him do what he loves to do. CAN BE LEAD BY THE NOSE
KIND OF PERSON! SICKENING!
Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. questioned Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, an Army officer who works
for the National Security Council, and Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence,
on Nov. 19, in a public hearing as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
Vindman and Williams both listened in on a July phone call in which Trump asked the president
of Ukraine to investigate former vice president
What I do not understand is what will DemoRats get if Senate starts the trial.
Notable quotes:
"... "The Democrats waited for better timing of blowing the allegations it came when Zelenskiy visited Washington and blew it in UN plus, met Trump. ..."
"... "Danilyuk was present at the Zelinskiy + Trump conversation, he told about the matters of the conversation to Alexander Vindman. Zelinskiy administration fired Danilyuk but is not able to fire Vindman." ..."
"... The article continues with info on Schiff's staffers meeting in Ukraine, it has the agenda, who attended, etc. There are other related articles too, worth review IMO. ..."
"... It was not clear to the negotiators what Trump actually wanted. Sondland said that at one point he called up Trump and asked an open questions: "What do you want from Ukraine?". ..."
"... According to Sondland Trump responded: "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing." ..."
"... That Gordon Sondland and his fellow negotiators were flabbergasted that Trump did not tie money for military weapons to the Biden revelations, and that Sondland himself made the assumption that Trump would make the aid money conditional on what Ukraine could provide, might tell us more about the huckster mindset that prevails among the Washington political and bureaucratic elite than it does about Trump's own worldview and psycholoical make-up. Trump may be obsessed with making the Deal of the Century but the people surrounding him in the White House are obsessed with extracting as much blood out of a stone as they can. ..."
"... Regarding the possibility of a Senate trail, just look at the two major papers. They are pushing impeachment with all they have, including awarding sainthood to some who do not deserve it, e.g. Vindman. If the Beltway echo chamber has the desired affect, Shiff will keep things going. ..."
"... This is from Saint Marie's statement: ..."
"... "Supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do. It is also the smart thing to do. If Russia prevails and Ukraine falls to Russian dominion, we can expect to see other attempts by Russia to expand its territory and influence." ..."
"... In other words, trotting out the old Dominoes Theory, first it will be Ukraine, then Belarus, Poland, the Baltics. Oh the horror! ..."
"... The impeachment hearings will never touch the basic underlying fact that Obama/Biden Administration restarted the Cold War by supporting the Maidan Coup and greenlighting the seizing of the ethnic Russian Donbass region. The trench warfare there continues to this day. ..."
"... The only conclusion is that the hatred between globalist oligarchs and nationalists is so deep and powerful that the consequences of a World War are ignored. The 2020 election is pointless. The Republic is dead. The Empire shutters from internal conflict. If the Battle of Carrhae replays once again, the war with Iran will force any survivors to retreat from the Middle East. ..."
"... Copeland @ 33 said; "It seems like the primary role of the investigation, so far, is to advance the national security narrative that portrays Russia as the perpetual enemy of the US." Yes, it "seems" like it, because it is. The corporate empire needs enemies to keep the $ flowing. ..."
This article is really helpful. https://creativedestructionmedia.com/investigations/2019/11/04
Again I have shortened the link, the article states: "Intelligence sources in Kyiv have
informed CD Media that the 'witness' narrative of LT COL Alexander Vindman was created by
corrupt U.S. State Department officials in Kyiv, Ukraine.
According to our sources, "Alexander Vindman [recent witness in favor of Trump
impeachment], Gordon Sondland [US ambassador to the EU and Trump supporter] and Oleksandr
Danilyuk [Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine from late May
until 30 September 2019 before being fired] had a meeting in July 2019. Sondland asked
Danilyuk as head of National Security Bureau of Ukraine to investigate Biden, Burisma, and
Manafort related investigations.
Apparently, Sondland didnt know that Danilyuk is Soros' agent and supplies info to
Democrats. This was the second leak to the Deep State.
The first leak was made by Danilyuk because he was the only person in the room with fluent
English when Zelenskiy and Trump had a phone call conversation. Zelenskiy speaks English on
very intermediate level, loses the context and emotional sense also, Yermak Andrei, the 2d
Advisor to Zelenskiy is, allegedly, on the hook of FSB. Thus, it was Danilyuk who passed
information to the Deep State to attack Trump.
"The Democrats waited for better timing of blowing the allegations it came when
Zelenskiy visited Washington and blew it in UN plus, met Trump.
"Danilyuk was present at the Zelinskiy + Trump conversation, he told about the matters
of the conversation to Alexander Vindman. Zelinskiy administration fired Danilyuk but is not
able to fire Vindman."
The article continues with info on Schiff's staffers meeting in Ukraine, it has the
agenda, who attended, etc. There are other related articles too, worth review IMO.
(1) b is not being clear that Sondland drew a definite line between the White House
meeting and the stalled military aid, in terms of how he thought they were linked to Zelensky
making the desired announcement of investigations: While Sondland said he merely "presumed"
the linkage to the military aid, he asserts the linkage to the White House meeting was made
explicit to him (albeit via Giuliani).
(2) The "well documented Ukraininan interference" that actually occurred (ostensible dirt
on Manafort) bears only a vague relationship to what has lodged in Trump's shriveled lima
bean brain (the DNC server spirited away to Kiev). Of course, since neither the Dems nor the
Repubs are interested in noting this fact, it will be ignored.
thanks b.... the way i see it, usa and everyone loses in the present set up.. you can't get
down and grovel in the swamp with the usa or ukraine, as youre going to get a lot of mud on
you and some of it is going to stick.. the info that comes out of the dynamic between these 2
countries is toxic, no matter which way you look... of course dems naively think they are
going to use it to get rid of trump, but they are dredging up some toxic stuff with a lot of
their own ckeletons in the closet... they are hoping none of it comes out and the focus
remains on - as @5 jackrabbit notes - trump mentioning biden and how this is not allowed.. i
can't see them gaining from this myself as the whole thing is a political theatre where we
mostly know the final outcome... and, it's not just the ammo that trump can throw out here,
but the accidental info such as what @1/2 frances points to as well... lots of ugliness can
come out of this that is going to stick on everyone...
@3 taffyboy.. that is old footage repackaged in a new link... thanks anyway.. it is fairly
clear though and something that the dems think others are going to miss or something.. i
don't get that part.. the dems want to keep the focus on how trump was going after a 2020
rival but i think once anyone starts looking at this, they are going to see a lot more then
they want to see.. mind you, maybe the usa media will be successful in guiding the narrative
for the war party which on some level seem unhappy with trump.. i don't know that it is
eroding trumps fan base though.. maybe.. but as b says - trump is a crook.. everyone knew
this before he got in power.. however, he has slowed down the military agenda some relative
to obama, which is really ironic.. i think it is because trump doesn't profit off the
military industrial complex as he does other stuff.. either way they are all first class
kleptomaniacs all vying for the front of the trough...
The negotiations around the Ukraine issues were going slow. It was not clear to the
negotiators what Trump actually wanted. Sondland said that at one point he called up Trump
and asked an open questions: "What do you want from Ukraine?".
According to Sondland Trump responded: "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no
quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing."
Trump is a crook. It is fair to presume that he wanted his aides to use all potential
pressure points to deliver the desired results from the Ukrainians. But Trump is also a
smart enough crook to never say that.
Is it possible that, just for once, Trump really did want nothing from Zelensky other than
to find out what Joe Biden stood to gain from pressuring the Ukrainians to sack Viktor Shokin
as Prosecutor General and what Hunter Biden's role as Board Director of a shell energy
company in Ukraine really amounted to?
That Gordon Sondland and his fellow negotiators were flabbergasted that Trump did not
tie money for military weapons to the Biden revelations, and that Sondland himself made the
assumption that Trump would make the aid money conditional on what Ukraine could provide,
might tell us more about the huckster mindset that prevails among the Washington political
and bureaucratic elite than it does about Trump's own worldview and psycholoical make-up.
Trump may be obsessed with making the Deal of the Century but the people surrounding him in
the White House are obsessed with extracting as much blood out of a stone as they
can.
If this ever gets to the Senate, a full trial will result, which will cause who knows how
many skeletons fall out of various Democrat/"Resistance" closets.
What do you think the odds are that, just somehow, nothing goes to the Senate in the
end?
>Nothing goes to Senate, I bet, but also no indictments from Barr.
> How's that for a quid pro quo?
> Posted by: casey | Nov 20 2019 21:54 utc | 13
For a kleptocracy, that almost sounds like a reasonable resolution, so no, that can not be
allowed. Trump is not being a team player, plus the retreat from northern Syria under fire
from potatoes was an unforgivable humiliation. Someone must pay for that, even if it brings
down the whole rotten house, a real possibility. Trump has how many millions of Twitter
followers? If he ever calls them out to the street, even if only 1% respond, and they show up
with guns...
Trump is unpredictable and dangerous. How does one disarm a drunk with a gun at a party?
Very, very carefully. But brain-dead big-dick Dear Leaders don't do carefully. It's Obey Or
Regarding the possibility of a Senate trail, just look at the two major papers. They are
pushing impeachment with all they have, including awarding sainthood to some who do not
deserve it, e.g. Vindman. If the Beltway echo chamber has the desired affect, Shiff will keep
things going.
This is from Saint Marie's statement:
"Supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do. It is also the smart thing to do. If
Russia prevails and Ukraine falls to Russian dominion, we can expect to see other attempts
by Russia to expand its territory and influence."
In other words, trotting out the old Dominoes Theory, first it will be Ukraine, then
Belarus, Poland, the Baltics. Oh the horror!
Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report is always on the money
'https://www.blackagendareport.com/freedom-rider-ukrainegate-farce
She explains that "The Democrats are hoping that Ukrainegate will succeed where Russiagate
failed and they can win the presidency without helping their voters.
"This spectacle is a get out the vote effort that doubles as anti-Russian propaganda."
In other words this is a battle to ensure that the Democratic Party does not do what it
has done a couple of times before in history and become aligned with the people against the
oligarchs.
The last to manage that were FDR in 1936 (though Huey Long didn't think so) and WJ Bryan
in 1896. He came very close to winning in his challenge to the financiers, Wall St and the
rich.
There is a real chance this year that Sanders will win the Primaries and in doing so break
the hold that the corporate machines have over the Democratic Party.
To win Sanders will have, first of all, to win the support of the black voters who have
become the most reliable and malleable vote bank in the party. This would break the hold of
the Black Misleadership Class which exists to ensure that class politics do not develop. The
great fear of the oligarchy and their paid agents in the black community is that voters will
stop thinking in racial terms and start judging politicians by their policies.
If that should happen, and 'Every Man become a King', the Few might as well emigrate to
Brazil or Colombia, and take the political class, the media and the 'intelligentsia' with
them.
The impeachment hearings will never touch the basic underlying fact that Obama/Biden
Administration restarted the Cold War by supporting the Maidan Coup and greenlighting the
seizing of the ethnic Russian Donbass region. The trench warfare there continues to this
day.
The same Corporate Democrats together with the Five-Eyes Intelligence Community have
conducted a continuous campaign to defeat and then remove Donald Trump. But they are so
incompetent that he is still in the White House but he is under pressure, all alone,
frustrated and angry, with only his daughter and Kellyanne Conway for support.
Yesterday, the USS Carrier Abraham Lincoln entered Persian Gulf after 6 months nearby;
Carrier Harry Truman is back at sea, ahead of relieving the Lincoln. US National Guard
armored units deployed to eastern Syria to keep the oil. The September drone attack shows
that Aramco's oil production facilities can be taken out at any time. A bad day and the
global economy crashes.
The only conclusion is that the hatred between globalist oligarchs and nationalists is
so deep and powerful that the consequences of a World War are ignored. The 2020 election is
pointless. The Republic is dead. The Empire shutters from internal conflict. If the Battle of
Carrhae replays once again, the war with Iran will force any survivors to retreat from the
Middle East.
Pelosi is driving this impeachment bus to a trial in the Senate next year at the height of
the primaries. The goal is to keep Warren and Bernie locked up in the Senate chamber, giving
Mayor Pete and Biden ( and maybe Bloomberg) a chance to gain ground and win some state races.
The Democrats don't care if they lose to Trump. They will do anything to make sure a
progressive doesn't win to protect their corporate paymasters.
It is beyond me why the Democrats think they can bring Trump down over this.
Of course they don't. The whole thing is a massive cover up. The idea is to bore the world on
Ukraine, sacrifice Biden and prevent Giulani from digging deeper. There is so much dirt over
Ukraine that just allowing a normal investigation would be suicide for the whole dems, not
just Kerry/Biden/Hillary.
The same thing happened with Russia/Mueller. There was never an attempt to get Trump, just
to distract from Fisa inquiries and the blatant Trump spying. The Durham investigation could
crucify many from Brennan to Hillary to probably Obama.
