May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-) Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better
Ukraine-gate as Russiagate 2.0: an "all in" counterattack on Trump attempt to investigate origins of RussiaGate
Obama/Brennan faction in CIA and FBI, the nest of neocon viper in the State Department and "FullOfSchiff" gang
in House of Representatives sense their last chance with intelligence services leaker of Trump conversation with Zelensky
The Seekers abandoned their jobs, possessions, and spouses to wait for the flying saucer, but neither the aliens nor the apocalypse
arrived. After several uncomfortable hours on the appointed day, Martin received a “message” saying that the group “had spread so
much light that God had saved the world from destruction.” The group responded by proselytizing with a renewed vigour. According
to Festinger, they resolved the intense conflict between reality and prophecy by seeking safety in numbers. “If more people can be
persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly, it must, after all, be correct.”
... [for members of the cult] "prophecies, per se, almost never fail. They are instead component parts of a complex and interwoven
belief system which tends to be very resilient to challenge from outsiders. While the rest of us might focus on the accuracy of an
isolated claim as a test of a group’s legitimacy, those who are part of that group—and already accept its whole theology—may not
be troubled by what seems to them like a minor mismatch. A few people might abandon the group, typically the newest or least-committed
adherents, but the vast majority experience little cognitive dissonance and so make only minor adjustments to their beliefs. They
carry on, often feeling more spiritually enriched as a result.
"FullOfSchiff" people should be viewed as the members of a new hardcore cult of "Russian collision"
Barr investigation was getting closer to understanding the role of Ukraine in Russiagate. While the issue of Biden criminality
and corruption was important, timing was very bad, and being an impulsive person and a very bad diplomat Trump in
his phone call with Zelensky provided the Deep State an excellent opportunity for the counterattack. And it followed with the
ferocity that actually surprised many observers.
Like in Russiagate the pretext was completely fake: Biden does not represent danger to Trump
the election: he is a semi-senile completely corrupt classic neoliberal, the staunch follower of Clinton. As such Biden is
definitely preferable by Trump team opponent for Trump in 2020 election. And it is very stupid to undermine him because now Trump is facing Warren in the national elections
-- a more formidable opponent. So the working hypothesis should be that here Trump mixes vengeance with a honest desire to
investigate corruption of a high level US official. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US proconsul
for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. Poroshenko was a known agent of US influence in Ukraine even before the
elections. During 2016 campaign he acted as Clinton stooge and willing Russiagate helper.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to
raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to European levels, and the new president Petro Poroshenko
obliged them. The prices went sky-high. The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking
and heating; and huge profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering
prices, President Poroshenko demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his projects. He said that
he arranged the price hike; it means he should be considered a partner.
Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion
money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite
some important Westerners into the company’s board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko’s
appetites. He had brought in Biden’s son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn’t
help him.
Poroshenko became furious that the
fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some
irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these ‘stars’ between 50
and 150 thousand dollar per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the
Ukrainian tax code; it can’t be recognised as legitimate expenditure.
At that time Biden the father entered the
fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six hours to close the case against his son. Otherwise, one billion
dollars of the US taxpayers’ funds won’t pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner,
paid Biden well for this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars, according to
different sources.
AG Shokin said he can’t close the case within six
hours; Poroshenko sacked him and installed Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko was willing to dismiss the
case of Burisma, but he also could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could not keep
his trap shut: by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself. Meanwhile Mr Shokin gave evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and now it was confirmed. The
evidence was given to the US lawyers in connection with another case, Firtash case.
... ... ...
Two years ago,
(that is already under President Trump) the United States began to investigate the
allocation of 3 billion dollars; it was allocated in 2014, in 2015, in 2016; one
billion dollars per year. The investigation showed that the documents were falsified,
the money was transferred to Ukraine, and stolen. The investigators tracked each
payment, discovered where the money went, where it was spent and how it was stolen.
As a result, in
October 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice opened a criminal case for “Abuse of power
and embezzlement of American taxpayers’ money”. Among the accused there are two
consecutive Finance Ministers of the Ukraine, Mrs Natalie Ann Jaresko who served
2014-2016 and Mr Alexander Daniluk who served 2016-2018, and three US banks. The
investigation caused the USAID to cease issuing grants since August 2019. As Trump
said, now the US does not give away money and does not impose democracy.
The money was
allocated with the flagrant violation of American law. There was no risk assessment, no
audit reports. Normally the USAID, when allocating cash, always prepares a substantial
package of documents. But the billions were given to Ukraine completely without
documents. The criminal case on the embezzlement of USAID funds had been signed
personally by the US Attorney General, so these issues are very much alive.
Sam Kislin was
involved in this investigation. He is a good friend and associate of Giuliani, Trump’s
lawyer and an ex-mayor of New York. Kislin is well known in Kiev, and I have many
friends who are Sam’s friends [said Tsarev]. I learned of his progress, because some of
my friends were detained in the United States, or interrogated in Ukraine. They briefed
me about this. It appears that Burisma is just the tip of the scandal, the tip of the
iceberg. If Trump will carry on, and use what was already initiated and investigated,
the whole headquarters of the Democratic party will come down. They will not be able to
hold elections. I have no right to name names, but believe me, leading functionaries of
the Democratic party are involved.
Poroshenko was
aware of that; he gave orders to declare Sam Kislin persona non grata. Once the old man
(he is over 80) flew into Kiev airport and he was not allowed to come in; he spent the
night in detention and was flown back to the US next day. Poroshenko had been totally
allied with Clinton camp.
Of course, this was a strategic mistake, and Trump now will pay the price. On a lighter note: Can you imagine the epic word salad that would be a Trump/Biden debate? It would make
Lewis Carroll look like Strunk & White.
The real reason of this reacent feat by the Deep State probably were the skeletons in the Ukrainian closets left after 2016
elections (especially related to CrowdStrike as well as getting dirt of
Trump via Alexandra Chalupa.)
After Barr visit to Italy, the Deep staters felt the real danger and acted accordingly: pre-emptive attack is the best form of
defense.
Now let's watch John Brennan scramble as Barr and Durham proceed ahead with a criminal investigation into the
roots of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. Looks like John Brennan went out of channels to solicit Five Eyes help in running sting
operations. It is perfectly appropriate that Barr is seeking cooperation from Australia, Italy and Ukraine in
pursuing possible criminal misconduct by FBI, CIA and other Federal employees. But it was much less appropriate for
Trump to touch this in his conversation with Zelensky, while he is on the campaign trail. I hope the
probe develops court-admissible evidence that John Brennan committed fraud by claiming to
have a top Kremlin source who gave eyewitness reports that Putin ordered Russian intelligence
to boost Trump's election chances.
So it might well be that the sufferings on John Brennan and Co after the collapse of Mueller witch hunt became unbearable.
Now with Ukrainian material it became more plausible that while DNC was a leak by and disgruntled insider (possible Seth Rich), there
was an subsequent to the leak additional operation of CIA with the goal to frame Russia in the leak in which Ukrainians
participated. False flag operations are
CIA specialty.
The most funny thing in this story is that Ukraine is not an independent country, so the "foreign influence" claim is just
a sad, cruel joke. Since 2014 coup d'état (aka EuroMaydan
color revolution, courtesy of Victoria "F*ck EU" Nuland) is fully controlled from Washington. So any reference about "foreign
power" here is completely hypocritical. So for all practical purposes this is Russiagate 2.0. It helps CIA-democrats to hide
evidence and create another constant pressure point on Trump. They also expect that they increase their chances in 2020 election,
but in this case it should be Warren who faces Trump, not Biden.
As s side effect of Ukrainegate is that it sanctified arms supplies to Ukraine as the issue that enjoy bipartisan consensus.
While Trump behave way too clumsy and sleazy, the wisdom of supplying arms to Ukraine to prolong war in Donbass is greatly
suspect.
In his Sept. 29, 2019 post "CIA sets terms for Democrats:
impeachment inquiry into Trump’s crimes’, Joseph Kishore reports in part:
“The scandal over the Ukraine call has been instigated by the intelligence agencies. It was a CIA agent in the White House who
prepared the report that is the basis of the inquiry. It was the decision by a group of Democrats drawn from the military and
intelligence agencies that led Pelosi and Schiff, both with longstanding ties to these same agencies, to shift from their
previous opposition to impeachment."
The more interesting thing is, why did Pelosi agreed to the impeachment inquiry? Of course, it removed Biden from the list of
contenders, which is
probably good because he's lost it. But more importantly it creates real and sustainable anti-Trump sentiment among
electorate. She wants a nominee who will keep the status quo and defeat Trump. Looks like they are currently putting all the
apples in the Warren bucket. But Warren promises are far to the left of any establishment stooge and unless she is co-opted like
Trump, think might became interesting.
Christopher Neiweem who is a GOP strategist said for all we know the Warren campaign could be pushing the story hoping indirectly take down both Biden and Trump.
The catalyst for impeachment is the alleged CIA whistleblower and the team of intelligence community officials he is going to
bat for. Trump picked a fight with the wrong crowd. Now, they’re fighting back, with the Constitution in one hand and evidence of
Trump’s corruption in the other. Game on.
You might call this team, collectively, “Deep State Throat.” They’re a deep state, all right, but
not like Trump thinks. They’re not rogues. They’re patriots. Let’s just buckle up and watch how this plays out over the coming
weeks and months.
To me, the whistleblower appears to have taken a leadership role [ of the whole team ], sticking his neck out to protect subordinates in the intelligence
community while conveying their information to appropriate authorities through appropriate channels. It’s easy to
see how the intelligence community inspector general steered it to the Congressional Intelligence Committees, under the cover of
great credibility
The sentence "They’re a deep state, all right, but not like Trump thinks. They’re not rogues. They’re patriots." is pure
bullshit. They are rogues. They've anointed themselves as "saviors of democracy". Ignoring the fact that democracy requires
elections, not deep state manipulation. Like it or not, Trump won the 2016 election under the rules in place at the time. Nothing he
had done rises to an impeachable offense. And nobody has the right to overturn that election except voters in the next election.
Trump is a horrible president who is doing some very bad things, but this issue is not one on which Dems could built a solid
impeachment case. It amounts to an attempted coup. Trumps "crimes" were to ask that Ukraine cooperate with the Attorney General's
investigations. Anyone that has seen Biden's disgusting, arrogant comments at the Council on Foreign Relations would have to agree
with Trump that it "sounds horrible." If you want evidence of withholding aid for political purposes you need look no farther than
Biden and Obama. What sickens me, however, is how completely the MSM bough this narrative. They never mention Biden's comments at the
Council of Foreign Relations. They never mention that the fired Prosecutor General testified that he was fired because he made Biden
unhappy. They misconstrue, they misdirect and they simply lie. This, unfortunately, is not new. Recall Russiagate and the lead up to
the invasion of Iraq, among other things. Trump is often called a fascist, but compared to John Brennon, John Bolton, their
like-minded colleagues and their enablers, Trump is a rank and incompetent amateur whose great sin is to fuck up the US
descent into neofascism.
Interestingly, the same neocon/neolib alliance which endorsed George W. Bush's case for war with Iraq is pretty much the same alliance
that is now, all these years later, braying for confrontation with Russia. Including the same cast of characters reading from the Iraq-war
era playbook.
The prevailing sentiment of the media establishment during the months prior to the disastrous March 2003 invasion of Iraq was that
of certainty: George Tenet's now infamous assurance to President Bush, that the case against Iraq was a "slam drunk," was essentially
what major newspapers and television news outlets were telling the American people at the time.
The Bush administration cynically engaged in what we would today call a "disinformation campaign against its own citizens" by planting
false stories abroad, safe in the knowledge that these stories would "bleed over" and be picked up by the American press.
The Bush II neocons were able to launder what were essentially "fake news" stories, such as the aluminum tubes
fabrication , by leaking to
Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller
of The New York Times. We see the same set of well
coordinated leaks here.
By 2002, no one had any right to be surprised by what Bush and Cheney were up to; since at least 1898 (when the U.S. declared
war on Spain under the pretense of the fabricated Hearst battle cry "Remember the Maine!") American governments have repeatedly lied
in order to promote their agenda abroad. And in 2002-3, the media walked in lock step with yet another administration in pushing
for an unnecessary and costly war.
Like The New York Times, The Washington Post also relentlessly pushed the administration's case for war with Iraq.
According to
the journalist Greg Mitchell , "By the Post 's own admission, in the months before the war, it ran more than 140 stories
on its front page promoting the war." All this, while its editorial page assured readers that the evidence Colin Powell presented
to the United Nations on Iraq's WMD program was "irrefutable." According to the Post, it would be "hard to imagine" how anyone could
doubt the administration's case.
But the Post was hardly alone in its enthusiasm for Bush's war. Among the most prominent proponents of the Iraq war was The New
Yorker's Jeffrey Goldberg , who, a full year prior
to the invasion, set out to link Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Writing for The New Yorker in March 2002,
Goldberg retailed former CIA Director James Woolsey's
opinion that "It would be a real shame if the C.I.A.'s substantial institutional hostility to Iraqi democratic resistance groups
was keeping it from learning about Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda in northern Iraq."
Indeed, according to Goldberg , "The
possibility that Saddam could supply weapons of mass destruction to anti-American terror groups is a powerful argument among advocates
of regime change," while Saddam's "record of support for terrorist organizations, and the cruelty of his regime make him a threat
that reaches far beyond the citizens of Iraq."
When DemoRats (Clinton wing of Democratic Party) dusted off and added
Joe Biden to the already
overclouded roster of candidates (and falsified polls to show that he is a leader and thus artificially created a following
for his candidacy), that was clearly a move directed on reelection of Trump, a very favorable for Trump event. And it is true
that DemoRats are afraid of Bernie Sanders more then of Trump.
In September three House committees announced earlier this month that they were investigating whether Trump used the withholding
of military aid as leverage to get Ukraine’s new President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to probe the Bidens — an allegation that has been
bolstered by a "whistle-blower"( this person is not a whistle-blower but a leaker, as we are talking about potentially
criminal actions by Biden which falled under Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act , and which do deserve investigation both by the Ukrainian side and the Department of Justice) complaint from inside the intelligence
community. Which makes it similar to Steele dossier.
Democrats risked to discover that in the released transcript Trump did not cross the line and at this point you can say good-buy to
Creepy Joe as the leader of the pack, if not as a candidate. So it could well be that the "whistle-blower" is Warren
sympathizer within the intelligence community and the whole operation was devised to prop-up Warren and hurt Trump in best
Russiagate style. Looks like powerful faction within the intelligence community clearly had a candidate in 2016. Do they also have
one in 2020?
The US authorities now are obligated to conduct a full-scale inquiry of Biden behavior, but what is even worse tis that it will add a
lot of additional air time to allegations about Biden criminality, linking their party’s 2020 presidential front-runner to Clinton
family corruption.
The last thing Democrats want is another candidate on the defensive, after Trump was rolled over Hillary 2016.”
Also in view of the scandal voters may think Biden not only just too old to be the President, but that maybe that he carries was too
much neoliberal baggage. The whistleblower incident is more likely to end the political career of Biden. The whole matter involving
his son’s foreign business dealings not only raises unflattering questions but also provides plenty of reminders about his life in
the swamp. Trump practically has been defined by his ability to outlive Democratic “witch hunts.'”
Trump probably will crush Creepy Joe even with all the negative factors he now has, or will acquire. Creepy Joe (as WaPo
nicknamed him) has three major skeletons in the closet:
his narcoaddict son
magically escaped justice when a crack pipe was found in his rental car
Biden role in Ukrainian events which are disgusting if not outright criminal. Later after the EuroMaydan events he instrumental if firing Ukrainian
Chief Persecutor to squash investigating of gas company Burisma (where his some do some reason got a position in the board of the
company) which paid around $50K a month to his son) and his son financial dealings with China. So his son fleeced impoverished
Ukraine where standard living dropped 2-3 times after Euromaydan, which was converted into the debt slave of the West and
where most population live of $2 a day or less.
The fact of the matter is that Hunter wasn’t on the board because of his expertise in Eastern European energy issues. He’s part
of a long tradition of nepotism when family members of influential politicians profiting off a sense that it’s politically and
economically useful to cultivate these connections.
not to mention his past as the "mentor" of Yanukovich whom he later backstabbed
His China dealings also need careful investigation, and interpretation of some actions by Biden family in view of trade war
with China might be very damaging for Biden.
At night on September 24, 2019 Pelosi have announced they will pursue impeachment charges against President Trump because
an unverified, hearsay whistleblower made a complaint about a phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenski.
In response Trump published the transcript of the call. Trump’s move to release the un-redacted transcripts of the phone call was
the right move. But Dems did not stop. They just moved goalposts.
There are few hard facts: a leak claims a whistleblower in the intelligence community believes
that during a July 25 phone call, Trump made unspecified “promises” to the Ukrainian president in return for his investigating Biden
family corruption. The whistleblower did not have direct knowledge of what was said, and may
have read a transcript or summary. Trump knew the call was monitored by multiple people yet said whatever he said anyway
The actual words matter a lot. If this whole thing looks like a dance around some flippant
statement by the president about investigating corruption that may involve the Biden family turning it into a quid pro quo
accusation, it will fail spectacularly with voters. If we all have to become whistleblower law experts the same way we all were
obstruction experts just a few weeks ago, it fails.