Bore the world with b/s investigations, hope Trump doesn't have time to do his own
homework. It will never work. Giulani has a ton of dirt to reveal if he wants. And in anycase
Trump won last time by ignoring the mudfight and concentrating on slogans that showed he had
listened to what voters are saying. Working class jobs and pay, and then every time a Dem
calls for "protect the immigrants", Transwomen's rights, better universities or attack
Trump's climate change record they lose a thousand votes.
Dem outrage at Trump is just the best thing for him to win marginal working class votes.
BTW - there seems to be this thing nowadays where you can't say the facts point one way
without claiming to hate the victor. Trump is a crook. Assad is an evil person but. China is
a dreadful place but.
Trump didn't go to Washington until 3 years ago. He is probably the most honest man in the
state.
"It is beyond me why the Democrats think they can bring Trump down over this."
Really, it's the Blue wing of the Quigley Party which, for obvious reasons, must run the
anterior assault with passive assistance from the Red wing. Schiff's role was to do a better
job of simulating substance, if the real stuff couldn't be found.
The RINOs need an optical rope-bridge, allowing them to embark on a
principled/Constitutional and oh-so-difficult moral traverse that they can be seen
reluctantly rising to for the benefit of taking the edge off incensed MAGAs. At this point,
the plan of necessity is to weather the civil insurrection because Trump simply has to
go.
Alas Schiff is not delivering much. Nonetheless I suspect that after trying everything and
the kitchen sink to get Trump, reluctant Senators' own dirty (NSA) dossiers will play key
roles. There has never been in the 70-year post WW2 era a more compulsory vote than this. All
swan-divers will be well cared for.
Those who focus on MERIT and SUBSTANCE forget that the real kingmaker is PROCESS. Article
1 Section 3 requires only 'present' Senators need vote on conviction. Thus a lot of games can
be played in the gap and particularly vulnerable RINOs might be allowed a form of sick-day
(e.g. a 20-Senator panel of Dems & Repubs).
It is hard to imagine Trump surviving Mitch's Star Chamber after heaven and earth has been
moved for three years to maneuver him to this point. The singular criticality of the Senate
well only grows as Trump's re-election appears increasingly assured.
T=Of course the less plausible the Schiff findings, the more 'process gerrymandering' will
be relied upon to carry the weight. Again, some level of civil unrest is unavoidable. However
five more years of Trump is a nonstarter.
"Trump is a crook."
I'm confounded by the persisting refusal to draw a qualitative distinction between Trump
and the system he's so clearly at odds with. Not a panacea of course. This is about power.
But distinction enough to rationalize the Herculean efforts being expended to oust
him.
Come on b, do the algebra! Something's lop-sided. Trump could save everyone a lot of
trouble if he simply fell back into the arms of his confederates. Surely at a minimum there's
a material schism in the elites. A schism means daylight in the Panopticon's ceiling. Why
isn't this cheered more?
If Trump swims in crookedness, why does the entire impeachment process hinge on two
ridiculously banal phone calls after over three years of FISA microscopy? Why, in the course
of his 'mock-defense' has he been allowed to turn back the sheets on the existential levels
of Ukraine corruption? Has the Deep State become masochistic in its old age?
And why hasn't the system found his price? Every crook has one. $50 billion would be a
reasonable opening gambit. Does anyone still think this is some kind of false-dialectic
kabuki? If it is, the stage managers deserve the world, or already have it. That, and an
Oscar. Bravo!
Copeland @ 33 said; "It seems like the primary role of the investigation, so far, is to
advance the national security narrative that portrays Russia as the perpetual enemy of the
US." Yes, it "seems" like it, because it is. The corporate empire needs enemies to keep the $
flowing.
Confrontation is much more profitable than peace...
I love the title of Rick Wilson's book "Everything Trump Touches Dies". The man is completely
beshitting the presidency and the USA brand. This is not to say it wasn't foul before he laid
his tiny hands on it. He is a symptom as another commenter here points out of the failure of
the system that produced him.
Impeachment will not solve the problem even though impeachment is fully justified on the
basis of his illegal maneuvers in Ukraine. He should be removed from his command for looting
Syria's oil, or for simply entering upon Syrian territory without being invited. Bush should
be in prison for the Iraq war, for that matter. But he's another symptom.
The clear and present danger is Trump who has thrown a monkey wrench into the global
system and disunited the nations. He's wrecked trade relations with China. He's exacerbated
problems in the ME and assisted Israel in the further destruction of the Palestinian people.
He's attempting to dismantle the lawful regulatory function of government and convert it to a
lawless fascist fortress America with only contempt for international law. His ignorance of
environmental problems is vast.
If this man is not removed from office this nation will die. Sooner than it would
otherwise. It is already very sick. This spectacle of impeachment is a weak remedy. We have
no alternative.
Trump is not a crook. He approached the situation with Z no doubt as he has been approached
countless times by the Mob and the Cops in NYC. "Nice country you got here. It would be a
shame if anything were to happen to it." If you sincerely believe Trump's denial of "quid pro
quo" and his handwritten notes, you might be the only one on the planet. That will hardly
save him from impeachment but not enough to get him tossed out (which I agree with others, is
not the Dems objective). Remember too, this did not start with the Dems. And it's not some
murky Deep State. I am surprised you have not focused on the obvious role of Bolton in all
this. He's hiding behind Kupperman now, waiting for everybody to testify, then he will come
out. He obviously has first hand info on all of this, and it's his cadre who have been
leading the charge, and his allies who have been beating the war drums (V, Taylor, Kent, et
al) with Russia. Finally, whatever the Biden boys were up to, Trump went full Tony Soprano.
Not a good look for an empire in decline. It's a textbook example of the constitutional
meaning of bribery.
tintorelli , Nov 21 2019 3:29 utc | 42
Trump is not a crook. He approached the situation with Z no doubt as he has been
approached countless times by the Mob and the Cops in NYC. "Nice country you got here. It
would be a shame if anything were to happen to it." If you sincerely believe Trump's denial
of "quid pro quo" and his handwritten notes, you might be the only one on the planet. That
will hardly save him from impeachment but not enough to get him tossed out (which I agree
with others, is not the Dems objective). Remember too, this did not start with the Dems. And
it's not some murky Deep State. I am surprised you have not focused on the obvious role of
Bolton in all this. He's hiding behind Kupperman now, waiting for everybody to testify, then
he will come out. He obviously has first hand info on all of this, and it's his cadre who
have been leading the charge, and his allies who have been beating the war drums (V, Taylor,
Kent, et al) with Russia. Finally, whatever the Biden boys were up to, Trump went full Tony
Soprano. Not a good look for an empire in decline. It's a textbook example of the
constitutional meaning of bribery.
Slightly off topic: I have been reluctantly listening to the hearings in front of the Star
Chamber of the House. A thing I didn't know (but should have) and learned from the hearings:
Ambassador Volker finds it totally unremarkable that a Ukrainian official would come to him
for editing and approval of a public statement by the Ukrainian government. I think the
foreign service needs a similar cleaning of the Augean Stables.
On Tuesday, Congressional impeachment hearings exposed an
interesting facet of the
current battle
between Donald Trump and the so-called deep state: namely, that
many government bureaucrats now fancy themselves as superior
to the elected civilian
government.
In an exchange between Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Alexander Vindman, a US Army Lt. Colonel,
Vindman insisted that Nunes address him by his rank.
After being addressed as "Mr. Vindman," Vindman
retorted
"Ranking
Member, it's Lt. Col. Vindman, please."
Throughout social media, anti-Trump forces, who have apparently now become pro-military
partisans, sang Vindman's praises, applauding him for putting Nunes in his place.
In a properly functioning government -- with a proper view of military power -- however, no one
would tolerate a military officer lecturing a civilian on how to address him "correctly."
It is not even clear that Nunes was trying to "dis" Vindman,
given that junior
officers have historically been referred to as "Mister" in a wide variety of times and place. It is
true that higher-ranking offers like Vindman are rarely referred to as "Mister," but even if Nunes
was
trying
to insult Vindman, the question remains: so what?
Military modes of address are for the use of
military
personnel, and no one
else.
Indeed, Vindman was
forced
to retreat on this point
when later asked by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) if he always insists on
civilians calling him by his rank. Vindman blubbered that since he was wearing his uniform (
for
no good reason, mind you
) he figured civilians ought to refer to him by his rank.
Of course, my position on this should not be construed as a demand that people give greater
respect to members of Congress.
If a private citizen wants to go before Congress and refer
to Nunes or any other member as "hey you," that's perfectly fine with me.
But the
important issue here is we're talking about
private citizens
-- i.e., the people who pay
the bills -- and not military officers who must be held as subordinate to the civilian government at
all times.
After all,
there's a reason that the framers of the US Constitution went to great pains
to ensure the military powers remained subject to the will of the civilian government.
Eighteenth and nineteenth century Americans regarded a standing army as a threat to their freedoms.
Federal military personnel
were
treated accordingly.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "to raise
and support Armies " and "to provide and maintain a Navy." Article II, Section 2 states, "The
President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the
Militia of the several States when called into the actual Service of the United States."
The authors of the constitution were careful to divide up civilian power of the
military, and one thing was clear:
the military was to have no autonomy in policymaking
.
Unfortunately, early Americans did not anticipate the rise of America's secret police in
the form of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and other "intelligence" agencies. Had they, it is likely the
anti-federalists would have written more into the Bill of Rights to prevent organizations like the
NSA from shredding the fourth amendment, as has been the case.
The inversion of the civilian-military relationship that is increasingly on display
in Washington is just another symptom of the growing power of often-secret and unaccountable
branches of military agencies and intelligence agencies that exercise so much power both in
Washington and around the world.
"... Morrison also testified that the Trump administration withheld foreign aid from Ukraine due to Trump's general skepticism toward foreign aid , and a "concern that Ukrainians were not paying their fair share, as well as concerns [that] our aid would be misused because of the view that Ukraine has a significant corruption problem ." ..."
"... "I had concerns about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's judgment . Among the discussions I had with Dr. Hill in the transition [period] was our team, my team, its strengths and its weaknesses. And Fiona and others had raised concerns about Alex's judgment," he recalled. ..."
"... When asked about rumors that Vindman might be leaking information to the press, Morrison said "It was brought to my attention that some had -- some of my personnel had concerns that he did [have access to things he was not supposed to see] ." ..."
A former top national security adviser to President Trump told a secret impeachment panel that he
believed nothing improper occurred during a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian
president Volodomyr Zelensky,
according to a
transcript
released over the weekend.
NSC official Tim Morrison, who was on that phone call, expressed this narrative-killing opinion
to the Democratic-led House Intelligence Committee
last month
- which would have
undermined recent public testimony by several US officials who said that President Trump abused his
office when he asked Zelensky to investigate former VP Joe Biden and matters related to the 2016 US
election.
That said, Morrison also testified that US Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, was involved
in an effort to encourage Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden - though he could not say whether Trump
was involved in those efforts.
He was uncertain of Trump's involvement in Sondland's efforts. "
I'm still not
completely certain that this was coming from the President
," Morrison testified to
House Democrats. "I'm only getting this from Ambassador Sondland."
During a closed-door deposition as part of the House impeachment inquiry, Morrison was asked,
"
In your view, there was nothing improper that occurred during the call?
"
"
Correct
," he answered as he was testifying under oath. -
Epoch
Times
Morrison replaced former NSC official Fiona Hill, who resigned from her position on July 19,
days before the infamous Trump-Zelensky call. He says that the word "Burisma" never came up during
that call, referring to the Ukrainian natural gas company which employed Hunter Biden on its board
while Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to have a prosecutor fired who was
investigating the company.
Trump asked Zelensky to investigate this, as well as allegations that Ukraine was involved with
the hacked DNC server as well as the only firm allowed to look at it, Crowdstrike.
Morrison also testified that
the Trump administration withheld foreign aid from Ukraine
due to Trump's general skepticism toward foreign aid
, and a "concern that Ukrainians were
not paying their fair share, as well as concerns [that] our aid would be misused because of the
view that
Ukraine has a significant corruption problem
."
Morrison was asked more about the phone call.
"
You were on the call. Do you remember whether the name Burisma came up on the call?"
"No, I don't believe it did,
" he said.
The answer is significant, as a junior NSC official, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, testified to
the House Intelligence Committee that Zelensky brought up the word "Burisma." However,
Morrison said that he has the "final clearing authority" on the July 25 call transcript
.
"Do you remember whether anyone suggested edits adding the word Burisma to the [memorandum of
conversation]?" Morrison was asked. "
I do not
," he responded. Vindman testified
that he suggested to edit in the word "Burisma."
But when asked about Vindman's suggestions,
Morrison said he approved all of them
.
"Had I recalled or had it in my notes that was mentioned, yes, I would have agreed to the
edit," he said of the word "Burisma." -
Epoch
Times
Morrison also told Congressional investigators that
he questioned Vindman's judgement
and that other NSC officials shared those concerns.
"I had concerns about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's judgment
. Among the
discussions I had with Dr. Hill in the transition [period] was our team, my team, its strengths and
its weaknesses. And Fiona and others had raised concerns about Alex's judgment," he recalled.
"I had concerns that he did not exercise appropriate judgment as to whom he would say what."
When asked about rumors that Vindman might be leaking information to the press, Morrison said
"It was brought to my attention that some had -- some of my personnel had concerns that
he did
[have access to things he was not supposed to see]
."
Following closely on the heels of sanctions and freeze orders by
the European Union and the United States, the primary objectives of
UFAR include facilitating international cooperation for the early
tracing of assets and identifying specific capacity building needs
for Ukraine. US Attorney General Eric Holder announced at the
conference that the Department of Justice would be placing a Justice
Department attorney in Kyiv to work exclusively on asset recovery and
mutual legal assistance. He also announced the formation of a
dedicated kleptocracy squad within the FBI.
UFAR's organizers, the United States and the United Kingdom, have
long been the most aggressive in recovering and repatriating assets
of corrupt officials and have formed units specifically to address
the issue since the entry into force of the United Nations Convention
Against Corruption, which, among other international commitments,
contains a critical chapter on the return of the proceeds of
corruption to countries of origin.
"The key character we should be
talking about is Eric Holder, President Obama's Attorney General.
No one has commented on the
chutzpah
of the Obama
administration demanding Ukraine fire Viktor Shokin, its top
prosecutor, for failing to prosecute Ukraine's most elite
criminals that had corrupted the entire system. Goldberg
explains:
"Shokin was seen as a single point of failure clogging up
the system and blocking corruption cases," a former official in
Barack Obama's administration told me. Vice President Joe Biden
eventually took the lead in calling for Shokin's ouster.
"We weren't pressing Ukraine to get rid of a tough
prosecutor, we were pursuing Ukraine to replace a weak
prosecutor who wouldn't do his job," Mr. Biden said.
Mr. Volker in his deposition defended Mr. Biden's work in
Ukraine and pointed out that the prosecutor was corrupt and
worked to shield favored people from prosecution, rather than
go after wrongdoers, according to the person familiar with his
testimony.
The international effort to remove Shokin, who became
prosecutor general in February 2015, began months before Biden
stepped into the spotlight, said Mike Carpenter, who served as
a foreign policy adviser to Biden and a deputy assistant
secretary of defense, with a focus on Ukraine, Russia, Eurasia,
the Balkans, and conventional arms control.
As European and U.S. officials pressed Ukraine to clean up
Ukraine's corruption, they focused on Shokin's leadership of
the Prosecutor General's Office.
"Shokin played the role of protecting the vested interest in
the Ukrainian system," said Carpenter, who traveled with Biden
to Ukraine in 2015. "He never went after any corrupt
individuals at all, never prosecuted any high-profile cases of
corruption."
That demonstrated that Poroshenko's administration was not
sincere about tackling corruption and building strong,
independent law enforcement agencies, said Heather Conley,
director of the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, a Washington-based foreign policy think
tank.
I have not found any article that points out the obvious
hypocrisy of the Obama administration demanding that a nation's
top prosecutor be fired for failing to prosecute the nation's most
powerful, corrupt, and destructive elite financial criminals. The
hypocrisy of Obama praising Holder while demanding Shokin's 'head'
was epic. To fix a problem one must first admit it and resolve to
fix it. Instead, Holder and Obama went with the preposterous lie
that there were no fraudulent elite bankers, so they brought no
prosecutions of the elite bankers whose frauds drove the GFC"
So basically, Corruptocrats want to impeach Trump, because he held up
foriegn aid to Ukraine, that was being money laundered back to the
curruptocrats like Joe Bidens son, and also because Trump wanted the
corruption investigated?....
And then the American news media
declares Trump is the criminal in all this?...
And in William Barrs grand jury room the chirping crickets are the
jury.....
Why do I get the feeling that D.C. is heading for one big reset
from a lot of pissed off people?.....
And let's not forget that Vindman
is (((Ukrainian))). So we have an un-elected Ukrainian by birth
working actively to, at best, replace his Commander-In-Chief's
judgment with his own and, at worst, actively subvert
his Commander-In-Chief's policy decisions and have him removed
from office.
Are there any military codes that might address such a
situation?
Read the transcript of his testimony. Ratcliffe gets him to
basically admit he advised his Uke counterparts to ignore
Trumps directions. The follow up is hysterical and his attorney
has to jump in and save his ***. A classic beat-down, complete
with stammering and and "holier than thou" comments from his
attorney, "if you want to go this direction, God be with you"
1.
Mr. Morrison did not believe anything improper
occurred on the July 25 call.
(p. 60)
2.
Mr. Morrison testified that the memorandum of
conversation (a phrase used to describe the call transcript) of
the July 25 call was complete and accurate.
(p. 60)
3. Mr. Morrison, who listened to the July 25 call, testified
that he was not concerned about the substance of what was
discussed on the call – only that the transcript might leak.
(p. 46-47)
4. Mr. Morrison was told by National Security Council lawyer
John Eisenberg that the July 25 call record mistakenly ended up
on the highly classified system, debunking the Democrats'
allegations of an attempted "cover up."
5.
Mr. Morrison repeatedly testified that he purposefully
kept Lt. Col. Vindman out of the loop on this matter because he
had concerns about Vindman's judgment, which were also raised
to him by Fiona Hill and others.
6. Mr. Morrison testified that, as the final clearing
authority for any edits made to the 7/25 call package, he
accepted all of Lt. Col. Vindman's proposed edits. (p. 61-62)
7. Mr. Morrison testified that he does not believe Burisma
came up on the call or that anyone suggested edits to the mem-con
to include the word Burisma. (p. 64)
8. Mr. Morrison testified that Lt. Col. Vindman relayed two
concerns to him about the July 25 call: that the call did not
get into the subject matter they had hoped, and the fidelity of
the translation. (p. 72-73)
9.
Mr. Morrison testified that Lt. Col. Vindman never
reported to Morrison any of the "light queries" that he
received from Ukrainian officials in August regarding the hold
on aid.
(p. 93)
10. Mr. Morrison confirmed that President Trump generally
does not like foreign aid generally, and specifically held
concerns that corruption in Ukraine may cause U.S. aid to be
"misused."
This should end the Democrat impeachment proceedings. There
is no crime. There was no crime. And Democrats continue to lie to
the American people about their secret sham investigation!
when news of hunter came out, I investigated a bit. I dont want to
blame an innocent person..So I went to leftist news and browsed...An
article on a msm website defended hunter, saying "many top officials
were concerned about corruption in burisma..Had nothing to do with
hunter. Hunter just worked there...So, I am not a ******* like the
left, and let them have the benefit of the doubt. Not enough proof to
beat up hunter is what I thought...but now, they twisted their lies
again and go after trump. unbelievable, I even researched and gave
hunter the benefit of the doubt, and that wasnt enough, now the left
commies are fibbing ovver their own fibs...unbelievable....burisma
was/is a corrupt entity and many top officials asked for them to be
investigated...even the left commies put out articles about it...dear
jesus
No one would argue that Ukraine isn't a cesspool of corruption,
but here's the rub. If trump was really concerned about that he
could suspend ALL US financial aid until ...umm...they adhered
to American standards of "sound and responsible money management a
fiscal responsibility'
:))
You know, like how the Pentagon accounts for it's trillions..
snicker.
Ok seriously now, the corruption he was interested in was
Burisma and the Biden connection? There's the takeaway right
there.
At the core of the Ukraine problem is this, simply put. The
regime change project has produced little to no dividends for
Corporate America and all the uniparty is willing to spare to
maintain the status quo is chump change in the great scheme of
things. Thus weakening their grip and influence. Kolomoiski,
having returned from exile is now talking about going back with
the Russians..It's a black hole, and all that trump was after was
dirt.
Taylor is a neocon and he is against detente with Russia. So he is part of State Department
nest of neocon vipers.
Taylor was very evasive. but he is a trained diplomat. Taylor will definitely regret his role
( and may be already started to regret ) but he has nothing to lose; he is old enough to
retire.
Notable quotes:
"... I love how CBS completely edited out Nunes first part of his speech about all the lowlife activities the left pulled. ..."
"... My favorite part was at 25:40 where Castro says "And at the heart of this corruption is this oligarchical system." .... for a second, I thought he was talking about the United States. ..."
My favorite part was at 25:40 where Castro says "And at
the heart of this corruption is this oligarchical system." .... for a second, I thought he
was talking about the United States.
I have learned to HATE everything the Democrats, their deep state and MSM stand for. It's
beyond comprehension that they have hijacked the greatest nation on earth and subverted the
constitution for personal power and gain! A government takeover by the citizens is not far
off, and the only people who will be safe are a few Republicans in government.
Now this amounts to the impeachment of The President of the United States, for "shaking
the confidence of a close partner for our reliability" Ambassador Taylor. 21:21
18:40 - 19:50 Turner gives a
confused explanation of the "6th Amendment" - right of criminal defendant to “to be
confronted with the witnesses against him” versus The Hearsay Rule - which is evidence
(statements made outside court setting) that may or may not be admissible at trial. Which, in
part, why Judges are present to rule on whether exceptions, exclusions to the Hearsay Rule
apply.
He obviously had his script written before this hearing and didn't listen to what was
actually said. He referenced things that were never even brought up but were talking points
for the Democrats.
...What a blinder and hypocrisy in the highest echelons of power. What a little petty
thinking....Democrats are clearly communists. Do you Americans know what this mean? Obviously
not.
Democrat lunacy on parade Taylor was about as clear as mud and so where his he said, they
said, or i heard someone say something, are we really taking these people seriously.?
Do these republicans not realize that the Ukrainian President is going to say whatever
trump tells him to say so he gets his money and weapons....he’s got a war going on and
must have those resources...what else is he going to say?
If Giuliani seeking information in Ukraine is such an abnormal thing as to cause alarm
then please explain DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa and the years she has spent in Ukraine
performing opposition research along with maintaining close ties with the NSCand the Obama
whitehouse.
There is no evidence against Trump and Taylor was so tongue-tied that he couldn't answer
some of those questions. I loved Jordan asking all those questions and putting those two
witnesses in place. In the court of law they WILL NOT TAKE HEARSAY because I worked for the
courts and lawyers so I know what the Judge would say. this is nothing but a scham and when
Trump gets to be President again I hope he puts Schiff in prison!!!!!!!
After House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) took time out of today's impeachment testimony to
rebuke President Trump for "witness intimidation," President Trump hit back.
During testimony from former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, Trump took aim at her over
Twitter, saying "
Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad
. She started off in
Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke
unfavorably about her..."
Following Trump's tweet, Schiff dramatically interrupted questioning from his staff counsel to read
Trump's tweet aloud - asking Yovanovitch what effect Trump's tweet might have on future witnesses, to
which she replied that it would be "very intimidating.
Trump's tweet was so troubling that former Media Matters employee Paul Waldman wrote in the
Washington Post
that Trump "talks and acts like a Mafioso" in an article entitled
"Yovanovitch hearing confirms that
Trump is running a thugocracy
."
Following Schiff's dramatic exchange, Trump was asked whether his words can be intimidating, to
which he said "I don't think so at all."
"
I have the right to speak. I have freedom of speech just like other people do
,"
Trump told White House reporters following remarks on a health care initiative, adding that he's
"allowed to speak up" and defend himself.
It's remarkable how tone deaf the Beltway Bubble has made these
bureaucrats and their clingers. The United States elected Donald
Trump, to get rid of people like Marie Yovanovitch. If anything, he
needs to speed things up.
We are at a turning point in our history. The Dems and
their Deep State agents have once again proven that they will go to
any lengths to destroy the constitution, upend the rule of law, lie,
cheat, steal and twist words to accomplish any goal.
I pretty much stopped having an ounce of sympathy for Trump this
week. On day two of his presidency he should have locked up Hillary,
and he didn't. He then has the ******* balls to tell us that "they"
meaning the Clintons "are good people". Are you ******* kidding me ?
? ?
For more than six months now, EVERYONE on planet Earth has
known about the Deep State, Obama, Biden, Pelosy, Brennan, Comey,
McCabe Stzrok, Page, Lynch, Rice ,Powers, Misfud, Fusion GPS ,Halper,
Neuland, Schiff, Nadler, Wray, Rosenstein, the entire Mainstream
Media and three dozen other ******* treasonous assholes tearing this
country apart.
And what exactly has Trump done to bring these people to justice
for treason and seditious conspiracy ? Jack ******* squat !
Epstein allegedly gets murdered in his cell/disapears, and all
Barr does is ******* shrug his shoulders like Schultz and says "I
know nothing". Assange is slowly being murdered in his cell while
Trump claims " I never heard of Wikileaks". Snowden and Manning are
enemies of the state, and nobody seems to care.