Yet while the actual words matter, it should not be lost that none of what Trump was supposed to
have really done — using military aid to get dirt on Biden — happened.
No one claims the Ukrainians investigated Biden at Trump’s demand (and Dems insist there was no
Biden
wrongdoing anyway, so an investigation would be for naught). It is thus a big problem in
this narrative that the long-promised military aid to the Ukraine was only delayed and then paid out, as if the bribe was given for
nothing in return—which makes it hardly a bribe. Trump is apparently bad at bribing. Even though he made the decision to temporarily
withhold the aid for some reason, the
Ukrainians were never even told about it until weeks after the “extortion” phone call, meaning nobody’s arm
got knowingly twisted. So no bribe was given, or to the Ukrainians’ knowledge, no money withheld.
In previous case FBI plot to entrap Trump with Moscow hotel led to the Dems claim that they
see a smoking gun. But there is no body on the ground under the muzzle. So will this devolve into another complicated thought crime,
another “conspiracy” to commit without the committal?
“No explicit quid pro quo is necessary to betray your country,” helpfully tweeted Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence
Committee, a member of Congress Pro-isreal lobby. He does not even understand how right he is.
People became way too cynical following the collapse of Russiagate for Dems to have any level of
success in derailing Trump.
Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, was hired by the Ukrainian natural gas firm, Burisma Holdings
in 2014. They gave Hunter Biden a seat on their board and paid Biden’s firm an average of $166,000 a month during his employment
with them. The problem? Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in the Ukraine started a widespread corruption probe into Burisma Holdings
with specific plans to look at all board members – including Joe Biden’s son.
(Source)
As Vice President, Joe Biden traveled to Ukraine to give them the news that the United States was going to be granting Ukraine $1
Billion in loan guarantees. While there, he threatened to pull the guarantees if they did not fire Prosecutor Shokin, who was
investigating the firm Biden’s son was a board member of.
(Source)
Sure enough, Ukraine folded in order to not risk losing the loan guarantees and fired Prosecutor Shokin. The corruption
investigation into Burisma Holdings was abandoned and no charges were brought against the firm or Hunter Biden. Last year, Joe Biden
bragged on video about personally strong-arming the Ukrainians into firing the prosecutor.
(Source)
The most logical reading of the situation, based on known facts is that Biden gone, the corporate Dems such as Kamala Harris are
much weaker..
Biden got in big trouble and the most natural path for him is down and put. He can't recover from the barrage of Ukraine-related
dirt and deny his connection to his narcoaddict son; Ukraine+China factor will sink him sooner or later.
Warren looks like the net beneficiary of Pelosi initiated impeachment hearrings. This is the only silver lining in this dark
cloud.
But please note that "Full of Schiff" candidates, the candidates that endorsed the impeachment (the list that includes Warren, only
Tulsi has thecorage to abstain) might sill later regret jumping into this bandwagon. Because resulting polarization greatly favors
Trump. Here we again will be completely distracted from real and complex issues facing the country into yet another senseless mud
slinging match courtesy to Obama/Brennan faction in CIA. And that favors Trump.
With some PR skills Trump now can definitely present Warren as "yet another corrupt neoliberal" hell bent of trating
corruption within Dem Party, including the corruption of Clinton family differently from everybody else, ruthless female opportunist
who tries to capitalize on her identity and resorts to dirty tricks to get to power. Or, worse, as a malleable pretender without any
spine. Iether already controlled by the establishment, or candidate which establishment will have for lunch in two or three months
since inauguration (as happened with Trump ;-)
"... Impeachment is a game that Democrats are playing with Donald Trump, and the game's only rule is "heads I win, tails you lose." ..."
"... : by telling the president that he was not a subject of the probe and then refusing to issue a statement to that effect, Comey was making the point: Trump might be the country's elected executive, but men like Comey were the government. Officials could leak, they could issue anonymous quotes prejudicial to the president, and all Trump could do was wait until Comey decided to clear his name. ..."
"... by the time he issued his report, the protracted investigation, and all the hype about Trump and Russia that it sustained, had done its political damage and hammered the lesson home. Republicans suffered a bloodbath in the 2018 midterms, and the next president would think twice-and then twice again-about treating an FBI director as his underling. ..."
"... On January 11, 2017, Politico ran a news story under the headline "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire." The story documented Ukraine's meddling on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern summarized the findings: ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... Trump was within his rights as president to demand answers from Ukraine. And if he stood to benefit politically it was because Ukraine had already involved itself in American politics on the side of Democrats: severing those dubious ties and preventing further manipulation of U.S. elections would necessarily come at the expense of the party that Ukrainians had cultivated when Barack Obama was in power and which they had hoped to keep in power by helping Hillary Clinton ..."
"... Ukraine may have failed to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016, but Democrats hope to use Ukraine to remove Trump now, either through impeachment-a longshot-or by weakening him and the GOP ahead of the 2020 election. And Democrats hope that Republican senators will be so embarrassed and perhaps divided by a trial in the Senate that they will lose control of that chamber in 2020, too. They know Trump will keep fighting, and the harder he fights, the more he refuses to play by the rigged rules of the game, the more opportunity Democrats see to frame his defensive moves as outrageous and impeachable offenses. With Nixon and Watergate, the cover-up was often said to be worse than the crime. With Trump, there is no crime, but his defiant acts of self-defense are enough to convict him-or so the Democrats and their allies hope. ..."
With Trump, there is no crime, but his defiant acts of self-defense are enough to convict him-or so the Democrats and their allies
hope.
Impeachment is a game that Democrats are playing with Donald Trump, and the game's only rule is "heads I win, tails you lose."
The president is familiar with these rules by now, as they're the same ones that governed the investigations into Russian meddling
in the 2016 election. FBI Director James Comey told Trump at the outset that he was not a target of the investigation.
Yet anonymous quotes and other questionably sourced reports continued to appear in the press claiming that Trump was a Russian
asset-as Hillary Clinton might bluntly put it-and so the president asked Comey to say in public what he had told him in private.
Comey refused, and Trump soon fired him.
This act of self-defense, or pique, depending on your point of view, triggered calls for the appointment of a special counsel
to take over the investigation-which ballooned from an investigation that didn't center around Trump into one in which Trump's behavior
toward Comey was grounds for investigating the president. Comey had made a power play: by telling the president that he was not
a subject of the probe and then refusing to issue a statement to that effect, Comey was making the point: Trump might be the country's
elected executive, but men like Comey were the government. Officials could leak, they could issue anonymous quotes prejudicial to
the president, and all Trump could do was wait until Comey decided to clear his name.
Other politicians might play by those rules out the desire for self-preservation. Trump chose not to. And so, an ex-FBI
director, who may have had hopes of becoming director once again, took over the investigation. Comey would not go unavenged. Mueller
ultimately found nothing criminal or meriting a recommendation of impeachment in Trump's behavior. But by the time he issued
his report, the protracted investigation, and all the hype about Trump and Russia that it sustained, had done its political damage
and hammered the lesson home. Republicans suffered a bloodbath in the 2018 midterms, and the next president would think twice-and
then twice again-about treating an FBI director as his underling.
The Ukraine corruption that is at the heart of the Democrats' impeachment project involves the same logic if somewhat different
players. On January 11, 2017, Politico ran a news story under the headline "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire." The
story documented Ukraine's meddling on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Kenneth P. Vogel and David
Stern summarized the findings:
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.
If a foreign power involves itself is a U.S. election like that, shouldn't America ask questions? And shouldn't aid money to that
foreign power be held up until those questions were answered-not least because withholding those funds might be necessary to compel
cooperation with the investigation and to get the foreign interest to mend its ways? The questions Trump had to ask in this case,
however, involving what ties Ukrainians had to prominent Democratic Party figures, could and would, of course, be portrayed by Democrats
and the media sympathetic to them as a kind of election interference in its own right. Why, Trump was demanding a quid pro quo from
Kiev-the funds in return for information about the Democrats or an investigation that would embarrass a possible 2020 nominee.
Again, as Trump's enemies would have it, he loses if he acts (by firing Comey, by urging Kiev to look into questionable behavior
by or benefiting Democrats), and he loses if he doesn't act (and simply accepts mischaracterizations of the Russia investigation
in the press or Kiev's intrigues with Democrats). Trump has a predilection to defy his enemies-something they might now have come
to count on-so rather than taking the beating they want to mete out to him, he hits back, and then they cry foul. The media intensifies
its insinuations that Trump has broken one or more laws (though just which law remains vague and hardly even argued, let alone proven),
and the president's foes reach for their institutional weapons: the special counsel provisions and now impeachment proceedings. When
Republicans do not go along with the kangaroo court, well-paid ex-conservatives are hauled out to bemoan the lost integrity of a
party whose last president misled the country into ceaseless wars in the Middle East-with these very same ex-conservatives having
led the cheers for those interventions.
Trump was within his rights as president to demand answers from Ukraine. And if he stood to benefit politically it was because
Ukraine had already involved itself in American politics on the side of Democrats: severing those dubious ties and preventing further
manipulation of U.S. elections would necessarily come at the expense of the party that Ukrainians had cultivated when Barack Obama
was in power and which they had hoped to keep in power by helping Hillary Clinton.
Ukrainians are only acting in self-interest here:
they understandably want to enlist U.S. power in every way possible as a check upon Russia. The prospect of American politics taking
a turn toward rapprochement with Russia stirs Ukraine to take one side in our elections and Russia to take another. This is an old
familiar pattern in American politics-as old as the Washington and Adams administrations, when revolutionary France and counter-revolutionary
England had interests in our elections, and America's ideological factions were inclined to favor one power or another. Neutrality
was the course that George Washington urged, and by and large, it was the one that won out, even when the French-sympathizing Thomas
Jefferson and James Madison came to power.
A lesson from George Washington would stand the leaders in Washington, DC in good stead today. But Democrats in Congress have
other ideas: Ukraine may have failed to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016, but Democrats hope to use Ukraine to remove Trump now,
either through impeachment-a longshot-or by weakening him and the GOP ahead of the 2020 election. And Democrats hope that Republican
senators will be so embarrassed and perhaps divided by a trial in the Senate that they will lose control of that chamber in 2020,
too. They know Trump will keep fighting, and the harder he fights, the more he refuses to play by the rigged rules of the game, the
more opportunity Democrats see to frame his defensive moves as outrageous and impeachable offenses. With Nixon and Watergate, the
cover-up was often said to be worse than the crime. With Trump, there is no crime, but his defiant acts of self-defense are enough
to convict him-or so the Democrats and their allies hope.
nopeace > jeremypw • 2 hours ago
The Jan 2017 piece referenced above disproves your entire post. It points out that Democrats used Ukraine n the 2016
election (long before Trump ever the Ukraine or Biden entered the race.
BTW, there wasn't just one country where the drug-abusing, bad discharged Biden-boy made gross amounts of money from countries
trying to buy influence in the Obama administration through his father. There were several, including China. The difference is
that his father admitted on video to threatening withdrawing billions in U.S. aid if the prosecutor of his son was not fired.
True quid pro quo.
"... Earlier in Stone's legal process his lawyers filed a motion to try to prove that Russia did not hack the DNC and Podesta emails. The motion revealed that CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC and Clinton campaign, never completed its report, and only gave a redacted draft to the FBI blaming Russia. The FBI was never allowed to examine the DNC server itself. ..."
"... Faced now with a criminal investigation into how the Russiagate conspiracy theory originated intelligence officers and their accomplices in the media and in the Democratic Party are mounting a defense by launching an offensive in the form of impeachment proceedings against Trump that is based on an allegation of conducting routine, corrupt U.S. foreign policy. ..."
Earlier in Stone's legal process his lawyers filed a motion to try to prove that Russia
did not hack the DNC and Podesta emails. The motion
revealed that CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC and Clinton campaign,
never completed its report, and only gave a redacted draft to the FBI blaming Russia. The FBI
was never allowed to examine the DNC server itself.
In the end, though, it doesn't matter if it were a hack or a leak by an insider. That's
because the emails WikiLeaks released were accurate. When documents check out it is
irrelevant who the source is. That's why WikiLeaks set up an anonymous drop box, copied
by big media like The Wall Street
Journal and others
. Had the emails been counterfeit and disinformation was inserted into a U.S. election by a
foreign power that would be sabotage. But that is not what happened.
The attempt to stir up the thoroughly discredited charge of collusion appears to be part of
the defense strategy of those whose reputations were thoroughly discredited by maniacally
pushing that false charge for more than two years. This includes legions of journalists. But
principal among them are intelligence agency officials who laundered this "collusion"
disinformation campaign through the mainstream media.
Faced now with a criminal
investigation into how the Russiagate conspiracy theory originated intelligence officers
and their accomplices in the media and in the Democratic Party are mounting a defense by
launching an offensive in the form of impeachment proceedings against Trump that is based on an
allegation of conducting
routine, corrupt U.S. foreign policy.
Stone may be just a footnote to this historic partisan battle that may scar the nation for a
generation. But he has the personality to be the poster boy for the Democrats' lost cause.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent
forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached atjoelauria@consortiumnews.comand
followed on Twitter @unjoe .
"... "John Bolton's Old Rivals Say Trump Should Be 'Very, Very Worried" ..."
"... If he does not go for a second term, his enemies will go after him legally and he would be without the protection of being President. The establishment would pin anything that they can (or make up) so as to teach any other future Presidential candidate that you do not become so without getting the nod from them first. So Roman that. ..."
"John Bolton's Old Rivals Say Trump Should Be 'Very, Very Worried"
Way back when, it was taken as mostly-gospel that Trump was surprised as anybody that he
won, and that he didn't really want the job. While it appears that he's having lots of fun
being #1, maybe he's not so worried about an impeachment, because it will get him out of the
White House, and back to making money. Impeachment could be Donald and the Repub's wet dream:
they get rid of an odious figurehead (but one who has given them everything they have
wanted), they get Mike Pence to finish off the term and run in 2020, and he can claim he was
unjustly removed from office, all the while raking in the $$ from speaking engagements, new
TV shows, merch sales, and additional influence peddling.
I've always felt that Trump's best move would be to not run again. It would be perfectly
in character for him to say "been there done that" and exit with his middle finger extended.
He's done it his whole life and his "brand" for those who ever bought it to begin with would
be even stronger. Successful impeachment might slow him up a bit but does anyone really think
he's just gonna go away with his tail between his legs after he leaves the White House? He's
shameless and unless he goes to jail he will be with us forever which, loved or hated, is the
only thing that matters to him
This of course is the true hope of the impeachers–that he will just quit–since
they know he won't really be impeached. They look fondly to the Nixon precedent.
If he does not go for a second term, his enemies will go after him legally and he
would be without the protection of being President. The establishment would pin anything that
they can (or make up) so as to teach any other future Presidential candidate that you do not
become so without getting the nod from them first. So Roman that.
From the Medium article "John Bolton's Old Rivals Say Trump Should Be Very, Very
Worried"
"I don't think dirt-digging would offend Bolton. What would offend Bolton is interrupting
military supplies to a country in a deadly battle with Russia. Doing something that for
whatever reason appeases Putin," Thielmann said."
The country referred to is Ukraine. I guess I've missed all the msm articles detailing all
those deadly clashes between Russian & Ukrainian military units along with casualty
figures and all that. I suppose I need to pay closer attention (or something).
UN says 12,800–13,000 killed since April 2014. So Congress bought a pile of Javelin
AT munitions, the ones with a top attack flight profile that will place a high explosive
shape-charge of molten copper through tops of young Russian tank commanders' heads, who are
sons of Putin's base, if there was a mechanized push further into Ukraine. [The political
tolerance window for which is narrowing.]
Our benevolent leader said, "Hold-on. You gotta first get your FBI to clear my campaign
and come up with some trumped-up charges against my political opponent. My FBI won't do it."
Congressional impoundment, solicitation of a bribe for personal gain, and abuse of power. In
any case, Ukraine's getting a smaller pile of missiles until next year, so, gross incompetent
moves, both domestic and abroad.
You recall that the Obama administration opposed giving Ukraine any lethal assistance?
Congress has just come up with an excellent method of giving the Russians a lot of free
Javelins if there were a serious fight. Which there continues to be no sign of.
The great bulk of (pro-government) Ukrainian casualties occurred in the course of
ill-advised and poorly conducted offensives against the breakaway republics. When it only
defends, the Ukrainian side doesn't suffer casualties. Because nobody attacks it.
I guess what I'm having trouble with is -- is there any foreign policy involving financial
or military leverage that isn't bribery and/or extortion? The Marshall Plan? Alliance for
Progress? Sanctions of any kind? Aid to Israel and Egypt? What isn't bribery and extortion?
If it doesn't involve quid pro quo, then it's charity. I just can't see what Trump is
supposed to be guilty of except making this transparent.
The distinction I've heard being made is whether the bribery (or whatever they decide to
call it) happened for personal gain or the public's/nation's gain. What's being alleged here
is that this was a case where it was for personal gain.
In other words, whatever shady tactics a public representative uses to obtain concessions
is just fine if it's to benefit those he or she represents, but not fine if it only benefits
the representative him or herself.
I think this line of argument actually makes some sense, so I'm starting to come around to
the idea of this impeachment.
Clinton, Military aid to Saudi Arabia, Saudi donation to Clinton Foundation.
Biden threat to withhold aid from Ukraine unless prosecutor fired, son gets to keep five
figure job AND stay out of Ukrainian prison.
I am pretty sure a fair case could be made for some other items in the Middle East and
South America especially when you look at post government employment and positions.
If I thought any of this would actually change business as usual in DC, I would be all for
it. But just as with Benghazi, those in charge of the investigation are trying to take out
limited targets while keeping changing SOP out of it.
It is political show and directed by a group of people who should be limited to the same
power I have, one vote.
Unfortunately what you say rings true about the usual players trying to selectively
prosecute. But at what point do (did?) we just throw our hands up and say (said?) "forget it,
let's just ignore this part of the law (constitution)" even in the face of clear evidence
that it happened?
As I learn more, this is starting to look to me like a clearer case for an impeachment
trial than there was against Clinton, or even against Nixon, since bribery is very
specifically mentioned in the constitution as a justification for impeachment (as opposed to
the less specific "high crimes and misdemeanors", which I presume is what those other two
cases fell under).
If that's the case, then Trump's team has to show that the Bidens were being investigated
for corruption. I'm sure that the GOP would gladly include a show-trial of sorts into
impeachment proceedings to demonstrate this was the case even if it wasn't.
This whole thing is ridiculous and will only serve to boost Trump, especially when the Dems
(again) force-feed a conservative through the convention as their nominee.
Right, one of his possibly effective lines of defense could be that he indeed made that
request for the benefit of the country, and that it was just an unfortunate coincidence that
it was regarding a political opponent. And he would have some backing evidence in the form of
his other unusual requests like pressuring Sweden to release the rapper and all that.
I also agree that this whole thing could possibly boost him, but not necessarily. It may
well enrage his base, but it may turn away people in the middle who are still open to solid
arguments and evidence.
I don't think the whole thing is ridiculous anymore, and feel that Pelosi decided that she
finally had something substantial to start impeachment after talking about it for so
long.
The only things he is guilty of, is being an uncouth D.C. outsider that relishes pulling
festering scabs off of the tony eastcoast pearl-clutchers, and giving the one-finger salute
to California liberals ("I • Drink • Your • Impeachment • MILKSHAKE !,
Nancy .. I DRINK IT UP siffft !!) .. when he's not bullchinashopping the Brunch Crowd,
swilling the Dom Perrier before making off with the Belgian Waffles.
Mhmmm, it's not a joke. As it seems received wisdom here @NC that trump will be
re-elected, & liberal Dems don't get it & lefty can't get elected, what harm is there
in holding trump accountable for something, whether you understand it or not, for something
that he is actually responsible for?
It matters not if every other president is equally guilty which they are not. There are
prices to be paid.
"To the extent that Democrats any longer seriously discuss national security in the context
of US-Russian relations, it mostly involves vilifying both Trump and Russian leader Vladimir
Putin. "
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.
Jeffrey Harrison says: November 6, 2019 at 9:30 pm
There are no more "honorable members of the Senate", Mr. Cohen. The members of both houses
of Congress are partisan hacks who know nothing of how to run a country or exist in a
multipolar world, they only know how to get elected.
Facebook Scrubs All References To Alleged Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella
by
Tyler Durden
Fri, 11/08/2019 - 16:45
0
SHARES
Facebook announced on Friday that it would be removing an posts which name alleged Trump-Ukraine
whistleblower
Eric Ciaramella
.
"
We are removing any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower's name and will
revisit this decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by public figures
in the debate
," Facebook said in a statement in which they claim it violates their
"coordinating harm" policy which prohibits content 'outing of witness, informant, or activist.'
On Wednesday, the social media giant removed ads naming Ciaramella which had been viewed several
hundred thousand times according to the
Washington Post
.
On Friday,
Breitbart
'
s Allum Bohkari reported that the news outlet's posts containing references to
Ciaramella had been scrubbed from the site.
Wednesday evening, Facebook removed Breitbart posts
reporting
on the fact other respected news outlets have reported the identity of the alleged
whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella. Any Facebook user who attempts to click on that article on
Facebook is now given a message that says, "this content isn't available at the moment."
To be clear, Breitbart did not "out" the alleged whistleblower but did provide
additional relevant reporting about him
; he is, after all, a public figure, having
served on the National Security Council
. Moreover, his name has been used in the
Mueller report (p283)
and Ambassador Bill Taylor's
testimony
.
Administrators of Breitbart News' Facebook page began receiving notifications on Wednesday
evening stating that Breitbart's page is "at risk of being unpublished" but were not given any
details as to why, or even which posts were allegedly at issue. -
Breitbart
"
There is no overarching protection for the identity of the whistleblower under federal
law
," said attorney Dan Meyer, the former executive director of the intelligence community
whistleblower program, adding "Congress has never provided that protection."
I guess what I'm having trouble with is -- is there any foreign policy involving financial
or military leverage that isn't bribery and/or extortion? The Marshall Plan? Alliance for
Progress? Sanctions of any kind? Aid to Israel and Egypt?
What isn't bribery and extortion?
If it doesn't involve quid pro quo, then it's charity.
I just can't see what Trump is supposed to be guilty of except making this
transparent.
Schumer's concern for the welfare of whistleblowers may appear somewhat belated and
unconvincing, given his previous pronouncements about Snowden, Assange and Manning, but I
suppose we should all welcome a sinner come to repentance (or whatever the kosher equivalent
is.)
Seamus Padraig
Chuck is now the ' shomer ' (guardian) of wistleblowers.
This is Pelosi attempt to score some political points for coming elections, but it can backfire in Republicans in the Senate deside
to wipe the floor with her and Schiff.
It would be totally ridiculous, unprecedented, and farcical for the losing party to impeach a president
There was definitely treason all right, by elements of the CIA, FBI, and DNC, working with MI5 and Ukrainian oligarchs, to first
interfere in the 2016 election in favor of Clinton, and after the surprise loss, to overturn the results with the ridiculous Russia-gate
(and now Ukraine-gate) hoaxes.
The Democrats will destroy themselves.Wikipedia: "Hoist with his own petard" is a phrase from a speech in Hamlet that has become
proverbial. The phrase's meaning is literally that the bomb-maker...is blown up ("hoisted" off the ground) by his own bomb, and
indicates an ironic reversal, or poetic justice.
So if Trump's behavior is all kosher, I guess the DNC should hold a press conference tomorrow to officially ask every foreign
country to search for dirt on Trump, his kids, Kushner, and their companies. They have been sleazing around a lot of countries
making "deals" for a long long time.
If it is okay to ask foreign countries for help with domestic elections, the Dems should get all over that right away. Hmmmm,
I wonder if Trump has offended any foreign countries in the last couple of years, who might like to help usher him out of office...?
China, Mexico, half of Europe. Their intelligence agencies should give the DNC a call.
Hypocrisy is in the eye of the beholder too, I guess. Unless you can define how the Federal Bribery Statute has historically been
applied to US presidents dealing for foreign leaders. I'm sure the readers would be interested in seeing you make that case.
Asking for cooperation from an ally in exposing corruption has never been "charged" any other US president. If you want examples
of other presidents' quid pro quos, just ask. Foreign aid is a political quid pro quo (as we have VP Joe Biden bragging
about on camera). It is not, however, extortion in the jurusprudential meaning of the term. It's reckless and dishonest to claim
that it is.
The Pandora's Box of criminializing heretofore normal presidential activities is one of the more egregious examples of leftwing
ideologues scorching the earth of America's government.
I sat out the last presidential election, because both candidates who were running were unacceptable to me, but Pat's analysis
has cut through all the propaganda surrounding this clumsy coup attempt to overturn the choice that American voters made for who
they wanted as their next president.
...As for the notion that Biden started the civil war in Ukraine? Nonsense. What really kick
started that was the attack on Russian speakers launched as the first order of business.
Killing a bunch of people in Odessa by setting a building on fire and trapping them inside was
motivation too.
Lee Arnold@72 speaks of democratic process. and Russian expansion. Both are imaginary. The
process in Ukraine is fascist. It's true that the open fascists are not at the top, but then,
this was true of Franco's Spain, where the Falange party was not on top either. But only a
swindler would deny Franco's Spain was fascist.
The idea there was no rebellion against the fascists in Kyiv is preposterous on the face of
it. Further, Kharkov nearly went with Donetsk and Lugansk, but the national government managed
to keep control. There is no sane scenario where a Russian invasion doesn't take Kharkov, which
shows it wasn't Russian invasion that started it. And, conclusively, incorporating Donetsk and
Lugansk means ending the war in some fashion that leaves essential control to Moscow. Whatever
military assistance Russia gives the rebels is about making sure they don't go too the left in
fighting the fascists and making sure there are no embarrassing wave of Russian-speaking
refugees from Ukrainian fascism. Endless war is not incorporation. It just means Putin is a
fool for thinking one side won't eventually collapse. Lastly, as to Crimea, the simple truth is
that the establishment of liberal democracies generally demands consolidation of the national
territory, which generally demands redrawing boundaries and ethnic cleansing. The insistence
that Ukrainian fascists have a "right" to make Russians in Crimea second-class citizens because
of old maps is not becoming.
"... Bravo Renée: I loved this article, not least because I loathe Adam Schiff with a vengeance ..."
"... The USA is a deeply divided country. Split from the top to the bottom. The 'liberal' coastal cities on collision course with the rest of the country. ..."
"... The Democratic leadership have accepted that their real chances of winning the next presidential election are small, unless the economy goes into a sharp decline and the voters turn against Trump in their millions. This isn't happening. So Trump stands a really good chance of winning in 2020. Just a year from now. ..."
"... So, if the chances of defeating Trump democratically at the coming election are looking 'problematic' and increasingly remote; the alternative is to remove him from office by impeachment where the Law is used instead of the voting system, which is far harder to control these days. ..."
"... The real scandal over Ukraine lies in Biden threatening to withhold $1 billion from the country unless the prosecutor investigating Biden Junior was sacked – something he openly and publicly bragged about. ..."
"... That's all very nice but this individual is a spy, not a "whistleblower". ..."
"... Was he part of the 'taskforce' or is he part of the diversion from that taskforce or indeed the conspiracy against Ukraine by Obama/Clinton nazi promoting Nuland & co? ..."
For those readers who care more about Donald Trump, Obama's legacy or the Republican/Democrat
parties rather than the Rule of Law and what remains of the US Constitution, the following scenario should be a Giant
Wake up Call.
As the result of an anonymous "whistleblower"
Complaint
filed against President Trump on August 12, the House Intel Committee conducted a series of closed door hearings that
violated
Sixth Amendment
protections while
relying on an anonymous WB.
Right away, those hearings morphed into an impeachment inquiry that took on the spectacle of a clumsy kerfuffle
not to be taken seriously – except they were.
There is an essential Ukraine backstory which began with the US initiating the overthrow of its democratically
elected President Yanukovych in 2014.
Fast forward to Russiagate followed by Ukrainegate and an impeachment inquiry with Trump telling newly elected
Ukraine President Zelensky in their now infamous July 25th conversation:
I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation in Ukraine; they say Crowdstrike. The
server they say, Ukraine has it<."
In a nutshell, possession of the CrowdStrike server is crucial to revealing the Democratic hierarchy's role in
initiating Russiagate as the Democrats are having a major snit-fit that now threatens the constitutional foundation
of the country.
On October 31st the House voted to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry based on still mysterious
Whistleblower's allegations. At the time, there was still no confirmation of who the shadowy Whistleblower was or
whether a Whistleblower even existed.
It is a fact that most whistleblowers bring the transgression
proudly forward
into the public light for the specific purpose of exposing the deeds that deserve to be exposed.
At great personal cost, they then provide a credible case for why this offense is illegal or a violation of the
public trust and deserves to be made public.
This alleged WB, however, defies the traditional definition of a WB who most often experiences the wrong-doing
first hand and from a personal vantage while revealing said wrong-doing as a function within an agency of their
employment.
This WB's identity has been protected from public disclosure by TPTB, shrouded in mystery and suspicion as if
fearful of public scrutiny or that his 'truth' would crumble under interrogation and not be greeted with unanimity.
What is clear is that this WB had no direct experience but only second-hand knowledge of events which is defined as
'hear say' evidence. While inadmissible in a Court of law, why should 'hear say' be allowed when the subject is as
profound as impeachment of a President?
Real-life CIA
whistleblower Jon Kiriakou
who served 22 months in prison, suggested this "
whistleblower is not a
whistleblower but a anonymous CIA analyst within the Democratic House staff
." When was the last time a real
whistleblower was 'protected' by the government from public exposure.
There has been no explanation as to why this informant's identity is necessarily been kept secret – and not just
from the public but from Members of Congress especially as Republican Members have been unable to question him.
There has been no further information regarding a second "Whistleblower" who allegedly came forward to corroborate
the first WB although why it is necessary to corroborate that which has already been publicly revealed remains
questionable.
In a once unimaginable example of CIA–Democratic collusion, it turns out that the identity of the alleged WB is
not such a secret after all.
Far from the public eyes of Americans, there has been a coordinated effort to stifle any exposure of his identity;
presumably to prevent any revelation of the underpinnings of exactly how this convoluted scheme of malfeasance was
organized. And as his name and political history within the Obama Administration and Democratic party are publicly
scrutinized, it makes perfect sense why the TPTB would prefer to prevent public hearings or keep the WB's identity
under wraps.
His identity should have been public knowledge weeks ago and yet it took
Real Clear Investigations
,
an alt-news website to publicly reveal what has been well known within
the DC bubble for some weeks.
The answer to the title question is that this WB is instead a very
well connected
partisan lackey and CIA operative.
The alleged WB is said to be a 33 year old
CIA analyst
by the name of Eric Ciaramella who was an Obama White House holdover at the National Security Council
until mid 2017.
Consequently, he has deep partisan ties to former VP Joe Biden, former CIA Director John Brennan and former
National Security Advisor Susan Rice as well as the DNC establishment. And here's where it get especially
interesting; Ciaramella specializes in Russia and Ukraine, is fluent in both languages, ran the Ukraine desk at the
Obama NSC and had close association with Ukrainian DNC hyper-activist Alexandra Chalupa.
Ciaramella's bio reads like a litany of the political turmoil that has consumed the nation for the last three
years as it is reported that he had a role in initiating the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy while at the Obama
White House and worked with Biden who was the Obama point-person on Ukraine issues in 2015 and 2016 when
$3 billion USAID funding
was being embezzled.
Clearly, Ciaramella has a wealth of information to share regarding the Biden
Quid pro Quo scandal
which is currently being muzzled by the corporate media.
With Ciaramella's identity revealed, a former NSC staffer who was present during the Trump-Zelensky July 25th
conversation testified that he saw
nothing illegal
in the talk. Tim Morrison told the House Intel Committee that "
I want to be clear, I was not
concerned that anything illegal was discussed"
and that the transcript of the call which was declassified and
released by the White House "
accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call."
More recently, Mark Zaid, attorney for Ciaramella has said that his client would accept written questions from
Republicans on the House Intel Committee and that his client "
wants
to be as bipartisan
as possible throughout this process while remaining anonymous
."
Seriously? He's got to be kidding.
Did the reality of being required to testify in public just recently dawn on Ciaramella or was he not expecting
that his every word and utterance would be scrutinized before the entire world? Is he so unfamiliar with the Sixth
Amendment that he believes a Defendant's right to confront his accuser should not apply to him or in a Presidential
impeachment inquiry?
Did he actually believe he could make anonymous impeachment accusations against the President of the US without a
ripple or without having to directly face questions from House and Senate Republicans? Who did he think would
protect him from public scrutiny?
Given Ciaramella's extensive partisan history since 2015 and his national security experience with Susan Rice in
the Obama White House, it will be interesting if he receives a mention in the IG report on the abuse of FISA warrants
and whether Ciaramella's name has moved to the top of the Durham interviewee list.
Stephen Morrell
These inquiries always spiral out of the control of their instigators, and this one is becoming
positively delicious.
Seamus Padraig
Regarding the transcript of Trump's call, please tell me: what law/statute did he break? In order
for there to be a high crime or misdemeanor, there must first be
some
kind of crime or misdemeanor.
Tom
You cannot be serious! How about EXTORTION? As in holding up the money from Ukraine until they
agreed to look into his prime political opponent in the upcoming election (Biden). That's a
crime.
Or perhaps they will call it BRIBERY. That's a crime also.
Or moving on, how about receiving money from foreign interests in the form of forbidden
EMOLUMENTS, through, at a minimum, his Washington hotel or the foreign visitors spending heavily
at his gold courses? These venues generate revenue for the Trump organization, which he never
divested himself from.
Take your hands off of your ears and remove the wool from your eyes.
JudyJ
Tom
You mention "Bribery", and you mention "receiving money from foreign interests" both
in the context of Trump. I'm sorry but from where I stand there are far stronger suggestions
of that in the context of Biden and the undenied international connections of his son. You
appear to be taking the position that however serious the inferred misdemeanours (let me use
the term 'corruption') of Biden are, he does whatever he does – unlike Trump, of course – to
"put the health of the country first" (your words @ 8.41) and are by definition not deserving
of investigation. He's all heart, isn't he? Foolish of me not to see this.