Meanwhile the entire country is being overrun up to our eyeballs
with illegals, the mentally ill are walking around like a zombie
apocalypse and the rule of law is totally dead.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for
such time as the State can shield the people from the political,
economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes
vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to
repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and
thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."-
Joseph Goebbels
Sputnik is reporting that the US has spent $6.4 Trillion fighting wars that have killed
800,000 since Sept 11/01, that number is unbelievable, at least 1,500,000 dead in Iraq,
250,000 in Afghanistan, 750,000 in Syria.
The US military budget alone has averaged about 650 billion since then, plus the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan were funded separately (around 200 million a year), plus CIA/ blackbook
projects - 7 or 8 trillion is a more likely number.
When things get blown up, no one really knows what was actually bought and existed and
what was just a phantom piece of equipment War has always been the ideal cover for
corruption
"... "In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to Ukraine. ..."
"... But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such? ..."
"... And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay. ..."
"... The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col. Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is the duly elected president who does that. ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn back toward Russia. ..."
"... "They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for it." ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets. ..."
"... Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He predicted that the trauma of war will pass. ..."
"... Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received nearly 73% of all votes. ..."
"... Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They are joined in this with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup: ..."
"... Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25% of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won 5.8%. ..."
"... on Yovanovitch, She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States." ..."
"... She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. . .Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is injured in the knee ..."
NBC News
is not impressed by the first day of the Democrats' impeachment circus. But it fails to
note what the conflict is really about:
It was substantive, but it wasn't dramatic.
In the reserved manner of veteran diplomats with Harvard degrees, Bill Taylor and George
Kent opened the public phase of the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on
Wednesday by bearing witness to a scheme they described as not only wildly unorthodox but
also in direct contravention of U.S. interests.
"It is clearly in our national interest to deter further Russian aggression," Taylor, the
acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, said in explaining why
Trump's decision to withhold congressionally appropriated aid to the most immediate target of
Russian expansionism didn't align with U.S. policy.
But at a time when Democrats are simultaneously eager to influence public opinion in favor
of ousting the president and quietly apprehensive that their hearings could stall or
backfire, the first round felt more like the dress rehearsal for a serious one-act play than
the opening night of a hit Broadway musical.
"In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the
permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to
Ukraine.
But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such?
President Obama was against giving weapons to Ukraine and never transferred any to Ukraine
despite pressure from certain circles. Was Obama's decision against U.S. national interest?
Where are the Democrats or deep state members accusing him of that?
Which brings us to the really critical point of the whole issue. Who defines what is in the
"national interest" with regards to foreign policy? Here is a point where for once I agree with
the right-wingers at the National Review where Andrew McCarthy writes :
[O]n the critical matter of America's interests in the Russia/Ukraine dynamic, I think the
policy community is right, and President Trump is wrong. If I were president, while I would
resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly associate myself with the delusion that
stable friendship is possible (or, frankly, desirable) with Putin's anti-American
dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia family and is acting on its revanchist
ambitions.
But you see, much like the policy community, I am not president. Donald Trump is.
And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the
bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National
Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their
assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a
constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay.
The U.S.
constitution "empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly
negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries."
The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the
administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col.
Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is
the duly elected president who does that.
The president does not like how the 'American policy' on Russia was built. He rightly
believes that he was elected to change it. He had stated his opinion on Russia during his
campaign and won the election. It is not 'malign influence' that makes him try to have good
relations with Russia. It is his own conviction and legitimized by the voters.
...
[I]t is the president who sets the policies. The drones around him who serve "at his
pleasure" are there to implement them.
There is another point that has to be made about the NBC's assertions. It is not in
the interest of Ukraine to be a proxy for U.S. deep state antagonism towards Russia. Robber
baron Igor Kolomoisky, who after the Maidan coup
had financed the west-Ukrainian fascists who fought against east-Ukraine, says so directly in
his
recent NYT interview :
Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his
role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a
remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn
back toward Russia.
"They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's
power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And
you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for
it."
... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed
Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets.
Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its
geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties
with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He
predicted that the trauma of war will pass.
...
Mr. Kolomoisky said he was feverishly working out how to end the war, but he refused to
divulge details because the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way."
Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to
pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received
nearly 73% of all votes.
Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess
it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They
are joined in this
with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup:
Zelenskiy's decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern
Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians
opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively short-lived, but
prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in
light of this domestic opposition.
...
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two parliamentary
factions, European Solidarity and Voice, whose supporters are predominantly located in
western Ukraine. Crucially, however, they can also rely on right-wing paramilitary groups
composed of veterans from the hottest phase of the war in Donbas in 2014-5.
Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25%
of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won
5.8%.
By pursuing further conflict with Russia the deep state of the United States wants to ignore
the wishes not only of the U.S. voters but also those of the Ukrainian electorate. That
undemocratic mindset is another point that unites them with the Ukrainian fascists.
Zelensky should ignore the warmongers in the U.S. embassy in Kiev and sue for immediate
peace with Russia. (He should also investigate
Biden's undue influence .) Reengaging with Russia is also the easiest and most efficient
step the Ukraine can take to lift its desolate economy.
It is in the national interest of both, the Ukraine and the United States.
Posted by b on November 14, 2019 at 18:23 UTC |
Permalink
next page " agree with mccarthy about who conducts foreign policy, disagree about who
the aggressor is; it's the USA, trying to weaken Russia, which is the aggressor.
thanks b... typo - immediate piece with Russia - 'peace' is the spelling here...
the comments from Kolomoisky in the recent nyt interview are very telling.. aside from
being a first rate kleptomaniac who will willingly play both sides if he can profit from it,
he is also speaking a moment of truth..for him Ukraine is available to the highest bidder...
he could give a rats ass about Ukraine or the people... but still, it is refreshing that the
NYT published his comments in this regard..
the quote "the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way." is very true... it was true
before kolomisky picked a side too.. this guy is very shrewd.. i wonder if his own country is
able to see thru him?
national interest.... yes, trump gets to decide and he won on the idea of having closer
relations with russia, but the cia-msm has been lambasting him and anyone else associated
with him since before the election over the clinton e mails... they have painted a scenario
that it is all russias fault and have been relentless in this portrayal... hoping trump is
going to turn this around is like hoping someone is going to turn the titanic around from
hitting a giant iceberg... the usa is too far gone and will be hitting the iceberg.. they are
in fact...
From NYT about Kolomo???? (spelling in English is highly variable)
George D. Kent, a senior State Department official, said he had told Mr. Zelensky that his
willingness to break with Mr. Kolomoisky -- "somebody who had such a bad reputation" -- would
be a litmus test for his independence. [If is good to be independent, i.e. to do what we
want.]
And William Taylor, the acting ambassador in Kiev, said he had warned Mr. Zelensky: "He,
Mr. Kolomoisky, is increasing his influence in your government, which could cause you to
fail." [La Paz is a fresh reminder for Kiev?]
Well the thing about Zelensky is he's still there, and he is making changes in Donbass.
Kolomoisky was interested in the fracked gas in Donbass, the completion of NordStream II
has made a mess of that idea. It is good that he has seen the light, as it means Zelensky
will have support in his attempts to adapt to reality. But Kolomoisky is still a crook no
doubt.
My immediate reaction was that Kolomoisky realises he has to act - the Ukrainian oligarchs
have got too close to America. I agree with James that he is a extremely clever man.
Ukraine's traditional business is playing both ends against the middle and sending the
proceeds to Switzerland (or the Caribbean in Porosyonok's case). Since 1990 a few of these
robber barons have made a very good business winding up the west against Russia, it could go
on ever - why spoil it by lifting the rock and seeing all the insects scurrying around in the
light?
Another rock that has been lifted is in Washington, where the khokhol diaspora are
desperately trying to get Uncle Sam to right the wrongs of a century ago.
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners oif the world and they run the world they
own.
... @ b -- "Only some 20% of the Ukrainians favor to continue the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports."
The are not 'separatists', but rather Ukrainians who want to stay in a federated Ukraine
as 'provinces' with powers to pass their regional laws, similar to those in Canada.
The segment of empire in the US that are against Russia act so because it was Russia that
stymied them in Syria and continues to be in their way of expanding the control from that
part of empire...the US segment.
I still believe that the global private finance core segment of empire is behind Trump and
throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The cult of global
private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role in the new
multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyones heads to make it ongoing.
I don't believe that strategy will work but as long as they can be fronted by a MAD player
of some sort (Occupied Palestine comes to mind) they can be bully players in international
matters.
As the world economies grind to a "halt" there will be lots of pressure everywhere and
very little clarity about the key civilization war over public/private finance, IMO
For a military dictatorship, diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means. The US has
been at war with Russia since the right-wing coup at the Democratic convention of 1944. All
presidents have been servants of the military, which includes the police/intel/security
apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead role were "dealt with."
Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state bureaucrats are shocked
and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US foreign policy for 75
years!
Wow! The depth of delusion on display is as breathtaking as its complete projection of the
intentions and actions of the Evil Outlaw US Empire! Oh so many saying I'm displaying four
fingers instead of two. Too bad there isn't a padded cell big enough to contain all the
lunatics. I recall the pre- and post-coup discussions from 2014--that Russia was going to
make NATO own Ukraine until it was forced to concede it has no business being there; that
Russia would teach the would-be leaders of Ukraine a serious lesson in where their national
interests lay. NATO is ready to cede and the lesson's been learned.
IMO, two referendums must be held. The first within Russia: Will you accept portions of
Ukraine wanting to merge with Russia: Yes/No? Second to be given within Ukraine provided Yes
wins in #1: Do you wish to join Russia or remain in Ukraine? IMO, this is a very longstanding
unresolved issue of consequence for the people involved. The political leaders of Russia and
Ukraine might both be against such a vote, but IMO that merely kicks the can further down the
road and opens the door for more mischief making by the Evil Outlaw US Empire. Assuming a Yes
from Russia and some from Ukraine, a strategic threat to Russia and Europe would be
mitigated. Additional questions about those parts of Ukraine not wanting to join Russia could
be solved via additional referenda in the Ukraine and neighboring nations that might prove
willing to absorb the remnants and their people. Such action would of course negate the Minsk
Agreements.
Given the ideological passions of those living in Western and Northern Ukraine, I don't
see any hope for the continuation of the Ukrainian state as currently arranged, thus the
proposed referenda. However, if Russia says Nyet, then Minsk must be implemented.
"Democracy" is not about letting the people as a whole have a say in how the country is
governed. That would be fascist, and racist, and populist, and LITERALLY HITLER. Letting the
people decide on things like foreign policy, is literally anti-democratic.
No, "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing responsibility. The elites get
to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take responsibility when things go wrong.
Because you see, we are a "Democracy."
Breaking off long established economic and cultural ties with a large neighbouring country,
virtually overnight, is a rash act, and certain to create dislocation and hardship. The
craziness of the idea was only achievable through the traumatizing psy-op of the sniper
event, leading directly to the coup and the state of war. The EU and the US were clearly
malevolent in orchestrating the Association agreement with its ridiculous terms and the
corresponding Maidan pressures.
The fools in Hong Kong, after protester-sponsored screenings of the World On Fire
documentary, were actually quoted as presuming the Maidan protests had "won" and expressed
their hopes that they too could "win". Good luck to them.
Kolomoisky and Zelensky know what needs to be done, but they fear the blood that will flow
with Nazi-Banderist scum! Zelinski's balls are not that big, and has no options left after
compromising his position from day one. Who will make the first move, I fear not him? Russia
has time, and patience, which is sorely lacking in the west who feel they have to push the
envelope.
The Minsk II protocol was agreed to on 12 February 2015 by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia,
France, and Germany, It included provisions for a halt in the fighting, the withdrawal of
foreign forces, new constitution to allow special status for Donbass, and election in Donbass
for local self governance. Control of the present border of Ukraine would be restored to the
Ukraine government. Donbass would continue to be in Ukraine with some autonomy here (scroll down).
There are many such autonomous zones in the world, and in Europe, seen here .
The problem in Ukraine is that the neo-Nazi factions promoted by the US don't want to see a
resolution, and will fight it with US support.
Kolomoysky is obviously a master thief and general scumbag...but he is no fool...
I think the writing on the wall became obvious with the Nordstream 2 finalization, where,
it is noted, Denmark came in just under the wire in terms of not disrupting the
timetable...
Obviously the interests of German business have prevailed...and rightly so in this
case...
And what of the famous EU line about 'protecting' Ukraine as a gas transit
corridor...?
LOLOLOL...that is in the same category of nothingburger as the EU noises about 'alternate
payment' mechanisms for trade with Iran...
As soon as the Denmark story broke, Gazprom and Russian energy analysts talked openly
about the tiny volumes that Ukraine could expect to see transiting its territory...as part of
a new agreement to replace the one that has expired...
It works out to a small fraction of the several billion dollars in transit fees the
Ukraine was getting...