Tom
Biden isn't VP any longer. The Republicans had complete control of Congress AND the
presidency for 2016/2017. If they wanted to investigate Biden, that would have been your
best the time to do it. So why do you supposed they didn't investigate Biden then? Might
it be that while Biden may have taken advantage of his political position, as so many
politicians do, what he did was not judged to be illegal. Personally, I don't give a rat's
arse about Biden one way or another.
The attempts by you and others in your camp and
Trump himself to muddy the impeachment investigation and direct attention elsewhere are so
transparent as to be almost ludicrous.
You need to focus on what is most import to the USA and the people of this country –
the clear and present danger that President Trump represents!
Seamus Padraig
Here's the
full transcript
of the call with Zelensky. Now tell me: where's the "bribery" and
"extortion" there? Trump just asked Zelensky a favor–that's all.
Tom
You never watched any mafia movies have you?
Did you know that people have been
convicted of murder and sent to death row when they never even found the body? It's called
circumstantial evidence.
The same legal concept applies to Trump's conversations. Trump thought he was being
slick by not explicitly mentioning that the Ukraine president HAD to do this favor for him
to get the allocation released to him. 'Hey, I need ya to do me a favor first'
But just as with circumstantial evidence, a direct request is not necessary. An implied
one will do just as well. You are way out of your league trying to play lawyer here!
Martin Usher
I daresay they can get him on Emoluments and exceeding Constitutional authority. Impeachment
isn't like a criminal trial, its really about whether the official went against their oath to
"protect and defend the Constitution". This is the bit that President Trump doesn't quite
understand; everyone who's part of government swears an oath to protect and defend the
Constitution (so do naturalized citizens, BTW) and its this that they're loyal to, not an
individual. The individual only holds power because the Constitution gives it to them --
temporarily. (At the time of the founding of the US this was a bit of a novelty, the idea that
you owe fealty to an abstract concept rather than an individual, and many people even in this
country still don't get it.)
Ultimately, though -- as we found with Clinton in the 90s -- its
going to come down to "Because We Can". Personally I'd rather not bother, I'd just collect the
information, put it out there and let the electorate decide what's best for the country, but I'm
not running the show.
Martin Usher
This really didn't turn into an impeachment enquiry until the issue was forced by media partisanship.
President Trump has already crossed numerous boundaries that would get a normal President into trouble
and Ukraine was just another straw for the camel to carry. Next year is an election year and its
starting to look like the Democrats could field an actual donkey and still win the Presidency.
What's probably more damning than the whistleblower's original complaint is the testimony of Marie
Yovanaovitch, the US ambassador to Ukraine who had the rug pulled out from under her earlier this
year. I don't want to comment on her role in that country or the US's role in bringing 'freedom and
democracy' (aka "total chaos and economic ruin"), its more about the way that ill informed tweets and
media punditry by Fox News commentators such as Sean Hannity are undermining the work of the State
Department. Some might say this is a good thing but I personally believe that all this screwing
around, both with foreign relations and the economy, is doing the US demonstrable harm and probably
needs to have a stop put to it sooner rather later. This is not reality TV, this is serious stuff.
Those who've read my posts on this site will know that I've never been a fan of Russiagate or
interested in a renewed Cold War, its a road to nowhere. This is why I don't see the 'hand ofPutin'
everywhere, he's not the contemporary Illuminati and probably doesn't smoke (so no smoke filled
rooms). However, if I wanted to play international zero sum I would suggest that all Putin (and Xi)
needs to do to 'win' is to do nothing, just stand well back because the inevitable meltdown is going
to get really messy.
Tim Jenkins
Bravo Renée: I loved this article, not least because I loathe Adam Schiff with a vengeance,
as does anybody with the slightest degree of scientific & analytical know how: yet you managed to
avoid any partisan accusations and mentioning his name: which would have been impossible in my case
Quality journalism Renée and the head of the House Intelligence Committee should be immediately investigated, prosecuted and may
I add, Not thrown in Prison, but Shot at Dawn, for TREASON USA
Something I used to write regularly in the Guardian, before they banned me, was
Never in the field of Human Conflict, has
so much been owed by so few to so many
MichaelK
The USA is a deeply divided country. Split from the top to the bottom. The 'liberal' coastal cities on
collision course with the rest of the country.
The Democratic leadership have accepted that their
real chances of winning the next presidential election are small, unless the economy goes into a sharp
decline and the voters turn against Trump in their millions. This isn't happening. So Trump stands a
really good chance of winning in 2020. Just a year from now.
The party top wants another 'conservative' and 'safe' candidate like Clinton so they can keep
control of the party and banish the 'dangerous left' once more. Only the party activists don't want
another 'Clinton' candidate that'll lead them towards another defeat.
So, if the chances of defeating Trump democratically at the coming election are looking
'problematic' and increasingly remote; the alternative is to remove him from office by impeachment
where the Law is used instead of the voting system, which is far harder to control these days.
This process, removing political leaders using the Law, because they are corrupt, has been used in
several countries recently, for example in Brazil, where Lula was imprisoned and unable to stand for
election after a questionable trial.
Now, it's the turn of the USA. Whether the millions of Trump supporters will simply sit back and
watch this kind of 'legal coup' unfold, is another story.
mark
I think the reason for impeachment is not a substitute for an elusive electoral victory on the part
of the democrats.
It is actually far worse than that.
It is a case of "either we get him, or he gets us."
"Either we walk over him, or he walks over us."
They are simply trying to save their skins.
The Clinton/ Biden clans and their minions are now looking at serious jail time in a
winner-takes-all, high stakes, no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners zero sum game.
The Deep State, the Spooks, the Dirty Cops, Wall Street, MIC, Hollywood and the MSM, and the
Democrat establishment, tried to rig the election to prevent Trump winning.
Having failed to achieve this, they tried to sabotage and delegitimise his administration by the
Russiagate hoax, planting spies in the White House, and corrupt and politicised investigations and
prosecutions of senior officials, using perjured and fabricated "evidence" from dubious foreign
sources (Steele, Dearlove, MI6, Ukraine.)
This is now a busted flush. Russiagate has been comprehensively debunked, however much the MSM
tries to pretend otherwise. Their criminality and corruption is being steadily and methodically
exposed for all the world to see.
Trump knows that impeachment would be just the beginning, not the end. They would not be content to
remove him from office, Nixon style. They want him broken, to make an example of him. They want him
in jail, bankrupt, his businesses broken up and his assets confiscated, his children and his
friends in jail with him. They won't settle for anything less than this.
The somewhat pathetic "Ukrainegate" saga is a smokescreen that his been thrown up in desperation at
short notice to try to snatch victory from defeat. It is becoming less and less credible as more
facts emerge. It seems to be based on little more than second or third hand gossip from rabidly
anti Trump sources, and is rapidly being discredited. No matter how much the MSM tries to big this
up, it will run its course leaving the anti Trump conspiracy even more nakedly exposed.
Trump and Barr have only to keep up the pressure to turn the tables.
Not that anyone should have any sympathy for Trump and his cronies. They all belong in jail, as do
the anti Trump faction. Ideally, they should all go to jail. It's a pity they can't all lose.
If you think it's all dirty and down in the gutter now, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Let dog eat dog.
George Cornell
As your namesake Twain said, the more I see of people, the more I like of dogs. This is more
akin to cannibalism? I agree that we are just seeing the opening warmup acts now. But more like
unscripted unrehearsed professional wrestling every day.
nwwoods
Jail time? DC political elites? Not gone happen.
Tim Jenkins
MK Ultra good comment, upon which I could expand, but I don't want to give the game away, because I
reckon Trump's planning, timing and strategy is unstoppable, after he wins the next election.
All
will see and pretend that they knew all along what he was doing & going to do.
I should add, I'm on record @TheGuardian, stating that he would definitely win in 2016,
well in advance and nobody believed me, though it was easy to see & calculate, with sound analysis
of the key factors. It was obvious and I switched off, long before the announcement,
that he'd won, when they were still predicting HRC, knowing I was right, on that night.
I will tell you this much: It would be very silly of him to 'fire' the FED, before the elections
😉
phree
I have to disagree with Kiriakou and the author on this one. I'm a lawyer and I've been involved in
whistleblower cases on both sides. MANY whistleblowers do not want to go public. I'd say at least 50%
in my experience. And most whistleblowers have personal interests in addition to wanting to protect
the public interest -- they are looking for a pay day.
Plus, these attacks on this whistleblower for bias or lack of first hand knowledge really miss the
point: His claims have been almost entirely verified. There clearly was a quid pro quo (not that one
is necessary) as admitted by Mulvaney (before he tried to walk it back) and Sondland, and testified
about by others involved with Ukraine at the time. Since many National Security people were aghast at
these actions (including that die hard liberal Bolton), and Guliani says everything he was doing was
on behalf of his private client, there is no reason to think that this was a matter of national
security policy.
Indeed, the memo of Trump's phone call demonstrates the quid pro quo to any reasonable person -- it
certainly would be enough to indict a gangster. Do me a "favor" if you want me to sell you missiles?
That's not enough? Really? Especially when in order to buy the missiles you need the military
assistance money Trump was blocking.
Bbbbut what about the Bidens some whimper. Investigate them through proper channels, not by
blackmail through a back channel.
So, save your hair pulling for a whistleblower who's claims turn out to be false.
Northern
Your moral condemnation is evidently selective.
Bbbut what about the quid pro quo you whimper? Why don't you find some ordinary Ukrainian
citizens and ask them which was the greater evil; being thrust into civil war by rampaging mobs of
US sponsored neo-nazis, or the neo-nazi's not getting paid on time? Go re-asses your moral compass
you fascist sympathizer.
mark
The real scandal over Ukraine lies in Biden threatening to withhold $1 billion from the country
unless the prosecutor investigating Biden Junior was sacked – something he openly and publicly
bragged about.
Tom
Biden wasn't alone. Much of the rest of Europe was making the same call because the prosecutor
himself was corrupt. And why didn't the Republicans take this up when they had full control of
Congress during 2016/2017? I bet you can't come up with any kind of sensible answer!
Tim Jenkins
Use your real name or you are talking BOLLOCKS !
nwwoods
That's all very nice but this individual is a spy, not a "whistleblower".
Tom
Doesn't matter. Is the information correct? That's what you SHOULD be focusing on but then you
won't like how that further sullies the already awful reputation of your deity Trump.
mark
Schumer's concern for the welfare of whistleblowers may appear somewhat belated and unconvincing,
given his previous pronouncements about Snowden, Assange and Manning, but I suppose we should all
welcome a sinner come to repentance (or whatever the kosher equivalent is.)
Seamus Padraig
Chuck is now the '
shomer
'
(guardian) of wistleblowers.
Dungroanin
Was he part of the 'taskforce' or is he part of the diversion from that taskforce or indeed the
conspiracy against Ukraine by Obama/Clinton nazi promoting Nuland & co?
The report is – if not a
whitewash – going to ruin as many trousers and underwear as any explosive diarrhetic fart!
From Barry's stupid peace prize – to our stupid DS outlaws.
Especially if the tories carry on as they have started this election – with masterful pratfalls,
foot-in-mouths and devious lying, cheating and hiding.
When they've been employed by the CIA I'd say very, very rarely.
Real-life CIA whistleblower Jon Kiriakou who served 22 months in prison
Did he now? 22 months in prison and sentenced on 22 October. They love their 22s. Just as Chelsea
had 22 charges laid against her, was 22 at the time of her leaking and spent 22 hours a day in prison
for some of her alleged 7 year sentence.
His Wikipedia story does not sound in the least compelling. He allegedly disclosed the torture of
Abu Zubaydah, accused of being an aide to Osama bin Laden. So if bin Laden was an agent how real is
Zubaydah?
On December 10, 2007, Kiriakou gave an interview to ABC News[16] in which he described his
participation in the capture of Abu Zubaydah, who was accused of having been an aide to Al-Qaeda
leader Osama bin Laden. Kiriakou said that he did not witness Zubaydah's interrogation, but had
been told by CIA associates that it had taken only a single brief instance of waterboarding to
extract answers:
He was able to withstand the waterboarding for quite some time. And by that I mean probably
30, 35 seconds and a short time afterwards, in the next day or so, he told his interrogator that
Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate.[17]
Following the interview, Kiriakou's accounts of Abu Zubaydah's waterboarding were widely
repeated and paraphrased,[Note 1][6] and he became a regular guest expert on news and public
affairs shows on the topics of interrogation and counter-terrorism.
In 2009, however, it was reported that Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded at least 83 times,[18]
and that little or no useful additional information may have been gained by "harsh methods" of
interrogation.[19][20] Kiriakou had been under the mistaken belief that Zubaydah was waterboarded
only once, and even that single instance he had described as a form of torture while expressing
reservations about whether the value of the information obtained was worth the damage done to the
United States' reputation.[citation needed]
Kiriakou has said that he chose not to blow the whistle on torture through internal channels
because he believed he "wouldn't have gotten anywhere" because his superiors and the congressional
intelligence committees were already aware of it.[21]
OMG! Does the theatre ever stop?
Tim Jenkins
"OMG! Does the theatre ever stop?"
yep, it does actually: when you finally suss out what Bill
Binney was telling you all about; about 6 years before you profess to have taken an interest in the
events leading up to and including those that occurred on the 11th sept. 2001 and of course, the
missing D.o.D $$$TRILLIONS$$$ and what they spent the money on >>>
Like "Parallel Platforms" !
mark
What's a mere missing $21 trillion between friends?
Probably just fallen down the back of the sofa.
Along with the 140 tons of Libyan gold and the 1,500 tons of German gold and the Ukrainian
gold and the gold from WTC 7 and the Venezuelan gold ..
There's a perfectly simple explanation for everything if you look hard enough.
mark
China is the biggest gold producer in the world, with over 400 tons a year, none of which
is ever seen outside the country.
There has been speculation that their holdings are over 10,000 tons, but nobody really
knows.
This follows the historical pattern over thousands of years, China exporting silk, spices,
quality ceramics and tea, and taking silver bullion in payment. Europe was drained of
silver until the looting of the New World.
Some people believe that America has 8,300 tons, a figure unchanged since 1971. But then
again some people believe in fairies and Father Christmas.
Democrats?. You just stand
back and watch them implode. It's painful to watch some days I'll tell ya
George Cornell
Debbie does the Dems. Wasserperson Schultz , where are you when your party needs some deep
corruption?
Keeping an émigré in charge of the foreign policy towards that country. What could go wrong?
Notable quotes:
"... Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the Deep State, which considers global conflict as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from the US taxpayer. Continuous warfare is its only business product, which explains in part its dislike of Donald Trump as he has several times threatened to upset the apple cart, even though he has done precious little in reality. Part of Vindman's written statement (my emphasis) is revealing: ""When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration's policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to US government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined US government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine." ..."
"... Alexander Vindman clearly was pushing a policy that might be described as that of the Deep State rather than responding to his own chain of command where it is the president who does the decision making. He also needs a history lesson about what has gone on in his country of birth. President Barack Obama conspired with his own version of Macbeth's three witches – Rice, Power and Jarett – to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014 because it was considered to be too close to Moscow. The regime change was brought about by "mavericks" like the foul-mouthed neocon State Department officer Victoria Nuland and the footloose warmonger Senator John McCain. Vice President Joe Biden also appeared on the scene after the "wetwork" was done, with his son Hunter trailing behind him. Since that time, Ukraine has had a succession of increasingly corrupt puppet governments propped up by billions in foreign aid. It is now per capita the poorest country in Europe. ..."
"... Colonel Vindman, who reported to noted hater of all things Russian Fiona Hill, who in turn reported to By Jingo We'll Go To War John Bolton, was in the middle of all the schemes to bring down Russia. His concern was not really over Trump vs. Biden. It was focused instead on speeding up the $380 million in military assistance, to include offensive weapons, that was in the pipeline for Kiev. And assuming that the Ukrainians could actually learn how to use the weapons, the objective was to punish the Russians and prolong the conflict in Donbas for no reason at all that makes any sense. ..."
"... Vindman's concern is all about Ukraine without any explanation of why the United States would benefit from bilking the taxpayer to support a foreign deadbeat one more time. One wonders if Vindman was able to compose his statement without a snicker or two intruding. He does eventually go on to cover the always essential national security angle, claiming that "Since 2008, Russia has manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid warfare to achieve its objectives of regional hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further confrontations with the West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to US national security interests because Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression ." ..."
"... The combined visions of Russia as an aggressive, expansionistic power coupled with the brave Ukrainians serving as a bastion of freedom is so absurd that it is hardly worth countering. Russia's economy is about the size of Italy's or Spain's limiting its imperial ambitions, if they actually exist. Its alleged transgressions against Georgia and Ukraine were both provoked by the United States meddling in Eastern Europe, something that it had pledged not to do after the Soviet Union collapsed. Ukraine is less an important American ally than a welfare case, and no one knows that better than Vindman, but he is really speaking to his masters in the US Establishment when he repeats the conventional arguments. ..."
"... Alexander Vindman does not say or write that the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO is his actual objective, but his comments about "integrating with the West" and the "Euro-Atlantic community" clearly imply just that. ..."
"... A certain colonel named "Colonel" Vindman is secretly running the White House's foreign policy with a secret globalist agenda right under the Donald Trump's nose (a "colonel" who, by the way, is about as battlefield hero as Melania Trump). The outcome? The American foreign policy in shambles, a total sham, a farce on steroids, a schizo chaos of competing special interests, payola, kickbacks, quid-pro-quo big-fish-eats-small clusterfuck, foreign influence-peddling and deepstatism. ..."
"... "It is now per capita the poorest country in Europe" (Ukraine). Well done boys. Another Libya? There is a pattern here. ..."
The current
frenzy to impeach President Donald Trump sometimes in its haste reveals that which could easily be hidden about the operation
of the Deep State inside the federal government. Congress is currently obtaining testimony from a parade of witnesses to or participants
in what will inevitably be called UkraineGate, an investigation into whether Trump inappropriately sought a political quid pro quo
from Ukrainian leaders in exchange for a military assistance package.
The
prepared opening statement by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, described as the top Ukraine expert on the National Security
Council (NSC), provides some insights into how decision making at the NSC actually works. Vindman was born in Ukraine but emigrated
to the United States with his family at age three. He was commissioned as an army infantry officer in 1998 and served in some capacity
in Iraq from 2004-5, where he was wounded by a roadside bomb and received a purple heart. Vindman, who speaks both Ukrainian and
Russian fluently, has filled a number of diplomatic and military positions in government dealing with Eastern Europe, to include
a key role in Pentagon planning on how to deal with Russia.
Vindman, Ukrainian both by birth and culturally, clearly was a major player in articulating and managing US policy towards that
country, but that is not really what his role on the NSC should have been. As more than likely the US government's sole genuine Ukrainian
expert, he should have become a source of viable options that the United States might exercise vis-à-vis its relationship with Ukraine,
and, by extension, regarding Moscow's involvement with Kiev. But that is not how his statement, which advocates for a specific policy,
reads. Rather than providing expert advice, Vindman was concerned chiefly because arming Ukraine was not proceeding quickly enough
to suit him, an extremely risky policy which has already created serious problems with a much more important Russia.
Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the Deep State, which considers global conflict
as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from the US taxpayer. Continuous warfare is its only business product, which explains
in part its dislike of Donald Trump as he has several times threatened to upset the apple cart, even though he has done precious
little in reality. Part of Vindman's written statement (my emphasis) is revealing: ""When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began
implementing the administration's policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false
narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to US government policy.
While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined
US government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine."
Alexander Vindman clearly was pushing a policy that might be described as that of the Deep State rather than responding to
his own chain of command where it is the president who does the decision making. He also needs a history lesson about what has gone
on in his country of birth. President Barack Obama conspired with his own version of Macbeth's three witches – Rice, Power and Jarett
– to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014 because it was considered to be too close to Moscow. The regime change
was brought about by "mavericks" like the foul-mouthed neocon State Department officer Victoria Nuland and the footloose warmonger
Senator John McCain. Vice President Joe Biden also appeared on the scene after the "wetwork" was done, with his son Hunter trailing
behind him. Since that time, Ukraine has had a succession of increasingly corrupt puppet governments propped up by billions in foreign
aid. It is now per capita the poorest country in Europe.
Washington inside-the-beltway and the Deep State choose to blame the mess in Ukraine on Russian President Vladimir Putin and the
established narrative also makes the absurd claim that the political situation in Kiev is somehow important to US national security.
The preferred solution is to provide still more money, which feeds the corruption and enables the Ukrainians to attack the Russians.
Colonel Vindman, who reported to noted hater of all things Russian Fiona Hill, who in turn reported to By Jingo We'll Go To
War John Bolton, was in the middle of all the schemes to bring down Russia. His concern was not really over Trump vs. Biden. It was
focused instead on speeding up the $380 million in military assistance, to include offensive weapons, that was in the pipeline for
Kiev. And assuming that the Ukrainians could actually learn how to use the weapons, the objective was to punish the Russians and
prolong the conflict in Donbas for no reason at all that makes any sense.
Note the following additional excerpt from Vindman's prepared statement: " .I was worried about the implications for the US government's
support of Ukraine . I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted
as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained ."
Vindman's concern is all about Ukraine without any explanation of why the United States would benefit from bilking the taxpayer
to support a foreign deadbeat one more time. One wonders if Vindman was able to compose his statement without a snicker or two intruding.
He does eventually go on to cover the always essential national security angle, claiming that "Since 2008, Russia has manifested
an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid warfare to achieve its objectives of regional
hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further
confrontations with the West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to US national security interests because
Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression ."
The combined visions of Russia as an aggressive, expansionistic power coupled with the brave Ukrainians serving as a bastion
of freedom is so absurd that it is hardly worth countering. Russia's economy is about the size of Italy's or Spain's limiting its
imperial ambitions, if they actually exist. Its alleged transgressions against Georgia and Ukraine were both provoked by the United
States meddling in Eastern Europe, something that it had pledged not to do after the Soviet Union collapsed. Ukraine is less an important
American ally than a welfare case, and no one knows that better than Vindman, but he is really speaking to his masters in the US
Establishment when he repeats the conventional arguments.
It hardly seems possible, but Vindman then goes on to dig himself into a still deeper hole through his statement's praise of the
train wreck that is Ukraine. He writes "In spite of being under assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukraine has taken major
steps towards integrating with the West . The US government policy community's view is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelensky
and the promise of reforms to eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine's Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize
its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity. The United States and Ukraine are and must remain strategic partners, working
together to realize the shared vision of a stable, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine that is integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community
."
Alexander Vindman does not say or write that the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO is his actual objective, but his comments
about "integrating with the West" and the "Euro-Atlantic community" clearly imply just that. The expansion of NATO up to Russia's
borders by the rascally Bill Clinton constituted one of the truly most momentous lost foreign policy opportunities of the twentieth
century. The addition of Ukraine and Georgia to the alliance would magnify that error as both are vital national security interests
for Moscow given their history and geography. Vindman should be regarded as a manifestation of the Deep State thinking that has brought
so much grief to the United States over the past twenty years. Seen in that light, his testimony, wrapped in an air of sanctimoniousness
and a uniform, should be regarded as little more than the conventional thinking that has produced foreign policy failure after failure.
Exactly 100 years ago, in 1919, a certain colonel named "Colonel" House was secretly running the White House's foreign policy
with a secret globalist agenda right under the Woodrow Wilson's nose (a "colonel" who, by the way, was neither an army officer,
nor the battlefield hero - in fact, he was about as much of a colonel as Colonel Parker). The outcome? The post-World War 1 "new
world order" (which was neither new, nor order, nor global in any sense) that was a nightmare on steroids, a humpty-dumpty Frankenstein
that gave birth to both Nazism and Bolshevism as well as Globalist Elitism, American Exceptionalism, and New Deal Neoliberalism
and was every satanist's wet dream. Short of procreating Beelzebub and Baphomet, "Colonel" House just about did 'em all.
Fast forward 100 years, back to the future: year 2019 AD. A certain colonel named "Colonel" Vindman is secretly running
the White House's foreign policy with a secret globalist agenda right under the Donald Trump's nose (a "colonel" who, by the way,
is about as battlefield hero as Melania Trump). The outcome? The American foreign policy in shambles, a total sham, a farce on
steroids, a schizo chaos of competing special interests, payola, kickbacks, quid-pro-quo big-fish-eats-small clusterfuck, foreign
influence-peddling and deepstatism.
So, yes, Karl Marx was, for once, right. History really does repeat itself. It first comes as a tragedy and then returns the
second time around as an inbred farce. Or a slapstick.
A vet with a Purple Heart can be a piece of crap just like anyone else. Neither status is akin to sainthood. In fact this guy should be ashamed of the way the US government has wronged Ukraine and he is a damned big part of it.
It is absolutely mind boggling how the Democrats get away with making up false claims over and over but the real losers are voters who are paying useless jack asses to do nothing. What has the House done ? Further testimony to the farce is Mr. Magoo , Sessions , thinking he might have some contribution to make .
And Vindman sat with his whistle up his *** while Biden played pay to play and blackmailed Ukraine into dropping the investigation of the company his under qualified over paid son sat on. Biden let his ego overtake reason and admitted on tape what he did . Held back payment to Ukraine unless a judge was off the
case .
What did Vindman do about that ? Was he in on it ? Vindman is a patsy and a gossip . Nothing more . OK except for lying about his deep Democrat attachments . The guy looks like a deer in headlights but he is just being used .
A vet with a Purple Heart can be a piece of crap just like anyone else. Neither status is akin to sainthood. In fact this guy should be ashamed of the way the US government has wronged Ukraine and he is a damned big part of it.
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... We also learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be fully trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. ..."
"... Opponents of Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate say it is impermissible or unprecedented to "investigate the investigators." But the bipartisan Church Committee, based in the US Senate, did so in the mid-1970s. It exposed many abuses by US intelligence agencies, particularly by the CIA, and adopted remedies that it believed would be permanent. Clearly, they have not been. ..."
"... However well-intentioned Barr may be, he is Trump's attorney general and therefore not fully credible. As I have also argued repeatedly, a new Church Committee is urgently needed. It's time for honorable members of the Senate of both parties to do their duty. ..."
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? Similarly, as I have asked repeatedly, if confronted
with a US-Russian Cuban missile–like crisis -- anywhere Washington and Moscow are
currently eyeball-to-eyeball militarily, from the Baltic region and Ukraine to Syria -- will
Trump be as free politically as was President John F. Kennedy to resolve it without war? Here
too there is an inconvenient truth: To the extent that Democrats any longer seriously discuss
national security in the context of US-Russian relations, it mostly involves vilifying both
Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. (Recall also that previous presidents were free to
negotiate with Russia's Soviet communist leaders, even encouraged to do so, whereas the
demonized Putin is an anti-communist, post-Soviet leader.)
The current state of US-Russian relations is unprecedentedly dangerous, not only due to
reasons cited here -- a new Cold War fraught with the possibility of hot war. Whether President
Trump serves one or two terms, he must be fully empowered to cope with the multiple
possibilities of a US-Russian military confrontation. That requires ridding him and our nation
of Russiagate allegations -- and that in turn requires learning how such allegations
originated.
Opponents of Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate say it is impermissible
or unprecedented to "investigate the investigators." But the bipartisan Church Committee, based
in the US Senate, did so in the mid-1970s. It exposed many abuses by US intelligence agencies,
particularly by the CIA, and adopted remedies that it believed would be permanent. Clearly,
they have not been.
However well-intentioned Barr may be, he is Trump's attorney general and therefore not
fully credible. As I have also argued repeatedly, a new Church Committee is urgently needed.
It's time for honorable members of the Senate of both parties to do their duty.
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.
Politico, January 11, 2017
Still, Trump critics insist the pressure the president exerted on Ukraine, and the desire to
receive dirt on Biden for 2020, was implicit.
The same month of Zaid's 2017 "coup" tweet, Sen. Charles Schumer, a leader in the Democrat
party, issued a public warning to Trump that if he took on the intelligence community, it has "
six ways from Sunday
" to "get back at you". MSNBC Host Rachel Maddow asked Schumer, "What would the intelligence
community do?" Schumer answered, "I don't know," but went on to say the intel community was
very upset with Trump.
On Aug. 15, 2016, after FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok and his FBI girlfriend Lisa
Page met with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok texted Page that they couldn't take the
risk of Trump getting elected without having "an insurance policy" in place.
Another figure, Benjamin Wittes, chose the same phrase. In October 2016, in his Lawfare
blog, Wittes
wrote : "What if Trump wins? We need an insurance policy against the unthinkable: Donald
Trump's actually winning the Presidency."
Wittes has acknowledged being a good friend of fired FBI Director James Comey . Wittes spoke to a New York Times
reporter about Comey's interactions with President Trump , right after Robert Mueller 's appointment as special
counsel.
In a 2016 blog post, Wittes wrote that his vision of an "insurance policy" against Trump
would rely on a "Coalition of All Democratic Forces" to challenge and obstruct Trump, using the
courts as a "tool" and Congress as "a partner or tool." He even mentioned impeachment -- two
weeks before Trump was elected.
Read more: What would the intelligence community's "insurance policy" against Trump look
like? Click the link below.
"... How many establishment Dems (or even non-establishment Dems) have indicated that they have any objections to arming the Ukrainians? ..."
"... The Democrats position is that arming the Ukrainians is a good and moral thing to do and that Trump is terrible for threatening to stop it, which is far simpler, far more logical and, if one ignores its flagrant immorality, far easier to 'swallow'. ..."
"... As always 'reversing the polarities' gives clarity (imagine I worked for Putin, who was arming MS-13, and then Putin put me on trial because, for whatever reason, I stopped arming MS-13 .what would we think of Putin?). ..."
... How many establishment Dems (or even non-establishment Dems) have indicated
that they have any objections to arming the Ukrainians? That would be in the region of
about 'none', I would imagine.
... ... ...
The Democrats position is that arming the Ukrainians is a good and moral thing to do and
that Trump is terrible for threatening to stop it, which is far simpler, far more logical and,
if one ignores its flagrant immorality, far easier to 'swallow'.
As always 'reversing the polarities' gives clarity (imagine I worked for Putin, who was
arming MS-13, and then Putin put me on trial because, for whatever reason, I stopped arming
MS-13 .what would we think of Putin?).
v> I keep hearing responses that this impeachment process is about 'procedure'. Are
there criminal/ prosecutable consequences for pushing forth this impeachment process on an
unfounded basis or political bias? How about false accusations and claims by Schiff? If this
is just a stall to impede the progress of the President to prevent his and our success,
especially with all the malfeasance and corruption that is being exposed the last three years
from his opposition and previous administration, can and will there be legal consequences to
Schiff and company's incompetence, ineffectivenesss, abuse, and attacks? What is it that can
be held legally against those who have been pushing this impeachment without proper basis,
just their contempt for the man with over 60 million votes who won an election rigged against
him? Will there be an impeachment in every future administration on this current basis?
60 Minutes (Of Lies) interviewed Joe Biden allowing him a platform to do damage control
about his crimes in Ukraine & spread lies against the Justice Department!
This is not an interview. They do not listen to each other. And only Bannon mentions
CrowdStrike. Cooper is trying to present he this whole thin that Trump going after Biden. Biden
is ideal opponent for Trump. And CrowdStrike is much more important
Cooper, we had the Mueller investigation, impeachment hearing after hearing, opposition to
supreme court picks etc. Aren't you interested in the truth, why can't investigations be
launched in the other direction. Honest question! Why can't democrats be investigated? As if
they could do no wrong! America has a problem within the DNC and with leftist
politics.....
ionlink " data-sessionlink="itct=CBQQtnUiEwi4paSI1tnlAhWF9ZwKHZhDBgw"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0HRyTTIyBA&t=232s"> 3:52 4:09 : Cooper: "the president
has access to--we have corruption-fighters in the Treasury-Department. He could have called
up Steve Minuchin and said, 'You know what? Give me a list of most corrupt players in
Ukraine. I'll talk to the president about it.' He didn't. The only thing he cites as a favor
is crowd-strike server Biden." Cooper exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the
organizational hierarchy of the executive branch of the federal government. Subordinate
federal officers, such as Treasury Secretary Minuchin and his "corruption-fighters," serve at
the pleasure of the president. Trump could dismiss Minuchin any time. Minuchin serves the
president. The president does not serve or take orders from his cabinet-officials. The
president is not obliged to delegate tasks to his subordinates, though he may choose to do
so, at his pleasure. The primary responsibility for enforcing law is the president's, not his
subordinates' . Again, it is not the business of the US to investigate or prosecute
corruption among Ukrainian officials. That is President Zelensky's duty. Trump''s duty is to
investigate and prosecute corruption of US officials. 5:58 : Cooper: "Democrats would
argue with you, saying, 'you know what hurts the United States is using taxpayer-money as a
weapon, against an ally, who's fighting our enemy..' It's not like it's Donald Trump's money,
saying, buying information about the Bidens." It's not only Trump's money, but he has a share
in it, as a US taxpayer. As president, he is the custodian of that aid, until it is
transferred to Ukraine. He has a duty to treat it prudently. Donald Trump prudently and
judiciously delayed transfer of the aid to Ukraine until he was reasonably sure, from
assurances from anti-corruption President Zelensky, that the aid would serve the purposed
intended, to defend Ukraine against Russia, not vanish into the pockets of corrupt Ukrainian
or US officials. That delay is rational, given the long track-record of Ukrainian corruption.
Trump did not use the aid "as a weapon." 6:28 : Cooper: "...cite some
specific thing. There's no evidence...The president hasn't cited any evidence. He's just
throwing this out and he said, 'Oh, in China too.' He hasn't cited anything. There's no
facts." Again, Cooper exhibits his fundamental misunderstanding of fundamental principles.