Also considering that the IMF appears to be finally shutting off the tap of loans to this
failed gangster state...and that the promises from the EU in 2013 were just so much fairy
tales...hard-nosed operators like Kolomoysky are recalculating...
The chaos and national ruin has really cost these gangster capitalists nothing [in fact
they have profited wildly]...so it is easy for them to reverse course and come begging back
to Russia...
Bryan MacDonald has a good piece about this today in RT...
So, here we are, almost six years since the first "EuroMaidan" protests in Kiev, and
Ukraine's most prominent oligarch has finally voiced the unmentionable: the project has
failed.
As for Kolomoysky...like Trump, there is something to like about dirtballs who speak their
minds openly...LOL
Quite a turnaround by Kolomoisky. Wasn't he once caught on a tapped phone call admitting
while chuckling about Ukrainian complicity in shooting down MH-17? i.e. NOT Donbas rebels and
NOT Russia.
@12 karlof1... a referendum... as if the usa would agree to that, lol.... look how they
processed the one in crimea...
@18 flankerbandit... last line is true, but it pales in relation to the ugliness these 2
exhibit 99% of the time, although the 1% when they don't it's refreshing! ukraine will
continue to be used as a tool by the west..
forget about any referendum.. that makes too much sense and won't be allowed..
Nordstream 2 will come online in less than 2 months and the Ukrainian gas exports at that
time will cease (I.e. no oil for the Oligarchs to steal), no matter what the US says they
can't replace the Russian oil exports in terms of money & support to Ukraine, so the
Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in order for the Russians to keep
even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets
It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot.
But now the Ukrainian thieves are beginning to realize that the Western thieves are going
to steal the very ground from under their feet, so there will be no more Ukraine to steal
from. That's not a very good business model. Plus they're no doubt seeing how the US treats
its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere, and realize they could easily find themselves
the next meal for the US beast. Pretty easy to see why the smarter ones are getting
nervous.
they need to make peace with Russia or they will be left out in the cold, literally. They
seemed to have previously bought into some insane lie that they'd be a part of the EU and
NATO if theyd do Washington's bidding. The Deep state vastly underestimated Putin's resolve
when it became clear to the Russians that Washington may try and turn Crimea into a NATO port
one day. The game is over. Ukraine needs to find a way forward now for itself or it will be a
failed state in the near future. It's clear Merkel and Europe want no part of this headache
I don't think Russians want to 'own' any part of Ukraine...at least that is the nearly
unanimous opinion of my own contacts and colleagues in Russia...so I don't think any
referenda will be on the table...
What I do think is possible is what Yanukovich and Russia agreed to in terms of a trade
and economic deal...which was a lot more practical [not to mention generous] than the EU
'either or' nonsense...
Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they are selling vast tracts of
agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally dispossessing themselves of
their own food security...
At the time of the Soviet dissolution, Ukraine had the highest living standards and some
of the world's prime industry and technology...including for instance the Yuzhnoye design
bureau [rocket engines and spacecraft] and many more such cutting edge aerospace
concerns...
For years these crucial enterprises were able to keep going due to the Russian
market...that all ended in 2014 [and in fact was tapering off even before due to the massive
corruption]...
Now the Chinese are looking to scoop up these gems at firesale prices...
It is really quite unbelievable that the nutcases in the Ukraine would be willing to cut
off their own arm just to bleed on Russia's shirt...
Why did the Ukraine never recover from the gangster capitalism like Russia did...because
no Putin ever came along to reign in the oligarchy...[It could be argued Putin hasn't done
nearly enough in this regard].
The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own future...as the
unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to extract maximal
wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on the verge of
toppling...
Kolomoisky is talking his book and helping USA to make the case that Nordstream is a NATO
security issue. To pretend that he's serious about a rapproachment with Russia just plays
into that effort.
And b ignores my comment on the prior thread that he references (about Trump being
Constitutionally charged with foreign policy). Repeating: the "Imperial Presidency" has flung
off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing the need to get Congressional
approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and
black budgets.
While for practical reasons the Executive Branch of USA government has the power to
negotiate treaties and manage foreign relations, Constitutionally he does so for the
sovereign (the American people) and his efforts are subject to review and approval of the
people's representatives via the power of the purse.
Ignoring how the "Imperial Presidency" has usurped power leads to faulty analysis that
supports that power grab.
Ukrainegate IS a farce, but for other reasons. Chief among them being the inherent fakery
of 'managed democracy' which manifests as kayfabe.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners of the world and they run the world they
own.
Nicely put:- that is the reality. Thanks b for your intrepid reports.
Paul Craig Roberts has a deeply aggrieved rant at zero hedge if barflies want a chuckle.
What a shitshow.
Crimea?
It has been part of Russia about as long as the USA has been a country.
9 out of 10 residents are of Russian origin, and Russian is the spoken language.
I guess it could be returned to the 10%-- but out of fairness, we must turn the USA over to
its original occupants.
If you live in the USA, get your ass ready to leave.
One of the problems that the anti-nazis face in Ukraine is that there are occupying armies in
the country. Armies which cannot be trusted to obey instructions which are not agreed upon by
NATO warmongers.
One such army is Canadian, commanded I believe by a descendant of the Ukrainian SS refugees
and reporting to the Foreign Minister in Ottawa, a Russophobe with a family background of
nazi collaboration.
The actual political situation is much more delicate than media reports suggest: what are
called elections feature, in the Washington approved fashion, the banning of socialist and
communist candidates. Bans which are enforced by a combination of fascist commanded police
forces and, even less responsible, private nazi militias. Opponents of the Maidan regime are
driven into exile, jailed or murdered.
Those who wonder as Jackrabbit, in a rare essay into rationality, does above, about the
nature of the US Constitution after decades of the erosion of checks and balances thanks to
the Imperial Presidency, will recognise that a dialectic is at work here. Washington's
support for fascism abroad has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the
installation of fascist regimes abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US
intervenes it leaves a fascist regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind
it.
And what this means is that, among other things, the ability of the population to effect
political change is cancelled: there is no way that the people of Ukraine can decide what
they want because the decisions have been taken for them, in weird cult like gatherings of SS
worshiping Bandera supporters in Toronto and Chicago. It is no accident that most of the
'Ukrainians' being wheeled out by the Democrats to testify against Trump are actually greedy
expatriates who have never really lived in Ukraine.
There was a moment, not long ago, when it looked as if the Minsk accords promised a path to
peace and reconciliation. Unfortunately the plain people of Ukraine, the poorest in Europe
though living in one of the richest countries, Washington, Ottawa and NATO didn't like the
sound of Minsk. Nor did the fascists in the Baltic states and Poland, for whom, for
centuries, Ukraine has been a cow to milk, its people slaves to be exploited and its rich
resources too tempting to ignore.
As Thomas Jefferson explained the President's role in foreign affairs in 1790, and the lack
of advisors' policy making decisions: ''as the President was the only channel of
communication between the United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that
foreign nations or their agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation';
that whatever he communicated as such, they had a right and were bound to consider 'as the
expression of the nation'; and that no foreign agent could be 'allowed to question it,' or
'to interpose between him and any other branch of government, under the pretext of either's
transgressing their functions.' Mr. Jefferson therefore declined to enter into any discussion
of the question as to whether it belonged to the President under the Constitution to admit or
exclude foreign agents. 'I inform you of the fact,' he said, 'by authority from the
President.'
Might also be worth yesterdays hero's asking if dear Mr Kolomoisky, joint Uki/Israeli
national, took a part in authorising the shoot down of MH17 as a news cover for Operation
Protective Edge. Heave ho zionist USA ....et al.
1.The decisions to with hold and release aid have nothing to do with the President making
foreign policy but with his campaign. Saying it was about foreign policy is a damned lie.
2.Trump as president is supposed to lead foreign policy, which means actually setting a
policy. Military aid to Ukraine, yes, except no, except yes, personal handling without asking
anybody with experience how to achieve the national goal desired, national agenda kept secret
from the people who have to carry it out, abuse of officials, demands for dubiously legal
actions without rationale...Saying it was about the president's executive role is a damned
lie.
3.Trump has not made even a tweet that questions US support for fascists. That not even a
issue for Trump. Saying this is about support for fascism is a damned lie.
4.Kolomoyskiy is a bankroller of fascists. It is not impossible even a billionaire might get
frightened by the genie he's let out of the bottle, even if he's Jewish and rich enough to
run away. But actually undoing the fascist regime means taming the paramilitaries and this is
not even on the horizon. Given the rivalry between Poroshenko and Kolomoyskiy it's not even
certain it's a real change of heart or just soothing words for the non-fascist people. Nor is
it even clear the Zelensky will follow even the Steinmeier formula. If he does, good, but
until something actually happens? Saying it's about the antifascist turn is a damned lie.
The only thing that isn't a lie is that Trump was not committing treasons, "merely" a
campaign violation. But then, Clinton never did either. The crybabies who dished it out but
can't take it deserve zero respect, and zero time.
Curious to know how Kolomoisky is working "feverishly" to end the war in the Donbass region.
Wonder if he is planning to come clean on what he knows of the Malaysia Airlines MH17
shootdown and crash in an area not far from Slavyansk and near where his Privat Group's
subsidiary company Burisma Holdings holds a licence to drill for oil and natural gas. What
does he know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control personnel's direction to MH17
to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000 metres above as the flight crew
had requested? He had been governor of Dnepropetrovsk region at the time.
Somewhere I read it alleged that the actual owner of Burisma was or is Kolomoiski.
Anything to this?
And via John Helmer (via Checkpointasia and dances with bears) comes the perspective that
it's not so much Kolomoiski floating trial balloons (though that may also be true) but that K
is being given space in the NYT to build his credentials as the new Borg villain, thereby
making it still harder for Zelensky to reconcile with Russia.
fb @ 25 said;"The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own
future...as the unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to
extract maximal wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on
the verge of toppling..."
Yup, aided and abetted by our current regime, while pretending not to...
@23
"It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot."
This is it in a nutshell. The Russians were fed up with Ukraine stealing gas. Hence, Nord
Stream 2. That was always the plan. Whether the Yanks truly grasped the rationale here
---Russia is cutting off gas to Ukraine, simple---has never been clear to me. Although it is
a fairly simple plot. The Russians had decades of shenanigans with the Ukes and said Basta.
By not overreacting to the Ukrainian-USA freakout and keeping their eyes on the prize (Nord
Stream and disengaging, gas-wise, from Uk), they have managed to reach their goal of getting
Nord Stream 2 online.
Kolomoiski is the bankroller and commander of the Azov Battalion. Has close arrangements with
other paramilitaries. And is the current principal of Burisma. And is Privatbank, the only
bank left in Ukraine. He gets a cut of all the action.
When Trump queries Zelensky, all that Zelensky is thinking is this guy does not know the
score. This guy does not know who's on first. He wants me to investigate the boss? Let him
talk to the boss. And who does Z talk to in D.C.? Pointless getting into detail with
Trump.
Trump has no team. No one in D.C. is on his side. He's unable to finish anything.
1) Say the fantasy happens and the US/Russia become BFFs like US/UK...
- Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss?
- Tough to answer, many unknowns- Russia may act different once its on top, actors may
derail schemes, Deep State temper tantrum, etc...
In general, governments are the order-providing solution for chaos and problems that only
first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over others.
Kolomoiski is a U.S. asset. His interview with the NYTimes proves it.
His threats are meant to mobilize NATO and Russia haters in general; because Trump and
most of his cadre care nothing for Ukraine.
Does anyone think Russia will give Kolomoiski 100 million dollars? Why was he given an
opportunity to threaten the USA? For no reason? Something else is afoot but Russia still
won't take the bait because they are winning.
Russia is quite happy with the status quo. The war in Ukraine keeps the war against Russia
on a level which is easy to manipulate and therefore geostrategically beneficial. Kolomoiski
will get nothing.
Thank you, b, for that snippet from NY Interview with Kolomoisky . I had glanced the headline
on RT but didn't read it because of RT's usual clumsy writing.
Kolomoiski is taunting the empire: investigate my crimes and
ukraine will seek reconciliation and alliance with russia.
Russia won't fall for it. They want kolomoiski's scalp even
more than the empire. From the statements putin has made, maybe
the only concession russia would accept is the dissolution of
ukraine as a sovereign entity and reintegration with russia, minus galicia.
Putin has remarked that they are not one people but one state. Ukraine
already knows that its domestic industry is only viable in competition
with the eu industrial powerhouses if it is integrated with russia.
What does [Kolomoysky] know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control
personnel's direction to MH17 to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000
metres above as the flight crew had requested?
Okay..so an interesting can of worms here...
First is the fact that Kolomoysky was the governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast at the
time...
Now as to the flight and Dnipro Radar [the regional air traffic control facility that
controls a very big chunk of airspace over eastern Ukraine]...
First the issue of the airplane cruising altitude...the crew had filed their flight plan
to climb from flight level 330 [33,000 ft] to FL350 after passing a certain waypoint in
eastern Ukraine...
Now the controllers did instruct the crew to go ahead and climb to their planned altitude,
but the crew declined the clearance and opted to stay at FL330...this was done very
likely because the atmospheric conditions at that height were better for fuel economy...
[To be even more specific...the Boeing manual gave an optimum flight altitude of 33,800
ft, but flying eastward you only have odd numbered flight levels to choose from, so the crew
figured they would be better off staying at 33 than climbing to 35...]
BUT...there are a couple of very curious things here...
First is the fact that Dnipro controllers deviated the airplane from its flight
plan just before it went down...ostensibly due to other traffic...
We can see this in the following map, which is what's called a high altitude en route
chart, which is used by pilots to plan and execute their flight...
You will note a couple of things here...the airplane is flying on the L980 airway
[basically a highway in the sky] when it is turned south by controllers to the RND waypoint,
which is in Russian territory...
This is NOT the route filed by the crew...which can be seen here...
They were supposed to continue flying on L980 right to the TAMAK waypoint, which is
visible on the previous chart and is right on the border with Russia...
They would have continued on the A87 airway to their next waypoint in Russia which is
TIKNA...
Now here is the thing...right after they were turned south, they got shot down...
According to the radio transcripts, the crew acknowledged the course change, but did not
object...however, usually these kinds of course changes aren't appreciated on the flight deck
because the crew is trying to minimize wasted time and wasted fuel on course
deviations...
Most times you will just not bother to complain to controllers...but for sure there will
always be chatter between the captain and copilot about being yanked around like that...
No mention is made in the Dutch Safety Board report about such chatter from the cockpit
voice recorder, which I find very odd...
Also odd is the fact that Dnipro ATC primary radar was down, and only the so-called
'secondary' was working which uses the transponder signals from the airplane...
This is very busy airspace because a lot of flights from western Europe to South Asia
traverse this territory...the plan is always to fly what's called a 'great circle route'
which is basically a straight line, if you flattened out the globe...
Plus considering that you have a war going on underneath...it's very unusual to have your
PRIMARY radar inoperable...
This is significant also because military aircraft will not be using transponders and so
will not be visible to the secondary surveillance...
The Russian primary radar did pick up two other aircraft very nearby MH17...but the Dutch
have made some kind of excuse about that data not being in 'raw' form and thus not
usable...
So we see some very suspicious anomalies here...
The Ukrainian authorities did have a NOTAM [notice to airmen] in effect up to FL320
[32,000 ft] so commercial traffic could not fly under that height...but clearly they should
have closed the airspace over the hot conflict area...
They didn't do that...and Kolomoysky was in charge...
The Deep State's view on the members' God given right to make foreign policy decisions (it
must be the God who has give it to them, because the people certainly have not) just reminds
the of the general attitude of the Government's bureaucracy. Give any fartbag a position in
the government and he/she becomes "a prince/princes over the people", give him or her a
monopoly over violence and you got yourself a king/queen. All these police and military kings
& queens milling around and lording over us. "Deep State" is such a totally natural
consequence of the government bureaucracy corrupted by power that it appropriated.
Pillaging taxes from the sheeple (and taking young maidens like Sheriff of
Nottingham/Epstein) could have never ever been enough. Did you seriously think that the Deep
Staters would constrain themselves to only stealing your money, taking your children for
their pleasure and to die in their wars of conquest, and putting you into a totally unsafe
airplanes to die for their profit? Constrain themselves when there is a whole globe out there
to be lorded over, like Bidens over Ukraine? It is the poor people of Ukraine who just have
too much money, thus had to give it through the gas monopoly to the Biden gang, which
selflessly brought them "democracy" at $5B in US taxpayers' expense. Therefore, it is the
Deep State which has been chosen by God, or someone just like that, to make the decisions
about the imperialist/globalist foreign policy and have billions of dollars thrown by the
grateful natives into their own pockets, as consulting fees:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leaked-bank-records-confirm-burisma-biden-payments-morgan-stanley-account
So far the only clear-cut globalization is that one of crime, which has become
global.
What is the US National Interest b asks? Who defines it as such?
Ome magazine that might know is none other than The National Interest. Hopefully I won't
get attacked for quoting from what seems like a fairly sane article to me....
"The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to. Ukraine is a debt-ridden state
and only five years beyond an extralegal revolution. Should the government collapse again,
then American weapons could end up in the possession of any number of dubious paramilitary
groups.
It wouldn't be the first time. In the 2000s, CIA operatives were forced to repurchase
Stinger missiles that had fallen into the hands of Afghani warlords -- at a markup.
Originally offered to the Mujahideen in the 1980s, the Stingers came to threaten American
forces in the region. Similarly, many weapons provided with US authorization to Libyan rebels
in 2011 ended up in the possession of jihadists."
It's difficult to find clean information on happenings within Ukraine and those involving
Russia. The Ministry of Foreign affairs has this page
dedicated to the "Situation Around Ukraine." Of the three most recent listings,
this one --"Comment by Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the NATO
Council's visit to Ukraine"--from 1 November is quite important as it deals with the reality
on the ground versus the circus happening thousands of miles away, although it's clear the
delusions in Washington and Brussels are the same and "continue to be guided by the Cold War
logic of exaggerating the nonexistent 'threat from the East' rather than the interests of
pan-European security."
In the
second most recent listing --"Remarks by Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian
Federation to the OSCE Vladimir Zheglov at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting on the
situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, October 31,
2019"--the following was noted:
"There's more to it. The odious site Myrotvorets continues to function using servers
located in the United States. The UN has repeatedly stated that this violates the presumption
of innocence and the right to privacy. Recently, Deputy Head of the UN Human Rights
Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Benjamin Moreau, reiterated the recommendation to shut down
this website. A similar demand was made by other representatives of the international
community, including the German government. The problem was brought to the attention of the
European Court of Human Rights. The other day, the representative of Ukraine at the ECHR was
made aware of the groundlessness of the Ukrainian government's excuses saying that it
allegedly 'has no influence' on the above website.
"In closing, recent opinion polls in Ukraine indicate that its residents are expecting the
government to do more to bring peace to Donbas. The path to a settlement is well known, that
is, the full implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, that was
approved by the UN Security Council."
Clearly, Zelensky's government is much like Poroschenko's when it comes to listening to
those who empowered it, the above citation is one of several from the overall report.
The latest report deals with an ongoing case at the International Court of Justice at The
Hague that reveals some of the anti-Russian bias there. It has no bearing on this discussion,
although it does provide evidence of the contextual background against which the entire
affair, including the circus in Washington, operates.
MoA consensus is Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords they continue to oppose
to implement despite their promise to do so. Clearly an excellent example of not being
agreement capable that hasn't changed since 2015.
If the Republicans had any brains, they'd turn the Ukrainian aspect of the hearings into
an indictment against Obama/Biden for illegally overthrowing Kiev and trying to obtain their
piece-of-the-action, but then that would be the logical thing to do and thus isn't an option.
The prospect of each day providing similar spectacle is mind numbing as it airs the sordid,
unwashed underwear if the Evil Outlaw US Empire.
I normally do not reply to trolls, but I make an exception for you. Pedo-dollar? Do you have
any more such crap to dilute the valid points discussed here?
i liked what @ 32 tod said - "he's just doing the old Jewish threatening/begging
dance!
"And you are forcing us to be at war, and not even giving us the money for it." Wink!
Wink!"
stating the obvious is one remedy for any possible confusion here..
@54 karlof1... i don't believe trump is allowed to shine any light on the usas illegal
actions as that would be sacrilege to all the americans who see their country in such a
great, exceptional-ist light... how would trumps MAGA concept swallow that? it wouldn't, so
it won't happen...
You are a bit off on that story. NS2 pipeline will increase the capacity not transitioning
via Ukraine and reduce the price banditry by the Ukrainian & US gangs, but it will not
make gas transit via Ukraine unnecessary. The planned switch off of the German nuclear and
coal power plants will gradually increase the German demand for gas, that is the Russian gas
by so much that NS1 and NS2 will not be enough. Primarily, NS2 is a signal to the Ukrainian
& US Democrat gangs that if they try excessive transit fees and stealing of gas again,
that they will be circumvented within a few years by NS 3,4,5 ...
BTW, the globalized pillaging of the population is clearly not an invention of the DNC
crime gang only. For example, the 737Max is a product of primarily Republican activity on
deregulating what should have never been deregulated and subjugation to the Wall Street (aka
financialization). The pillaging of the World is strictly bipartisan, just differently
packaged:
1) R - packaging the deregulation to steal & kill as "freedom" or
2) D - packaging the regime change as responsibility to protect R2P (such regime change and
stuffing of own pockets later).
karlof1 @54 - "Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords"
Yes. As you well know, and as we have well discussed, Minsk was in its very essence the
surrender terms dictated to the US by NAF and Russia in return for letting the NATO
contractors go free and secretly out of the Debaltsevo cauldron. Either actually or
poetically, this was the basis. The US lost against NAF. The only way to prevent Donbass
incursion into the rest of Ukraine was to freeze the situation. The US had no choice, and
surrendered.
Out of the heat and fog of warfare came a simple document made of words which, even so,
illustrated perfectly just how elegantly the Kremlin had the entire situation both war-gamed
and peace-gamed. Minsk from that day until forever has locked the Ukraine play into a lost
war of attrition for the US sponsors, with zero gain - except for thieves.
To attempt to parse Ukraine in terms of statecraft is to miss the point that Ukraine can
only be parsed in terms of thievery. This is not cynicism, simply truth.
Now they sell their land because this is all there is left to sell. Kolomoisky proposes
selling the entire country to Russia for $100 billion but not only will Russia not bite, the
country isn't worth even a fraction of that - because of Minsk, it can cause zero harm to
Russia. But this ploy raises the perceived value (Kolomoisky hopes) in the eyes of the west,
and starts the bidding.
In Russia the people see all this very clearly, including on their TV. Yakov Kedmi in this
Vesti News clip of
Vladimir Soloviev's hugely popular talk show, discusses the situation. He baits Soloviev by
saying that the Ukrainian thieves are only doing what the Russian thieves did in the 1990's -
and one must filter through this badinage to take out the nuggets he supplies. Here are
three:
1. Zelensky has no security apparatus that follows his command, therefore how can he be
considered the leader of the country?
2. There is no power in Ukraine, only forces that contend over the scraps of plunder.
3. These forces are creating the only law there is, which is the sacred nature of private
property for the rich - the only thing the US holds sacred.
Therefore sell the very soil.
~~
The Minsk agreement is a sheer wall of ice reaching to the sky. No force imaginable can
scale it or break it. Against that ultimate, immovable wall the US pounds futilely, with
Ukraine caught in the middle, while Russia waits for Ukraine to devolve into whatever it
can.
And the Russian people and government regard the people of the Ukraine as brothers and
sisters. But until the west has worn itself down, and either gone away or changed the
equation through a weakening of its own position in some significant way, nothing can be done
by Russia except to wait.
What Tod @32 described is spot-on, "the old Jewish threatening/begging dance". It is not that
the Russians do not know this about Kolomoyskyi. They will play along not expecting anything
from the Zelo-on-a-String and his master. The Russians like to let those scumbags (Erdo comes
to mind) huff & puff and embarrass themselves by flips. They know - it could always be
worse if those did something intelligent. Kolomoyskyi is vile but he ain't no genius, not any
more than Erdo.
Sure Cheeza...everybody's a 'bit off' except you...
Gazprom is talking about 10 bcm a year through Ukraine for the new 10 year deal, as
opposed to the 60 bcm [billion cubic meters] that Ukraine is hoping for...
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction/)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government. Babyl-on @ 8
? before I begin , how do you measure the political and economic power of money
as opposed to the political and economic power of the intentions and needs of the masses.
Does $1 control a 100 people? A million dollars control 100,000,000 people? How do we measure
the comparative values between money power and people power? I think the divisions of
economics and the binaries of politics established by the nation state system means that the
measurement function (political and economic values) varies as a function of the total wealth
vs the total population in each nation state. If true, become obvious how it is that: foreign
investments displaces the existing homeostatis in any particular nation state, the smaller
the poorer the nation state, the more impact foreign wealth can have; in other words outside
wealth can completely destroy the homeostatis of an existing nation state. I think it is this
fact which makes globalization so attractive to the ruling interest (RI) and so damning to
the poorest of the poor.