Trump was calling for an investigation. He has not concluded anything yet. The infamous
videotaped statements of Joe Biden that he threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine, unless
the Ukrainians fired the prosecutor who was investigating his son's gas-company and that,
within six hours, that prosecutor was fired and the aid delivered, raises suspicion of
corruption, but only suspicion. The purpose of a criminal investigation is to collect and
ascertain evidence. At the instigation of an investigation, the evidence is obviously not
collected or ascertained yet. That collection and ascertainment comes with the passage of
time and the effort of investigators. 8:51 Cooper: "I think a kid,
being on a board, I think it's shady. I think it makes no sense." Bannon: "Shady? It's
corrupt." Precisely, but only suspicion of corruption. Before, Cooper was objecting that
Trump cited no evidence, because he, Trump, only had tentative suspicion of Biden's
corruption, not conclusive evidence. In the last passage, Cooper concedes precisely the same
sort of suspicion. He thus arguably contradicted himself.
'No, you don't. It's both psychologically possible and not at all inconsistent to
object to a general strategy, and to object how the strategy is being used for personal
gain.'
Possible but not likely. How many establishment Dems (or even non-establishment Dems)
have indicated that they have any objections to arming the Ukrainians? That would be in the
region of about 'none', I would imagine. While what I assume your position is logically
consistent (although bizarre .'I think it's disgusting that the US is giving weapons to the
Ukrainians although I'm not prepared to do anything about that, but Trump, who threatened to
stop doing this, he must be impeached, because he was threatening to stop arming the
Ukrainians, which, to repeat, I approve of, for the wrong reasons.' .it's a logically
consistent but deeply weird argument), it's very obviously not the Democrats' position.
The Democrats position is that arming the Ukrainians is a good and moral thing to do and
that Trump is terrible for threatening to stop it, which is far simpler, far more logical and,
if one ignores its flagrant immorality, far easier to 'swallow'.
As always 'reversing the polarities' gives clarity (imagine I worked for Putin, who was
arming MS-13, and then Putin put me on trial because, for whatever reason, I stopped arming
MS-13 .what would we think of Putin?).
It's not even clear what motive Trump has. Biden has as much chance of being President as I
have, he won't be the Presidential candidate, this wasn't an 'attack' on him, it was an attack
on his son, who Biden could easily distance himself from even on its own terms the accusation
make absolutely no sense. It does, however, focus a laser like light on the Bidens's activities
in the Ukraine, which may not be something that the Democrats really want to happen, for all
kinds of reasons.
The current
frenzy
to impeach
President Donald Trump sometimes in its haste reveals that which could easily be
hidden about the operation of the Deep State inside the federal government.
Congress is
currently obtaining testimony from a parade of witnesses to or participants in what will inevitably
be called UkraineGate, an investigation into whether Trump inappropriately sought a political
quid
pro quo
from Ukrainian leaders in exchange for a military assistance package.
The
prepared
opening statement
by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, described as the top Ukraine expert
on the National Security Council (NSC), provides some insights into how decision making at the NSC
actually works.
Vindman was born in Ukraine but emigrated to the United States with his
family at age three. He was commissioned as an army infantry officer in 1998 and served in some
capacity in Iraq from 2004-5, where he was wounded by a roadside bomb and received a purple heart.
Vindman, who speaks both Ukrainian and Russian fluently, has filled a number of diplomatic and
military positions in government dealing with Eastern Europe, to include a key role in Pentagon
planning on how to deal with Russia.
Vindman, Ukrainian both by birth and culturally, clearly was a major player in
articulating and managing US policy towards that country, but that is not really what his role on
the NSC should have been.
As more than likely the US government's sole genuine Ukrainian
expert, he should have become a source of viable options that the United States might exercise
vis-à-vis its relationship with Ukraine, and, by extension, regarding Moscow's involvement with
Kiev. But that is not how his statement, which advocates for a specific policy, reads. Rather than
providing expert advice, Vindman was concerned chiefly because arming Ukraine was not proceeding
quickly enough to suit him, an extremely risky policy which has already created serious problems
with a much more important Russia.
Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the
Deep State, which considers global conflict as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from
the US taxpayer.
Continuous warfare is its only business product, which explains in part
its dislike of Donald Trump as he has several times threatened to upset the apple cart, even though
he has done precious little in reality. Part of Vindman's written statement (my emphasis) is
revealing: ""When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration's policy
on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false
narrative of Ukraine
inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency.
This
narrative was harmful to US government policy. While
my interagency colleagues and I
were
becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined US
government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine."
Alexander Vindman clearly was pushing a policy that might be described as that of the Deep State
rather than responding to his own chain of command where it is the president who does the decision
making. He also needs a history lesson about what has gone on in his country of birth. President
Barack Obama conspired with his own version of Macbeth's three witches – Rice, Power and Jarett –
to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014 because it was considered to be too close
to Moscow. The regime change was brought about by "mavericks" like the foul-mouthed neocon State
Department officer Victoria Nuland and the footloose warmonger Senator John McCain. Vice President
Joe Biden also appeared on the scene after the "wetwork" was done, with his son Hunter trailing
behind him. Since that time, Ukraine has had a succession of increasingly corrupt puppet
governments propped up by billions in foreign aid. It is now per capita the poorest country in
Europe.
Washington inside-the-beltway and the Deep State choose to blame the mess in Ukraine on
Russian President Vladimir Putin and the established narrative also makes the absurd claim that the
political situation in Kiev is somehow important to US national security. The preferred solution is
to provide still more money, which feeds the corruption and enables the Ukrainians to attack the
Russians.
Colonel Vindman, who reported to noted hater of all things Russian Fiona Hill, who in turn
reported to By Jingo We'll Go To War John Bolton, was in the middle of all the schemes to bring
down Russia. His concern was not really over Trump vs. Biden. It was focused instead on speeding up
the $380 million in military assistance, to include offensive weapons, that was in the pipeline for
Kiev. And assuming that the Ukrainians could actually learn how to use the weapons, the objective
was to punish the Russians and prolong the conflict in Donbas for no reason at all that makes any
sense.
Note the following additional excerpt from Vindman's prepared statement: " .I was worried about
the implications for the US government's support of Ukraine . I realized that if Ukraine pursued an
investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which
would undoubtedly
result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far
maintained
."
Vindman's concern is all about Ukraine without any explanation of why the United States would
benefit from bilking the taxpayer to support a foreign deadbeat one more time. One wonders if
Vindman was able to compose his statement without a snicker or two intruding. He does eventually go
on to cover the always essential national security angle, claiming that "Since 2008, Russia has
manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid
warfare to achieve its objectives of regional hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to
dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further confrontations with the
West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to US national security
interests because
Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression
."
The combined visions of Russia as an aggressive, expansionistic power coupled with the brave
Ukrainians serving as a bastion of freedom is so absurd that it is hardly worth countering.
Russia's economy is about the size of Italy's or Spain's limiting its imperial ambitions, if they
actually exist. Its alleged transgressions against Georgia and Ukraine were both provoked by the
United States meddling in Eastern Europe, something that it had pledged not to do after the Soviet
Union collapsed. Ukraine is less an important American ally than a welfare case, and no one knows
that better than Vindman, but he is really speaking to his masters in the US Establishment when he
repeats the conventional arguments.
It hardly seems possible, but Vindman then goes on to dig himself into a still deeper hole
through his statement's praise of the train wreck that is Ukraine. He writes "In spite of being
under assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukraine has taken major steps towards
integrating
with the West
. The US government policy community's view is that the election of President
Volodymyr Zelensky and the promise of reforms to eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine's
Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and
economic prosperity. The United States and Ukraine are and must remain strategic partners, working
together to realize the shared vision of a stable, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine that is
integrated into the
Euro-Atlantic community
."
Alexander Vindman does not say or write that the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO is
his actual objective, but his comments about "integrating with the West" and the "Euro-Atlantic
community" clearly imply just that.
The expansion of NATO up to Russia's borders by the
rascally Bill Clinton constituted one of the truly most momentous lost foreign policy opportunities
of the twentieth century. The addition of Ukraine and Georgia to the alliance would magnify that
error as both are vital national security interests for Moscow given their history and geography.
Vindman should be regarded as a manifestation of the Deep State thinking that has
brought so much grief to the United States over the past twenty years. Seen in that light, his
testimony, wrapped in an air of sanctimoniousness and a uniform, should be regarded as little more
than the conventional thinking that has produced foreign policy failure after failure.
Exactly 100 years ago, in 1919, a
certain colonel named "Colonel"
House was secretly running the
White House's foreign policy with
a secret globalist agenda right
under the Woodrow Wilson's
nose (a "colonel" who, by the
way, was neither an army officer,
nor the battlefield hero - in
fact, he was about as much of a
colonel as Colonel Parker). The
outcome? The post-World War 1
"new world order" (which was
neither new, nor order, nor
global in any sense) that was a
nightmare on steroids, a
humpty-dumpty Frankenstein that
gave birth to both Nazism and
Bolshevism as well as
Globalist Elitism, American
Exceptionalism, and New Deal
Neoliberalism and was every
satanist's wet dream. Short of
procreating Beelzebub and
Baphomet, "Colonel" House just
about did 'em all.
Fast
forward 100 years, back to the
future: year 2019 AD. A certain
colonel named "Colonel" Vindman
is secretly running the White
House's foreign policy with a
secret globalist agenda right
under the Donald Trump's nose (a
"colonel" who, by the way, is
about as battlefield hero as
Melania Trump). The outcome? The
American foreign policy in
shambles, a total sham, a farce
on steroids, a schizo chaos of
competing special interests,
payola, kickbacks, quid-pro-quo
big-fish-eats-small clusterfuck,
foreign influence-peddling and
deepstatism.
So, yes, Karl Marx was, for
once, right. History really does
repeat itself. It first comes as
a tragedy and then returns the
second time around as an
inbred farce. Or a slapstick.
He served our nation with
distinction, and his
testimony is in line with
what we heard from the
diplomats and Sandberg who
keeps twisting himself into
a brezel.
Managed to
grab the 4th post in just a
few seconds for your Jewz
insertion. Keep up the bad
work, true professional that
you are - BTW, how much in
American money ??? Per word
or post ???
Another dipshitz, another
thread; FOAD, please soon.
You have a realistic nickname I would say :-). The level of your detachment from reality is
pretty amusing, not to say more. The feelings your posts incite are pretty eloquently reflected
in the following comment ;-) :
You two idiots show your lack of knowledge and understanding of rural culture now and
southern culture during the civil war. Your elite attitudes were what nearly lost the civil
war for the North during the first part of the war. A lack of understanding of the Souths
strengths at the start of the civil war and rural cultures strengths now.
Your ignorance now is as blatantly stupid as many people during the first Battle of Bull
Run thinking it would be a quick short war. It turned out to be much different.
Don't make the same stupid assumptions twice. If you imagine you can blissfully live on
the coasts and discount the middle parts of the country your very ignorant. Shutting down
travel between the coasts and any economic activity accross middle America would bring
urban areas to heal very quickly.
All of us in flyover country would get along just fine without the coasts.
Obama Bin Biden and the crooked clan need to get back in the game somehow so they can rip
off another 3 billion in US tax payer loans. What were they up to 44 Billion in fraudulent
loans to Ukraine?
Interesting how they want to Impeach Trump over Ukraine, don't you think?
Oleg, you followed Biden story from its very inception. Biden is not the only Dem
politician involved in the Ukrainian corruption schemes, is he?
Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his
partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the
US proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised
transfer of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of
the Ukraine; the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit
of a few corruptioners, American and Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its
dependence on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize deposits of natural gas,
sufficient for domestic household consumption. The cost of its production was quite low;
and the Ukrainians got used to pay pennies for their gas. Actually, it was so cheap to
produce that the Ukraine could provide all its households with free gas for heating and
cooking, just like Libya did. Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like Burisma)
had very high profits and very little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to
European levels, and the new president Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went
sky-high. The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking and heating;
and huge profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering
prices, President Poroshenko demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his
projects. He said that he arranged the price hike; it means he should be considered a
partner.
Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually
its founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners
into the company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's appetites. He
had brought in Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it
didn't help him.
Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney
General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin
immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and 150 thousand
dollar per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the
Ukrainian tax code; it can't be recognised as legitimate expenditure.
At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six
hours to close the case against his son. Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US
taxpayers' funds won't pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner,
paid Biden well for this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars,
according to different sources.
AG Shokin said he can't close the case within six hours; Poroshenko sacked him and
installed Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko was willing to dismiss the case of Burisma,
but he also could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could not keep
his trap shut: by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself.
Meanwhile Mr Shokin gave evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and
now it was confirmed. The evidence was given to the US lawyers in connection with another
case, Firtash case.
US foreign policy is driven by "diaspora politics" - double traitors who first betrayed
their home country and are now betraying the US in the name of their nationalist Nazi
ideology and their desire to wage war on Russia.
My friend George Eliason has expanded on the topic.
After weeks of secretive impeachment proceedings from which House Democrats have largely excluded
Republican lawmakers, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA)
announced on Twitter
Wednesday that
his committee will hold its first public impeachment hearings next week
.
Unsurprisingly, those with the most damaging testimony will be peddled out, while witnesses who
gave exonerating testimony such as special envoy Kurt Volker and Ambassador Gordon Sondland are
notably absent from the roster.
First up? On Wednesday, November 13 the panel will hear from
Bill Taylor
- the
top US diplomat in Ukraine who told house investigators last month that he believes there was a
quid pro quo between the Trump administration and Ukraine.
Taylor notably expressed his concerns in a Sept. 9 text message to US ambassador to the EU,
Gordon Sondland, saying: "
I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with
a political campaign.
"
To which Sondland, dictating from Trump, replies "
Bill, I believe you are incorrect
about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any
kind,
" adding "I suggest we stop the back and forth by text."
Sondland, meanwhile, 'updated' his earlier testimony to clarify that he told a top Ukrainian
official that the country would need to commit to investigating former VP Joe Biden and other
Democrats in exchange for the release of nearly $400 million in US military aid.
"I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public
anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks," said Sondland. That said,
Sondland also testified that his quid pro quo comments were
his
opinion,
and that President Trump specifically said he did not want one.
Also testifying next Wednesday will be State Department official George Kent
,
who testified that he was told to "lay low" on Ukraine matters, before being edged out on Ukraine
policy by Sondland according to the
New
York Times
.
Lastly,
recalled US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch will testify on Friday
. She
privately told House investigators that Rudy Giuliani and his associates led a campaign to have her
ousted based on claims that she was blocking Ukraine from investigating Burisma, the Ukrainian gas
company paying Hunter Biden to sit on its board.
A good politician should of course be sensitive to both public opinion and to potential
allies, so of course Pelosi should take into account Republicans who might want to nail
Trump. If there were enough of those in the Senate, he might even get removed from
office!
Do you suggest that this is not a pro-wrestling type of exercise, a dirty media-oriented
trick designed to increase the chances of Dem neoliberal candidate (supposedly Warren) to win
the 2020 election? And that Schiff serves any other role then reincarnation of Maddow, and want
to get to the bottom of the dirty deals between the US officials and their Ukrainian puppets
both adamant to fleece Ukrainian population via the debt trap and enrich themselves in the
process (the standard of living in Ukraine dropped probably two times after 2014 and now is on
the level of central African countries ($2 a day or so for bottom 50%) , while currency
depreciated around 300%) ?
And truth be told Warren is just a careerist with sharp elbows, who does not challenge the
establishment narrative (kind of Eisenhower republican) and while like Trump during election
campaign she attacks FIRE sector, she most probably will fold in best Obama "change we can
believe in" fashion and will continue imperial foreign policy, while giving some necessary but
limited relief to deplorables domestically in order to prevent mass protests. I want to be
wrong is this assessment, but we have what we have.
I would recommend you to read Matt Taibbi's Hate Inc., which might help to educate you about
intricacies of the US neoliberal political scene. Among other things, he provides an
interesting assessment of "MadCow" style media personalities and their assigned roles: FOX vs.
MSBNC with Maddow "a depressingly exact mirror" of Hannity. Both Sean and Rachel maintain the
bipartisan consensus for ever-increasing military budgets, for everlasting wars, for
ever-expanding surveillance, for ever-growing bailouts of and tax breaks for multinationals and
FIRE sector.
And how the range of opinions has been artificially and skillfully narrowed and emasculated
long before you get to hear it.
The idea is to manufacture fake dissent in order to smother real dissent. That's
by-and-large is what the impeachment process is about.
I can't take anyone seriously once they start denying the Russian influence operation.
Even if we abstract from a distinct neo-McCarthyism smell of such a statement, you are
completely out of touch with reality.
This is not about Russia, or Ukraine, or quid pro quo in supplying weapons to Ukraine
(it is unclear why Liberasts (note the Russian term) think that it is a good thing; it does not
change the balance of power in the region and they might ends in the hands of Ukrainian far
right; kind of Christian Taliban ) .
This is about out of control intelligence agencies (and first of all CIA) as well as
factions of neoliberals/neocons in the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and
Pentagon who want to prevent any change of the USA imperial policies.
In other words, this is about well-being of a loyal (and well paid) imperial troops who want
to preserve their franchise and money flows despite the obvious signs of weakening and/or
disintegration of the US led global neoliberal empire (China, Russia, Iran and other "axis of
resistance" states; frictions with EU, Brexit, etc ) by deposing the current "Emperor" and
installing their own puppet. Kind of Praetorian Guard ( https://www.britannica.com/topic/Praetorian-Guard
) revolt in a modern incarnation.
The hawkish mindset that liberals have embraced threatens not just their own political
fortunes but also global peace...
Last week's vote by House Democrats to formally open an impeachment inquiry of President Donald
Trump followed testimony that appeared to boost their case. Several US officials told Congress that
the Trump administration sought to leverage US military aid to pressure Ukraine into opening
politically tainted investigations.
But liberals cheering on these developments should be
mindful of their limitations -- and their potential consequences.
The available testimony does
not strike me as being as damning for Trump as it is being portrayed. More importantly, even if that
proves to be a faulty interpretation, the impeachment frenzy is enrolling liberals in a dangerous Cold
War mentality that could threaten their own election chances in 2020.
The Democrats' theory of the case is plausible: At the same time as Trump's chosen point man, EU
Ambassador Gordon Sondland, pressured Ukraine to launch politically beneficial investigations, the
president froze military aid as a tool of added leverage. But
although the available testimony
helps the impeachment case so far, we have not uncovered a smoking gun.
Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, says that Sondland told him that the military
assistance was conditioned on a Ukrainian pledge to open investigations into Burisma, the company
where Hunter Biden got his lucrative board seat, and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US
election. Taylor also offered the first known testimony that this demand was made explicit to the
Ukrainian side: According to Taylor, National Security Council aide Tim Morrison told him that
Sondland directly communicated the quid pro quo to Andriy Yermak, an aide to Ukraine's prime minister,
Volodymyr Zelensky, at a meeting in Warsaw in September 1.
Morrison corroborated Taylor's testimony in his appearance last week. But we do not yet know
whether Morrison witnessed the Sondland-Yermak conversation that he told Taylor about, or is relying
on his recollection of what Sondland told him. This would allow Sondland to claim that Morrison
misinterpreted him.
What is certain is that Morrison left some wiggle room for Trump.
His opening
statement says that he and Taylor "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 he
spoke to Sondland in Warsaw on September 1. "Even then," he added, "I hoped that Ambassador Sondland's
strategy was exclusively his own," and not Trump's. According to CNN,
Morrison
testified
that he tried to find out whether Sondland was relaying demands to the Ukrainian side on
Trump's behalf, or was "going rogue" as a "free radical." The fact that Morrison suspected that
Sondland's "strategy was exclusively his own" means that his testimony did not directly implicate
Trump. And it leaves Trump with the leeway to claim that Sondland, and perhaps Rudolph Giuliani, were
indeed "going rogue."
It is perfectly reasonable to deduce from all of this that what Sondland relayed -- if that is what he
did -- is exactly what Trump intended. Or indeed that Sondland was acting on Trump's orders. But a case
that can only be made from inference may have limited impact beyond those who have already made up
their mind. Even if Trump knew exactly what Sondland was doing, Morrison's testimony leaves him with
the opportunity to throw Sondland under the bus. For his part, Sondland
has
said through his attorney
that he rejects Taylor's characterizations and does not recall the
Warsaw conversation that Taylor (and now Morrison) claim to have heard about.
For Taylor and Morrison's testimony to prove dispositive -- and to make a convincing case to the
broader US public and the Senate Republicans who will decide Trump's fate -- corroborating testimony or
evidence will have to emerge that Trump explicitly linked the military aid to investigations of Biden
and that this demand was explicitly communicated to the Ukrainian side.
That corroboration has yet to come from Ukraine. The Ukrainian government has said that it
did not feel pressured.
The New York Times
reported
that
Ukrainian officials were made aware that US military aid was on hold by the first week in August,
earlier than previously known. Yet communications between US and Ukrainian officials, the
Times
writes,
"did not explicitly link the assistance freeze to the push by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani for the
investigations." Nor was the aid freeze mentioned in Trump's July 25 phone call with Zelensky.
Yermak, reached via WhatsApp, did not respond to
The Nation
's request for comment. His
testimony will now be critical. As will follow-up testimony by Sondland. Perhaps Taylor and Morrison
are accurately recounting Sondland's words. Or perhaps Sondland will contradict them, or claim that
they are conflating the investigations that Trump sought from Ukraine. As I've
argued
previously
,
demanding an investigation of
documented
(
and
openly acknowledged
)
Ukrainian
meddling
in the 2016 elections is different from demanding one of a political rival.
All of this positions us for a "he said, he said" impeachment scandal:
The question of whether or not Trump is guilty of attempting to extort Ukraine could come down to
which US bureaucrat, one chooses to believe.
There is no reason to put faith in Sondland, who, in line with a longstanding tradition in
US diplomacy, owes his plush diplomatic posting to a lucrative campaign donation to the winning
presidential candidate.
But before we embrace bureaucrats Taylor, Morrison, and another key
witness, NSC official Alexander Vindman, as liberal heroes, it is worth taking stock of their
impartiality and espoused views. Despite efforts to portray them as nonpartisan civil servants, the
trio's opening statements show them to be Cold Warriors devoted to continuing the US-Russia proxy war
in Ukraine. As their testimony makes clear, that proxy war was imperiled by the very action that Trump
took -- briefly freezing the military aid that they all unabashedly support.
In
the
case of Taylor
, arming Ukraine was a condition of his willingness to serve in the job. When the
Trump administration asked him to take the position in Kiev, Taylor recalls thinking, "I could be
effective only if the US policy of strong support for Ukraine were to continue." Taylor even told
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, "If US policy toward Ukraine changed, he would not want me posted
there and I could not stay." No wonder then, that Taylor was upset when he began to hear rumblings
that US military assistance to Ukraine was in jeopardy.
Another star witness, Vindman,
offers
a similar outlook
. Russia, he says, "has manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy"
necessitating "a deterrent."
To Vindman, that deterrent is "a strong and independent
Ukraine," which, he believes, is "critical to US national security interests because Ukraine is a
frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression." Morrison concurs,
declaring
that the administration's policy
"was to make sure the United States' longstanding bipartisan
commitment to strengthen Ukraine's security remained unaltered." In his view, "security sector
assistance is, therefore, essential to Ukraine."
Given their open dedication to ensuring the continuation of US military aid to Ukraine, it is
reasonable to question if the trio's interpretations of decisions and conversations about freezing
military aid were colored by their own policy preferences. As
The
Washington Post
put
it
, Vindman "told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by
the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy." While undoubtedly many Democrats and Republicans share
Vindman's foreign policy views, it should be up to the president, not unelected bureaucrats, to decide
US foreign policy.
Even if their recollections are accurate, the consequence of embracing their collective
worldview is worth considering.
We do not need wade far into the intricacies of the
Russia-Ukraine conflict to know that the position of Taylor, Vindman, and Morrison -- and by extension,
the entire liberal political and media establishment now cheering them -- is well to the right of what
the Democratic Party embodied just one administration ago.
The very US military assistance that Trump froze is the same that President Barack Obama refused to
provide during his last years in office. Obama feared, as
The New York Times
noted in 2015,
that US weapons sent to Ukraine "
would
only escalate the bloodshed
" in the Donbass and possibly
"[end]
up in the hands of thugs
" (a likely reference to far-right Ukrainians, which proved prescient).
In refusing to send that US military aid, Obama rejected intense pressure from the bipartisan DC
foreign policy establishment. This includes Taylor himself, who, as he notes in his opening statement,
unsuccessfully lobbied Obama to arm Ukraine. Taylor's contemporaneous view is captured in a December
2014 letter he wrote to
The
Washington Post
. Taylor denounced an opinion article,
co-authored by a former Obama State Department official, that had opposed sending US arms to Ukraine
and advocated an agreement between NATO and Russia to resolve the Ukrainian crisis. Backers of such
steps, Taylor wrote, are "advocating that the West appease Russia. Now is not the time for
appeasement."
The very fact that Ukrainegate now has Democrats advocating a policy that Obama rejected
should be enough to spark consideration of whether briefly not arming Ukraine is really the issue on
which to pin removing a president from office.
Moving toward impeachment over Ukraine policy
also has potential electoral consequences: In 2016, voters rejected the neoconservative worldview that
national security bureaucrats like Taylor, Vindman, and Morrison now espouse. Trump, after all,
campaigned on improving ties with Russia and falsely presented himself as an opponent of the hawkish
legacy that these star impeachment witnesses embody. On this note, the fact that John Bolton
may
become the Democrats'
next
star
witness
might also hasten some reflection.
The Cold War mindset that liberals have embraced threatens not just their own
political fortunes but also global peace.
Lost in the outrage over Trump's
potential -- and ultimately unrealized -- interruption of US military assistance to Ukraine is that Zelensky,
the new Ukrainian president, openly campaigned on
ending
the war with Russia
that this military assistance fuels. Zelensky is now
under
heavy pressure from Ukraine's far right
to abandon his pledge to make peace with Moscow. It does
not bode well for Zelensky's chances if the official opposition party of his US patron is effectively
joining hands with his country's own right-wing forces to continue the war.
The dangers extend beyond Ukraine's borders. The day after the House impeachment vote,
Russia warned that there is not enough time left to renegotiate the New START Treaty, the last
remaining accord limiting the US and Russian nuclear arsenals, before it expires in 2021.
The
treaty's demise,
The
New
York Times
notes
, would leave the world's top two nuclear powers "free to expand their
arsenals without limits" on "the most powerful weapons both sides can launch." According to Vladimir
Leontyev, Russia's top arms control official, the Kremlin hopes to renew or revise the accord, but
"the US administration is silent about it." The Russians' impression, Leontyev added, is that the
Trump White House "is organically against any restrictions being imposed on the United States."
The Russian warning, the
Times
adds, is "the latest in a sobering list of signals that the
great powers appear
headed
for a new arms race
," following Trump's
earlier
withdrawal
from another critical nuclear accord, the INF Treaty. It is also the latest
in
a
long
list
of
Trump
administration
policies
that
have
escalated
tensions
with
nuclear-armed
Russia
-- including
authorizing
the US military assistance
to Ukraine that Obama once opposed and that Democrats now seek to
impeach him over.
The fact that this list includes increasing the threat of nuclear
conflict should be sobering to any liberal who continues to push the falsehood that Trump does
Russia's bidding
-- all the more so given that the propagation of this falsehood helps
worsen, rather than reduce, those tensions.
There is another list worth being mindful of: The many Trump administration scandals that
Ukrainegate, like Russiagate before it, overshadows. The day after the House impeachment vote also
coincided
with the end of the comment period
for a Trump administration plan to cut food programs for
low-income Americans. According to government estimates, around 3 million recipients face the loss of
food stamp benefits and close to 1 million children are at risk of losing automatic placement in
federal school lunch programs.
"Instead of declaring a war on poverty, this president has declared war on our most vulnerable
citizens," Representative Marcia Fudge (D-OH), the chairwoman of the House Agriculture Committee's
subcommittee on nutrition,
said
last month
. That is undoubtedly correct, which makes it all the more puzzling that Democrats are
preoccupied with an impeachment scandal that overshadows Trump's attacks on the vulnerable and
encourages him to escalate wars abroad. The same goes for their stance on Syria, which saw
bipartisan
opposition
to an announced US withdrawal but next to no opposition to Trump's sudden reversal with
the explicit aim of
stealing
Syria's oil
.
It is true that polls currently show that a
majority
of Americans support impeachment
.
It is also encouraging that Democratic presidential
candidates are
sidelining
the impeachment drama
to focus on serious policy issues on the campaign trail. At the same time,
it appears that Democrats are not moving the needle in the battleground states that will decide the
next election.
A new
New
York Times
/Siena College poll
of the six closest swing states that went Republican in 2016
finds that Trump's "advantage in the Electoral College relative to the nation as a whole
remains
intact or has even grown
since 2016."
With 2020 on the horizon, the dangers of the Democratic establishment's priorities cannot
be emphasized enough.
I find it hard to believe, as the author says, that a majority of
Americans support impeachment. That's because no one would know
why. It hasn't been disclosed or revealed what "crime" Trump
committed. That leaves the question: Impeach him for what exactly?
What they aren't telling you is the poll probably asks, "If Pres.
Trump was guilty of a serious felony, do you think he should be
impeached?" To which a majority would answer, "yes"
More importantly, even if that proves to be a faulty
interpretation, the impeachment frenzy is enrolling liberals in a
dangerous Cold War mentality that could threaten their own
election chances in 2020.
Are you kidding me? They already ******* lost.
We gave them a serious ear, they fucked everything up, and this is
their reaction to the world finally giving them the finger. The
worse they behave, the better. If we're lucky, we'll end up with a
civil war and subsequent ******* purge, so that our future is sealed
for the next 50-100 years.
I'm 64 years old, a veteran, but I'd still go hand-to-hand with
that ******* fat insubordinate traitor Col. Vindman. What a piece
of **** he is. He should be deported back the Ukraine. As far as
I'm concerned, he forfeited his citizenship here..........and
people say we shouldn't criticize him. ********.
Cold war and the current insane lunatism do not make a perfect match.
We are residing in an era of denial of all proven experimental
science, but it would be nice too witness, what future historians
will write about this epoch of a rock bottom of the Western
civilization after 250 years of scientific progress.
"Trump's Impeachment Lures Democrats Into A Cold War Mentality"
Liberals are always in
war mode
... incessantly pushing pushing
pushing for their destructive communist agenda. Think about it...
they're NEVER satisfied. When was the last time you ever heard of a
Leftist willingly giving an inch of ground on their ideologies or
platforms? Never. Conservatives, on the other hand, have acquiesced
so much in the last 50 years, that the term which defines them no
longer has any meaning. There's nothing left to "conserve". I mean,
John F. Kennedy was FAR more "conservative" by today's standards than
ANY mainstream Republican politician. That is why the terms
"populist" or "nationalist" are better labels for those on the right
who truly want to change things.
We like war! We're a
war-like people! We like war because we're good at it! You know
why we're good at it? Cause we get a lot of practice. This
country's only 200 years old and already, we've had 10 major wars.
We average a major war every 20 years in this country so we're
good at it! And it's a good thing we are; we're not very good at
anything else anymore! Huh? Can't build a decent car, can't make a
TV set or a VCR worth a ****, got no steel industry left, can't
educate our young people, can't get health care to our old people,
but we can bomb the **** out of your country all right! Huh?
Especially if your country is full of brown people; oh we like
that don't we? That's our hobby! That's our new job in the world:
bombing brown people. Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Libya, you got some
brown people in your country, tell them to watch the **** out or
we'll goddamn bomb them! Well when's the last white people you can
remember that we bombed? Can you remember the last white--- can
you remember ANY white people we've ever bombed? The Germans,
those are the only ones and that's only because they were trying
to cut in on our action. They wanted to dominate the world!
********! THAT'S OUR ******* JOB! !
The real problem is they appear to still be largely half the
country. We keep letting more of them invade...demographics is
destiny....I'm beginning to believe it's already a foregone
conclusion.
I don't know. Seems like when they're approached properly
there's plenty of motivation to walk away. Every person who
bothered to make and upload a video probably represents
hundreds or thousands of others.
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen
that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses
slowly, one by one."― Charles MacKay,
Extraordinary Popular
Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
General-Prosecutor Victor Shokin was being pressured -- mostly by the USA -- to
prosecute corruption more effectively.
In response to such pressure, Shokin initiated an investigation of Mykola Zlochevsky on
October 17, 2015. It seems that Britain had established an investigation of Zlochevsky in
2014, had suspended that investigation on January 21, 2015, but then resumed that
investigation in October 2015. Shokin joined that British investigation on October 17,
2015.
It seems further that the USA eventually took unknown actions to prevent that joint
British-Ukrainian investigation of Zlochevsky.
On December 7-8, 2015, Vice President Biden indicated that a large US grant of aid money
would be conditional. However, the conditions seem to be secret.
In this situation, before the end of December 2015, General-Prosecutor Shokin transfered
the Zlochevsky investigation to the so-called National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine
(NABU), which essentially was a creature of the US Government.
The situation seemed to remain quiet through the month of January 2016. On February 2,
however, Shokin seized some of Zlochevsky's property, even though the NABU was supposed to
be managing the Zlochevsky case.
Sholin's seizure of Zlochevsky's property on February 2 sparked a US-Ukraine crisis. The
US (i.e. the Bidens) felt it had been double-crossed by Shokin.
Although the property seizure occurred on February 2, it was not announced publicly
until February 4. On that same day, Hunter Biden began following the Twitter account of US
Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken, who managed Ukrainian affairs. (I wonder if Blinken
communicated in code to Hunter Biden by means of Twitter.)
On February 12, Vice President Joe Biden talked with Ukrainian President Poroshenko by
telephone and ordered the firing of Shokin. The firing essentially happened later that same
day.
Joe Biden's story about waiting for an airplane due to take off in six hours might be
false or might refer to an airplane taking off in some country other than Ukraine.
Are vlochevsky, kolomoisky, and pinchbuk partners in crime?
$1.8 billion in imf loans "disappeared" in koilomoiski's
privat bank. After that privat bank was nationalized and kolomoiski
fled to the us. Was this how vlochevsky's asets doubled? Coincidentally
the chinese firm investment in rosemont seneca was over $1 billion.