Change by amendment is impossible There is one and only one Western Empire but
there is also an Eastern Empire, a southern empire, and a Northern Empire and I believe the
ruling interest (faction) manipulate all nations through these empires. In fact, they can do
this in any nation they wish. The world has been divided into containers of humans and
propaganda and culture have highly polarized the humans in one container against the humans
in other containers. <=divide, polarize, then exploit: its like pry the window, and gain
access to the residence, then exploit. It is obvious that the strength of the resistance to
ruling class exploitation is a function of common cause among the masses. But money allows to
control both the division of power and the polarization of the masses. The persons who have
the powers described in Article II of the US Constitution since Lincoln was murdered can be
controlled (Epstein, MSM directed propaganda, impeachment, assassination, to accomplish the
objects of the ruling interest (faction). Article II of the USA constitution removes foreign
activity of the USA from domestic view of the governed at home Americans. Article II makes it
possible for the POTUS to use American assets and resources to assist his/her feudal lords in
exploiting foreign nations almost at will and there is no way governed Americans can control
who the ruling interest place in the Article II position.
A little History Immigration to NYC from Eastern (the poor) and Western (the
rich) Europe transitioned NYC and other cities from Irish majority to a Jewish majority; and
the wealthy interest used the Jewish majorities in key cities to take control over both
Article I and Article II constitutional powers by electing field effect controlled
politicians (political puppets are elected that can be reprogrammed while they are in office
to suit the ruling interest. The source code is called rule of law, and money buys the
programmers who write the code. So the ruling interest can reprogram in field effect fashion,
any POTUS they wish. Out of sight use of the resources of America in foreign lands is nothing
new, it was established when the constitution was written in Philadelphia in 1787 and
ratified in 1788.
Propaganda targeted to the Jewish Immigrants allowed the wealthy interest to
control the outcome of the 1912 election. That election allowed to destroy Article I,
Section 9, paragraph 4 " No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid unless in
Proportion to the Census of enumeration herein before directed to be taken". and to enact a
law which privatized the USA monopoly on money into the hands of private bankers (the federal
reserve act of 1913)
What was the grand design Highly competitive, independent too strong economic
Germany was interfering with Western hegemony and the oil was in the lands controlled by the
Ottomans. It took two wars, but Germany was destroyed, and the Ottoman empire (basically the
entire Middle East) became the war gained property of the British (Palestine), the French
(Syria) and the USA (Israel). Since then, the ruling interest have used their (field effect
devices to align governments so the wealthy could pillage victim societies the world over.
Field effect programming allows wealth interest to use the leaders of governments to use such
governments to enable pillage in foreign places. The global rich and powerful, and their
corporations are the ruling interest.
psychohistorian says it well "..the global private finance core segment of empire is
behind Trump and throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The
cult of global private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role
in the new multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyone's heads to make it
ongoing..." by psychochistorian @ 10
NOBITs @ 11 says it also "All presidents have been servants of the military, which includes
the police/intel/security apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead
role were "dealt with." Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state
bureaucrats are shocked and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US
foreign policy for 75 years!" by: NOBTS @ 11
According to TG @ 13 "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing
responsibility. The elites get to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take
responsibility when things go wrong. Because you see, we are a "Democracy."by: TG @ 13 <=
absolutely not.. the constitution isolates governed Americans from the USA, because the USA
is a republic and republics are about privatizing power and socializing responsibility;
worse, there ain't nothing you can do about it.
Vonu @ 19 says "According to Kevin Shipp, the National Security Council really runs the
executive branch, not the president. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=XHbrOg092GA"
by: Vonu @ 19 <=but it is by the authority of Ariicle II that the NSC has the power to run
the executive branch?
KAdath @ 22 says "the Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in
order for the Russians to keep even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets by: Kadath @
22" <=exactly.. but really its not abandoning the USA, its abandoning the oligarchs local
to the pillaged nation..
J Swift @ 23 says "the US treats its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere,"
[poorly] but its not the USA per say, because only one person has the power to deal in
foreign places. Its that the POTUS, or those who control the Article II powers vested in the
POTUS, have or has been reprogrammed.. J. Switft @23>>
flankerbandit @ 25 says " Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they
are selling vast tracts of agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally
dispossessing themselves of their own food security..." flankerbandit @ 25 <=Not really
the wealthy (investor interest) have pushed the pillage at will button.. since there is no
resistance remaining, the wealthy will take it all for a song..
Jackrabbit @ 26 says "Trump [is].. Constitutionally charged with foreign policy. Repeating:
the "Imperial Presidency" has flung off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing
the need to get Congressional approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by
Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and black budgets.by Jackrabbit @ 26 <== Trumps orders
military to take 4 million day from Syria in oil?
your observation that the money has circumvented Article I of the COUS explains why the
democraps are so upset.. the wealthy democrap interest has been left to rot? Your comment
suggest s mafia is in charge?
Tod @ 32 says "As soon as some money goes his way, he'll discover democracy again.
Sorry to burst you bubbles." by: Tod @ 32" <==understatement of the day.. thanks.
Bevin @ 32 says "a dialectic is at work here. Washington's support for fascism abroad
has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the installation of fascist regimes
abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US intervenes it leaves a fascist
regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind it. this means.. the ability of
the population to effect political change is cancelled" by bevin @ 33 <= yes but there is
really no difference in a republic and its rule of law, and a fascist government and its
military police both rule without any influential input from the governed.
michael @ 34 reaffirms "The President was the only channel of communication between the
United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that foreign nations or their
agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation'" michael @ 34 well known to
barflies, the design of national constitutions is at the heart of the global problem. Until
constitutional powers are placed in control of the governed there will never be a change in
how the constitutional powers ( in case of the USA Article II powers) are used and
abused.
OutofThinAir @45 says "In general, governments are the order-providing solution for
chaos and problems that only first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over
others.by: OutOfThinAir @ 45" <+governments are the tools of wealth interest and the
governors their hired hands.
by: War is Peace @48 " Trump is a moron, groomed by Jewish parents ( Mother was Jewish,
Father buried at biggest Jewish cementary in NYC ) to be a non-Jew worked for the mob under
Cohen ( lawyer for 1950's McCarthy ); Became the 'Goyim Fool" real estate developer as a
cover for laundering mob money. So that it didn't appear that it was Jewish Mafia Money, so
they could work with the Italian Mafia. Trump went on for his greatest role ever to be the
"fool in Chief" of the USA for AIPAC. What better way to murder people, than send out a fool,
it causes people to drop their guard. by War is Peace @48 <= yes this is my take, What
does it mean. com suggest the global wealth interest may be planning to reprogram Trump to
better protect the interest of the global wealthy.
Kiza @ 51 the reason for globalization is explained see above=> response to Babyl-on @
8
dh @ 53 says ""The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to." by dh @53 <
the USA cannot consider anything, if its foreign the POTUS (Article II) makes all decisions
because Art II gives the POTUS a monopoly on talking to, and dealing with, foreign
governments.
Deagel @ 56 says "The American people don't care, they're all drugged out, and shitting
on the side-walks all over the USA, and sleeping in their own shit. This is the best time in
USA history for the Zionists to do anything they wish." by: Deagel @ 56 <= I think you
under estimate the value Americans place on democracy and human rights, until recently
governed Americans believed the third party privately produced MSM delivered propaganda that
nearly all overseas operations by the USA were to separate the people in those places from
their despotic leaders, and to help those displaced people install Democracy.. many Americans
have come to understand such is far from the case.. the situation in the Ukraine has been an
eye opener for many Americans. thoughts are sizzling, talk is happening, and people are
trying to shut google out of their lives. that is why i think Trump is about to be
reprogrammed from elected leader to .. God in charge
I watched that Soloviev segment with Kedmi the other day...always interesting to say the
least...
Btw...I'm not really up to speed on that whole Debaltsevo cauldron thing...I've heard
snippets here and there...[there is a guy, Auslander, who comments on the Saker blog that
seems to have excellent first hand info, but I've only caught snippets here and there]...
I hadn't heard this part of the story before about Nato contractors as bargaining
chips...if you care to shed a bit more light I will be grateful...
I suggest going to The Saker Blog and
enter Debaltsevo Cauldron into the site's search box and click Submit where you'll be greeted
with numerous results.
Grieved @62--
Thanks for your reply and excellent recap. As I recall, Putin wants Donbass to remain in
Ukraine and Ukraine to remain a whole state, although I haven't read his thoughts on the
matter for quite some months as everything has revolved around implementing Minsk. The items
at the Foreign Ministry I linked to are also concerned with Minsk.
The circus act in DC is trying to avoid any mention of Minsk, the coup or anything
material to the gross imperial meddling done there to enrich the criminal elite, which
includes Biden, Clinton, other DNC members--a whole suite of actors that omits Trump in this
case, although they're trying to pin something on him. The issue being studiously ignored is
Obama/Biden needed to be busted for their actions at the time, but in time-honored fashion
weren't. And the huge rotted sewer of corruption related to that action and ALL that came
before is the real problem at issue.
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person as evidenced by The New Yorker 737Max article
in the previous thread. This good article could only be measured by how much it agrees with
your own opinion that MCAS was put in to mimic the pilots' usual fly-stick feel. If anyone
does his home work, such as the journalist of this article, then he must agree with you,
right? With experts such as you out there, why would anyone dare apply common sense and say
that it would be an unimaginably stupid idea to put in ANY AUTOMATED SYSTEM which pushes
the plane's nose down during ascent (the most risky phase of a civilian flight, when almost
desperately trying to get up and up and up) for any DUMBLY POSSIBLE REASON !? What could
ever go wrong with such an absolutely dumbly initiated system relying on one sensor? Maybe it
was a similar idea to putting a cigarette lighter right next to the car's gas tank because it
lights up cigarettes better when there are gasoline vapors around. Or maybe an idea of
testing the self-driving lithium battery (exploding & flammable) cars near kindergartens
(of some other people's children)!?
An intelligent person would have said - whatever the reason was to put in MCAS it was a
terribly dumb idea, instead of congratulating himself on understanding the "true reason".
"If I were president, while I would resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly
associate myself with the delusion that stable friendship is possible (or, frankly,
desirable) with Putin's anti-American dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia
family and is acting on its revanchist ambitions."
Really?
From what have gleaned from the alternative media available on the internet ,of which MOA is
an important part. Putin and Lavrov are the two most moral and diplomatic statesmen on the
world stage today Compared to Trump, Johnson, Macron, Merkel, Stoltenberg, Pompeo, Bolton and
whoever else blights the international scene these days these two are colossi.
To describe
them as like a Mafia family seems to me to be 180 degrees wrong. Maybe Putin overreacted, in
his early days in power, to the Chechen conflict but look at the situation today.
Look at how
Gorbachev and Yeltsin were played by the west. I appreciate you did not write the words
quoted above but you said you agree with them and I find that startling given I am usually
very admiring of your insight and knowledge of geopolitical events.
According to the Impeachniks, it is Schiff's staff who decides how Schiff votes and his
policies. It would be illegal for Schiff to make decisions. But Schiff's recommendation will
make or break the careers of his staff, so elected Schiff has some influence. That's not true
for elected Trump, because those in his service already have made careers and/or a host of
outsiders looking to place them.
Although, he didn't get impeached for it Obama did get criticized for not sending the aid to
Ukraine. He was also criticized when he did intervene, but not fast enough for the deep
state. Remember "leading from behind" in response to Libya. Obama was much more popular and
circumspect than Trump, which protected him from possible impeachment when he went off the
deep state's script.
Discussion of the USC and the responsibilities assigned therein is probably a foolish and
merely moot exercise, as law is, ultimately simply custom over time, and since '45 or so the
custom has become dissociated from the documents' provisions, particularly with regard to
war-making and the "licensed" import and sale of dangerous drugs, dope. The custom in place
is essentially ukase - rule by decree. Many decree are secret.
I do not object, simply pointing to the obvious.
This is a public secret anybody can know. Inter alia see The Politics of Heroin in
Southeast Asia (McCoy)
...........
Custom includes also permitted theft, blackmail, trafficking children and so forth.
...........
zerohedge put up some documents tying TGM Hunter B to the money from Ukraine...
................
I would not worry about the name of the person called president. The real sitrep is more
like watching rape and murder from the dirty windows of a runaway train.
Upon the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine was left with the fifth-largest nuclear arsenal in
the world. In exchange for financial assistance in the costs of removing all the nukes, the
West guaranteed to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In the meantime, Russia has annexed the Crimea and rebels have taken control of parts of
Eastern Ukraine. The West has not provided any direct military assistance to restore those
territorial infringements.
Since the West has reneged on its end of the deal, would it not only be fair to return
Ukraine's nukes so it can defend itself like the Big Boys do, namely with threat of nuclear
annihilation?
I hate this trope. The Russian Fed. is not launching offensive operations to capture
Kharkov or Kiev. Western Ukraine is shelling ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. What would
U.S. Congressman say if these were Jews? (I would condemn that as well).
The next time someone pontificates, 'Ukrainians are dying because Trump held up aid' ask
them how many. The number is ZERO. Javelins are not being used on the front line.
Mr. Kolomoisky is spot on, i.e. when he says that the Americans will only use Ukrainians as
their little bitches to fight and die for America's gain against Russia. Just like the
Americans fucked over the Kurds in Syria, using them as proxy fighters to do USA/Israel's
dirty work. Wherever the USA shows up and starts interfering, everything turns into shit:
Iraq...Afghanistan...Venezuela...Bolivia...Ukraine...Libya...Yemen...Nicaragua...Ecuador...the
list is quite long. It remains to be seen if Mr. Kolomoisky can bring about rapprochement
with Russia. He'd better watch his back.
"Wow. My opinion of Kolomoisky has just improved ... somewhat." --Seamus Padraig @73
Yes, Kolomoisky has moved up a notch in my estimation as well; from the low of
"monstrously inhuman spawn of satan" all the way up to "rabid dog" . That's
quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
I am very glad to see you back, Grieved, and your 'wall of ice' metaphor is indeed accurate.
To me, the promising signs in Ukraine were even as here in the US when voters fought back
against what b calls Deep State, which I am sure in my heart was even more of an overwhelming
surge than registered - the best the corrupters of the system could do was make it close
enough to be a barely legitimate win for their side, and they didn't succeed. Maybe somewhere
along their line of shenanigans a small cog in the wheel got religion and didn't do their
'job'. An unsung hero who will sing when it's safe.
I hope, dearly hope, it gets safe in Ukraine very soon. They are us only further down the
line than we are, but we will get there if we can't totally remove the cancer in our midst.
That's our job; I wish Ukraine all the best in removing theirs.
Jen...I should have made clear that the two aircraft picked up by Russian PRIMARY RADAR were
unidentified...
The two commercial flights you mention were in the area and were known to both Russian and
Ukrainian controllers by means of the SECONDARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR, which picks up the
aircraft transponder signals...
However, secondary WILL NOT pick up military craft that have their transponders
off...which is normal operating procedure for military craft...
So the airspace situation was this...you can see this from one of the illustrations I
provided from the DSB prelim report...
You had MH17...you had that other flight coming from the opposite direction [flying
west]...and you had that airplane that overtook the MH17 from behind [they were in a hurry
and were going faster, so when MH17 decided to stay at FL330, they were cleared to climb to
FL350 so they could safely overtake with the necessary vertical separation...]
Those three aircraft were all picked up on the Ukrainian SECONDARY [transponder]
surveillance...as well as the Russians...on both their PRIMARY AND SECONDARY...
But what the Russians picked up were two craft ONLY ON THEIR PRIMARY...those would have
been military aircraft flying with their transponders off [they're allowed to do that and do
that most of the time in fact]...
That's why those two DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THE SECONDARY DATA HANDED OVER TO THE INVESTIGATORS
BY THE UKRAINIANS...
Only primary radar would pick those up...and, very conveniently, the Dnipro primary was
inop at the time...[so the data handed to investigators by the Ukrainians would have no trace
of any military aircraft nearby]...
But with the Russian primary radar data, there is in fact evidence that there were
military aircraft in the air at the time...just that the Dutch investigators simply decided
to exclude the very vital Russian radar data on some stupid technicality...
[Really this is a very poorly done report, both prelim and final, and I've read many over
the years...]
The other thing I should have emphasized more clearly is about that course deviation that
controllers steered MH17 to, just seconds before it was hit...
The known traffic was those three commercial aircraft, as shown on the chart...here it is
again...
Those three commercial flights are clearly labeled...and the big question is... why was
MH17 DIVERTED SOUTH...OFF ITS PLANNED ROUTE...?
We can see the deviation track by the dotted red line...
Clearly there was no 'other traffic' that required MH17 to be vectored south by the
controllers...
In fact we see that there was a FOURTH commercial flight [another B777] that was flying
south exactly to that same waypoint that MH17 was diverted to...we see this airplane is
flying west on the M70 airway and is heading to the RND waypoint...
This does not make sense...why would you divert MH17 from going to TAMAK as flight
planned...in order to go south toward RND where another airplane is heading...
If nothing else this is very bad controller practice right there...yet again, the DSB
[Dutch Safety Board] does not even raise this question...
Like I said, leaving aside any guesswork, these are the simple facts and they raise
serious questions...both about the competence of the Dutch report, and the way the
controllers handled that flight...
Ukrainian think tank Ukrainian Institute of the Future and Ukrainian media outlet Zerkalo
Nedeli (both anti-Russian, but slightly more intellectual than typical Ukrainian outlets)
have contracted a Kharkov-based pollster to conduct a poll among DNR/LNR residents from
October 7 to October 31 (method: face-to-face interviews at the homes of the respondents,
sample size: 806 respondents in DNR and 800 respondents in LNR, margin of error: 3.2%) and
published its results in an article: Тест
на сумісність
[Compatibility Test] (in Ukrainian).
It's a long and rambling article, interspersed with
Ukrainian propagandistic clichés (perhaps to placate Ukrainian nationalists), but the
numbers look solid, so I've extracted the numbers I consider important and put them in a
table format. Here they are:
GENERAL INFORMATION
Gender 46.5% male 53.5% female
Age 8.3% <25 years old 91.7% ≥25 years old
Education 31.5% no vocational training or higher education 45.2% vocational training 23.3% higher education
Religion 57% marry and baptize their children in Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) 31% believe in God, but do not go to any church 12% other churches, other religions, atheists
Political activity 3% are members of parties 97% are not members of parties
Language 90% speak Russian at home 10% speak other languages at home
Nationality 55.4% consider themselves Ukrainians 44.6% do not consider themselves Ukrainians
ECONOMY
Opinion about the labor market 24.3% there are almost no jobs 39.3% high unemployment, but it's possible to find a job 15.7% there are jobs, even if temporary 17.1% key enterprises are working, those who want to work can find a job 2.9% there are not enough employees
Personal financial situation 4.9% are saving on food 36.4% enough money to buy food, but have to save money to buy clothing 43.6% enough money to buy food and clothing, but have to save money to buy a suit, a mobile
phone, or a vacuum cleaner 12% enough money to buy food, clothing, and other goods, but have to save money to buy
expensive goods (e.g. consumer electronics) 2.7% enough money to buy food, clothing, and expensive goods, but have to save money to buy a
car or an apartment 0.4% enough money to buy anything
Personal financial situation compared to the previous year 28.4% worsened 57.3% stayed the same 14.2% improved
Personal financial situation expectations for the next year 21% will worsen 58.6% will stay the same 18.7% will improve
Opinion on the Ukraine's (sans DNR/LNR) economic situation compared to the previous
year 50.3% worsened 41.4% stayed the same 6.3% improved
CITIZENSHIP
Consider themselves citizens of 57.8% the Ukraine 34.8% DNR/LNR 6.8% Russia
Russian citizenship 42.9% never thought about obtaining it 15.5% don't want to obtain it 34.2% would like to obtain it 7.4% already obtained it
Considered leaving DNR/LNR for 5.2% the Ukraine 11.1% Russia 2.9% other country 80.8% never considered leaving
Visits to the Ukraine over the past year 35.1% across the DNR/LNR–Ukraine border (overwhelming majority of them -- 32.2% of all
respondents -- are pensioners who visit the Ukraine to receive their pensions) 2.6% across the Russia–Ukraine border 62.3% have not visited the Ukraine
WAR
Is the war in Donbass an internal Ukrainian conflict? 35.6% completely agree 40.5% tend to agree 14.1% tend to disagree 9.3% completely disagree
Was the war started by Moscow and pro-Russian groups? 3.1% completely agree 6.4% tend to agree 45.1% tend to disagree 44.9% completely disagree
Who must pay to rebuild DNR/LNR? (multiple answers) 63.6% the Ukraine 29.3% Ukrainian oligarchs 18.5% DNR/LNR themselves 17% the U.S. 16.5% the EU 16% Russia 13% all of the above
ZELENSKIY
Opinion about Zelenskiy 1.9% very positive 17.2% positive 49.6% negative 29.3% very negative
Has your opinion about Zelenskiy changed over the past months? 2.7% significantly improved 7.9% somewhat improved 44.8% stayed the same 22.9% somewhat worsened 20.5% significantly worsened
Will Zelenskiy be able to improve the Ukraine's economy? 1.4% highly likely 13.3% likely 55.3% unlikely 30% highly unlikely
Will Zelenskiy be able to bring peace to the region? 1.7% highly likely 12.5% likely 59% unlikely 26.5% highly unlikely
MEDIA
Where do you get your information on politics? (multiple answers) 84.3% TV 60.6% social networks 50.9% relatives, friends 45.9% websites 17.4% co-workers 10% radio 7.4% newspapers and magazines
What social networks do you use? (multiple answers) 70.7% YouTube 61% VK 52.3% Odnoklassniki 49.8% Viber 27.1% Facebook 21.4% Instagram 12.4% Twitter 11.1% Telegram
FUTURE
Desired status of DNR/LNR 5.1% part of the Ukraine 13.4% part of the Ukraine with a special status 16.2% independent state 13.4% part of Russia with a special status 50.9% part of Russia
Desired status of entire Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts 8.4% part of the Ukraine 10.8% part of the Ukraine with a special status 14.4% independent state 13.3% part of Russia with a special status 49.6% part of Russia
Just listening to a bit of the testimony of the ex-ambassador to Ukraine.
It is all BS hearsay!
Also, this lady doesn't seem to grasp that as an employee of the State Department, she
answers to Trump. Trump is her boss.
The questioning is full of leading questions that contains allegations and unproved
premises built into them. I can't imagine that such questioning would be allowed in a normal
court of justice in the USA.
Sure, Trump is a boor. But he is still the boss and he gets to pull out ambassadors if he
wants to.
This is total grandstanding.
Also, a lot of emotional stuff like "I was devastated. I was shocked. Color drained from
my face as I read the telephone transcript . . . "
This is BS!
7 minutes ago Thanks Q! I bring up Montgomery all of the time here. The Eff Bee Eye and Dee oh Jay have all of the documents and are sitting on them. This is how the IC controls everything in the Swamp.
Eric Zuesse December 23, 2019 | History The Lies That Are Used for Denying the Legitimacy of Crimea's Breakaway Crimea's breakaway from Ukraine and rejoining Russia is treated in the US-and-allied world as being justification for the explosive re-emergence in 2014 of America's Cold War NATO alliance as being a restored war against Russia; and, so, whether or not that 'justification' is truthful is the paramount geopolitical issue in our era; and it will therefore be discussed and (via the links here) documented in this article.
Print this article See also
September 17, 2019 Crimea and Kashmir Viewed Through a Western Prism of Hypocrisy
Also by this author Eric Zuesse American writer and investigative historian
Hidden Evidence Regarding Ukrainegate
To the top
<img alt="Faith could bring us together. But too often it divides us" src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/191121180252-20191121-fractured-states-religious-leaders-large-169.jpg"> Faith could bring us together. But too often it divides us Younger evangelicals, those under 45, have been slowly but steadily moving away from Trump during the past two years or so, unhappy about his example. A key topic that has driven them away is immigration. Loving your neighbor as yourself has always been a bedrock Christian value. And Trump's stance on immigrants (especially those of color) has upset the younger generation of evangelicals, with two-thirds of them saying in surveys that immigrants strengthen our country, bringing their work ethic and talents with them from Mexico or Central America or Syria. Climate change is another issue that has caught the imagination of younger evangelicals. "I can't love my neighbor if I'm not protecting the earth that sustains them and defending their rights to clean water, clean air, and a stable climate," Kyle Meyaard-Schaap, a national organizer for Young Evangelicals for Climate Action, told Grist . Needless to say, Trump's contempt on this subject grates badly on these young Christians. Perhaps naively, Americans have always looked to the presidency for exemplary moral behavior, and when there are obvious personal or moral failures, as with Nixon and Clinton, there is disappointment, even anger. But if you're a Christian -- and I lay claim to this for myself -- you understand that it's human to fail at perfect behavior. There is always forgiveness. And, as T.S. Eliot wrote, "Humility is endless."
Russiagate, Ukrainegate and impeachment aren't conspicuously economic issues. But they are, to a large extent, class issues. They are inside-the-beltway dramas about foreign policy arcana that are important to people who see their lots tied in one way or another to the established order. This includes, by degree, those of us who would like to make room for outside-the-beltway concerns like ending militarism, solving environmental crises, providing meaningful employment for all who want it and creating functioning healthcare and educational systems.
15,514
Although this profile says Virginia, tweets are from the Sofia, Bulgaria time zone and he writes in Russian. Another curiosity considering the Fancy Bear source code is in Russian. This image shows Crowdstrike in their network. Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker network. In the image it shows a network diagram of Crowdstrike following the Surkov leaks. The network communication goes through a secondary source.
Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence. The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could be on the list.
Mr. Sketchy – ICIG Michael Atkinson
<img alt="Faith could bring us together. But too often it divides us"
src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/191121180252-20191121-fractured-states-religious-leaders-large-169.jpg">
This article incorporates
text from this source, which is in the