Some
have speculated that the Bidens could have become billionaires from this.
Was the Chinese firm a pass through for the embezzled $1.8 billion IMF loan?
The Democratic operative attorney representing the anti-Trump whistleblower vowed to "
get rid
of Trump
", and said that the "
#coup has started
" in 2017 tweets.
Mark Zaid, the John Podesta, Clinton and Schumer-linked attorney who founded the anti-Trump
nonprofit 'Whistleblower Aid' in 2017, tweeted "It's very scary.
We will get rid of him, and
this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters. We have to.
"
As
Fox News
reports, Zaid remarked in July 2017 "
I predict @CNN will play a key role
in @realdDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president.
"
The posts, which came shortly after President Trump fired then-acting Attorney General Sally
Yates for failing to defend federal laws in court, are likely to fuel Republican concerns that the
whistleblower's complaint is tainted with partisanship.
"The whistleblower's lawyer gave away the game," the Trump campaign's communications director,
Tim Murtaugh. told Fox News. "It was always the Democrats' plan to stage a coup and impeach
President Trump and all they ever needed was the right scheme. They whiffed on Mueller so now
they've settled on the perfectly fine Ukraine phone call. This proves this was orchestrated from
the beginning."
Trump has repeatedly accused Democrats and partisans in the intelligence community of
effectively plotting a coup against him, through selective leaks and lengthy investigations. -
Fox
News
"45 years from now we might be recalling stories regarding the impeachment of @realDonaldTrump.
I'll be old, but will be worth the wait," he tweeted in
June 2017
.
Hilariously, Zaid describes himself as a "non-partisan" attorney "handling cases involving national
security, security clearances, govt investigations, media, Freedom of Information Act, &
whistleblowing, according to
Breitbart
's Aaron Klein, who noted that Zaid's "Whistleblower Aid" organization is
heavily tied to far-left activist organizations and Democratic policies.
Whistleblower Aid was founded in September 2017 in the wake of Trump's presidency to encourage
government whistleblowers to come forward.
The group did not sit around waiting for whistleblowers. Upon its founding, Whistleblower Aid
actively sought to attract the attention of Trump administration government employees by
reportedly
blasting advertisements for its whistleblower services on Metro trains, using mobile
billboards that circled government offices for 10 hours a day, and handing out whistles on street
corners as a gimmick to gain attention.
When Whistleblower Aid was first formed, the main banner for the mission statement of its
website contained clearly anti-Trump language.
"Today our Republic is under threat. Whistleblower Aid is committed to protecting the rule of
law in the United States and around the world," read the previous statement which can still be
viewed
via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. -
Breitbart
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has called on Congressional Republicans to subpoena the anti-Trump
whistleblower, suggesting
he may be involved in corrupt business dealings in Ukraine
.
In a Tuesday interview, Paul said that the whistleblower - reported to be CIA officer Eric
Ciaramella - "
is a material witness to the possible corruption of Hunter Biden and Joe
Biden,
" and that Congress should
investigate the whistleblower's ties to the Biden
family and Burisma holdings
, the Ukrainian gas company that paid Hunter Biden to sit on
its board, according to
BuzzFeed
.
"
[The whistleblower] might have traveled with Joe Biden to Ukraine for all we know
.
We should look at his writings. We should know all of this stuff to see whether or not he has any
intersection with Burisma and with Hunter Biden," said Paul.
The president's most ardent supporters in Congress have long insisted
the real
corruption in Ukraine was done by former vice president Joe Biden
and his family rather
than by President Donald Trump. Many have also called for outing the anonymous intelligence
official who filed a whistleblower complaint alleging Trump demanded a political quid pro quo
from the Ukrainian government -- an investigation into the Biden family in exchange for hundreds
of millions of dollars in military aid. But, until now, they had not brought those two lines of
attack together. -
BuzzFeed
When asked if he has any evidence for his suppositions, Paul said "
We don't know unless
we ask.
"
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was surprised at Paul's comments, saying
"He needs to tell us. You can't ask a judge. You can't ask members [of Congress], '
Do you
want to subpoena this guy?
' He might be this, he might be that."
Both Graham and Paul do agree, however, that
the whistleblower's identity should be
officially made public
, with Paul telling reporters that he "probably will" disclose his
name.
"I'm more than willing to, and I probably will at some point. ... There is no law preventing
anybody from saying the name," said Paul.
Other lawmakers such as Sen. Mitt Romney, Roy Blunt, John Cornyn and Lisa Murkowski say he
should remain anonymous. The whistleblower's attorney, Mark Zaid, said that Paul and others are using disinformation to
distract from the substance of the allegations.
"I imagine at some point soon our client will be accused of masterminding JFK's assassination as
well," he said. "Any Member of Congress who pushes to expose the whistleblower will not only
undermine the integrity of the system but will be disgracing their office and betraying the
interests of the Constitution and the American people."
According to the survey, 73% of those polled have little to no trust in how the House
impeachment inquiry has been conducted to date, while 59% say it would "make more sense" to
wait until next year's election . The same poll found just 44% of Americans think that Trump
should be impeached and removed from office .
"Even many who would like to impeach Trump seem to feel that beating him at the polls in
2020 is actually a better strategy for ousting him from office," said Patrick Murray, director
of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.
What's more, 71% of respondents think it's unlikely the Senate would vote to remove Trump -
which, as Nancy Pelosi warned, would simply empower Republicans after Democrats can't tank
Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate whether former VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter engaged
in a quid-pro-quo to personally enrich themselves.
That said, just over half of Americans think its a good idea for the House to conduct the
inquiries, even if many of those people have 'little to no trust' in it!
Those who approve of the job Trump is doing rose to 42% from 41% in September, while 51%
disapprove, down from 53% in September.
Of those who approve, 62% can't think of anything he could do that would cause them to stop
supporting him .
Methodology: The Monmouth University Poll was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth
University Polling Institute from Oct. 30 to Nov. 3 with a national random sample of 908 adults
age 18 and older. The margin of error for the total sample is ± 3.3.
"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be impeached
and removed from office.
Which of these did Trump commit?
According to his accusers in this city, his crime is as follows:
The president imperiled our "national security" by delaying, for his own reasons, a transfer
of lethal aid and Javelin missiles to Ukraine -- the very weapons President Barack Obama
refused to send to Ukraine, lest they widen and lengthen the war in the Donbass.
Now, if Trump imperiled national security by delaying the transfer of the weapons, was not
Obama guilty of a greater crime against our national security by denying the weapons to Ukraine
altogether?
The essence of Trump's crime, it is said, was that he demanded a quid pro quo. He passed
word to incoming President Volodymyr Zelensky that if he did not hold a press conference to
announce an investigation of Joe Biden and son Hunter, he, Zelensky, would not get the arms we
had promised, nor the Oval Office meeting that Zelensky requested.
Again, where is the body of the crime?
Did Zelensky hold the press conference Trump demanded? No.
Did Zelensky announce Ukraine was investigating the Bidens? No.
Did Zelensky get the Oval Office meeting? Yes.
Did Zelensky get the U.S. weapons? Yes, $400 million in arms and Javelin missiles.
Where then is the crime? When was it consummated?
Or was this a thought crime, a bluff to get Zelensky to look into how Hunter Biden got a
$50,000-a-month seat on the board of the most corrupt company in Ukraine, days after Joe Biden
was in Kyiv threatening to block a $1 billion loan guarantee to the regime.
By the way, what was Biden doing approving a $1 billion loan guarantee to Petro Poroshenko's
regime, which was so corrupt that it ferociously fought not to fire a prosecutor whose
dismissal all of Europe was demanding?
Should Biden be nominated and elected, a special prosecutor would have to be appointed to
investigate this smelly deal, as well as the $1 billion Hunter got for his equity fund from the
Chinese after his father visited the Middle Kingdom.
Given last week's party-line vote in the House, where all but two Democrats voted to proceed
with the inquiry, the impeachment of President Donald Trump seems baked in the cake. Speaker
Nancy Pelosi's designation of Adam Schiff to head the investigation tells us all we need to
know about the sincerity of her pledge to make the inquiry bipartisan.
Suppose Zelensky had agreed to an investigation into how Hunter Biden, with no experience in
the energy industry, got his sweetheart deal.
Would that be impeachable for Trump? How so?
Does not the U.S. have a right to put conditions on its foreign aid and to seek guarantees
that our money will not be used as graft to grifters?
A few of those listening in on Trump's phone call with Zelensky have gone public asserting
that withholding the arms transfer to Kyiv imperiled our national security.
But if east Ukraine rises up and secedes from Kyiv, as Kyiv itself seceded from the Russian
Federation at the end of the Cold War, how does any of that endanger America's national
security? Did not George H.W. Bush himself warn, three decades ago, that a declaration of
independence by Ukraine from the Russian Federation would constitute an act of "suicidal
nationalism"?
And who does the Constitution charge with making the decisions as to whether military aid
goes to Ukraine?
The president, or some NSC staffer who sits on the Ukraine desk?
Since the U.S.-backed overthrow of the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv in 2014, and Vladimir
Putin's counter-seizure of Crimea and support for pro-Russian secessionists in Donetsk and
Luhansk, there has been a debate in the USA over how to deal with this faraway problem.
Obama decided not to send lethal aid or tank-killing Javelin missiles, lest the U.S. arms
escalate a war between Russia and Ukraine that Kyiv could not win.
The Republicans argued the issue at their Cleveland convention. Trump's team won that
argument, but lethal aid and Javelin missiles were eventually sent to Kyiv. Now Trump has sent
even more weapons.
But again, the authority to make this decision resides in the Oval Office, not in the NSC,
not in the CIA, and not with those in the "deep state" who have their own settled view of what
U.S. foreign policy should be.
The authority lies with the elected president of the United States.
This impeachment battle will almost surely reach the Senate.
And in the end it will be about what it has been about since the beginning: An attempt by
the deep state and its media, bureaucratic and political allies to overturn the democratic
verdict of 2016 and to overthrow the elected president of the United States.
The establishment's coup attempt is now approaching end game.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. T
Ever since the whistleblower complaint from inside the CIA first surfaced against President Donald Trump,
a steady stream of national security and State Department officials have testified about their consternation at his dealings
with Ukraine. The dominant impression that they have left, however, is that they are blurring the line between what constitutes
unsavory behavior when it comes to pressuring Ukraine for information on domestic political opponents, on the one hand,
and what are legitimate policy disagreements. Indeed, it appears that they are, more often than not, substituting their
own political judgments for the president's when it comes to the conduct of American foreign policy-something that should
concern Democrats as much as Republicans. A whole caste of government officials seems to believe that for an American president
to aim to improve relations with Russia is an illegitimate, even treasonous, aspiration.
Today was no exception. Consider the testimony of State Department official Catherine Croft. In her brief opening statement,
she declared, "As the Director covering Ukraine, I staffed the President's December 2017 decision to provide Ukraine with
Javelin anti-tank missile systems. I also staffed his September 2017 meeting with then-President Petro Poroshenko on the
margins of the UN General Assembly. Throughout both, I heard-directly and indirectly-President Trump describe Ukraine as
a corrupt country." The implication was that Trump had no business complaining about corruption in Ukraine. But why not?
The persistence of corruption, which President Volodymyr Zelensky was elected by an overwhelming majority to combat, is
hardly a secret.
Perhaps even more revealing was Croft's declaration to the House Intelligence Committee that in November 2018 the White
House refused to approve the release of a statement condemning Russia for seizing three Ukrainian ships located close to
Crimea. It sounds damning at first glance. But once again, why shouldn't Trump have practiced restraint in this instance
if he was intent on improving relations with Russia, a platform that he was elected on? As it happens, the Zelensky campaign
depicted the ship incident as a political provocation on the part of the Poroshenko government.
The implicit assumptions that appear to guide these veteran members of the bureaucracy were even more obvious in the
case of Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman. As the media has underscored, he is the first person to testify in the impeachment
inquiry who participated in the July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Initially, Trump's defenders sought to portray him as guilty of "espionage" or dual loyalty because he emigrated to America
as a toddler. But this was always preposterous. More telling is that Vindman, no less than Croft, epitomizes a mindset that
seems to regard a deviation from the strictures of the foreign policy establishment as by definition unacceptable.
In his opening statement, Vindman declared, that Ukraine is a "frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression."
He added, "the U.S. government policy community's view is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the promise
of reforms will lock in Ukraine's Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy
and economic prosperity." But what if Trump has a different view of matters than the "U.S. government policy community's
view"? After all, Trump was elected in part on his explicit declarations that he would not rely on the experts who had plunged
America into Iraq and Libya.
Consider as well the attention that Vindman has lavished upon Trump's phone call with Zelensky. According to Vindman,
portions of the call he considered important were not included in the document kept by the government that was released
to the last month. This includes President Trump claiming there are recordings of former Vice President Joe Biden discussing
Ukrainian corruption, and President Zelensky specifically referring to Biden's son's company, Burisma Holdings. The document
released by the administration includes Zelensky talking about "the company" and Trump saying, "Biden went around bragging
that he stopped the prosecution," which is an interpretation of a video of Joe Biden describing how the Obama administration
made firing Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin a prerequisite for receiving foreign aid. Vindman's recollection
of the call does not change the substance of what was already understood. However, the changes in language are being portrayed
as more analogous to Richard Nixon editing the White House tapes than the routine process that produced a routine document.
"Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, who heard President Trump's July phone call with Ukraine's president and was alarmed, testified
that he tried and failed to add key details to the rough transcript," blared the New York Times headline.
For two months, major media outlets have described the document as a "transcript," as a shorthand term. But as the document,
and TNI's previous reporting
makes clear, it is not a transcript in the strict sense of the term. "This is what's known as a memorandum of conversation:
MEMCON. It is a standard tool that is used throughout the government and the procedures can vary from agency to agency,
or who your boss is. But generally, they're all done about the same way," explains Peter Van Buren, a former Foreign Service
Officer in the State Department.
"In my own experience in government for 24 years it's a pretty standardized practice. The idea is, for all sorts of reasons,
most interactions are not recorded. Instead, they're memorialized through this process of MEMCON. Typically, while there
are many people who may be listening in or present at a meeting, someone (or sometimes two people) are designated as official
notetakers and they take down the conversation. And they're not trying necessarily to get an exact word-for-word account,
but they're certainly trying to get an idea for idea. And in many cases when you're dealing at the White House level, they
are getting it pretty much word for word," Van Buren tells TNI.
As a participant on the phone call, Vindman would have been one of the early editors. As the process continued, officials
higher than him made changes, just like the editor of a magazine would for a writer. The precise reasons for the changes
are open-ended and probably unknowable. There exists no evidence that the changes were nefarious or anything other than
mundane word choice. The document released to the public is the official U.S. government record of what happened.
John Marshall Evans, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer and Ambassador to Armenia, narrows down what should be the
focus of this inquiry-and what it's actually becoming. "The issue is indeed not one of policy, which the President can change,
but of the purpose that was pursued in the July 25th call: whether it was in the national interest or a private gain," he
says. So far, no one has shown that Trump demanded that the Ukrainian government produce a specific result or fabricate
evidence about the Bidens.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is supposed to hold a House vote on the impeachment inquiry tomorrow, after a barrage of criticism
from Republicans for moving forward without one. Whether the open hearings and public testimony will provide any more substance
than a parade of national security bureaucrats ventilating their grievances about a president who sought to take a different
course in foreign policy is questionable.
Vindman declared, that Ukraine is a "frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression.
Complete bull. The truth is that there is no Russian aggression. What we're seeing from Russia is actually pushback against
American aggression. The US is trying to turn Ukraine into a NATO member, knowing that doing so would severely undermine Russia's
national security. The American goal is to reduce Russia's influence in world affairs, and to be in geostrategic position to relate
to Russia coercively. Little wonder, then, that Russia lashed back by taking Crimean and Donbass.
For Vindman to assert that Ukraine is "bulwark against Russian aggression" and a matter vital to the US's national interests
only goes to prove that America is under the influence of liars. The American people are being mislead about the truth.
Ukraine's on Russia's front door step. It overlaps with Russia territorially, demographically, and geopolitically. By entering
Ukraine for strategic reasons, the US has provoked and threatened Russia. There is no justification for this reckless foreign
policy move by the US.
First off, 'improving relations with Russia' does NOT mean doing whatever is best for Russia at our expense. Every foreign
policy move this president has made has only benefited Russia, not the US! Secondly, I have slowly but surely become convinced
Trump is a wholly owned subsidiary of Putin Inc. I don't know what Putin has on Trump (but I think money laundering would be a
solid guess) or if it's the promise of Putin's blessing for a Trump Tower Moscow, but whatever it is, he has Trump in his back
pocket. And lastly, if everyone has not figured out all The Donald cares about is money in his pocket they are fools. Face it,
writer, you either have bought that bag of magic beans Trump sold the electorate in the last election or you are being willfully
blind to who and what this 'man' is.
First off, 'improving relations with Russia' does NOT mean doing whatever is best for Russia at our expense.
That's confusing. How exactly is America doing something for Russia at the expense of the US? If you really believe this, then
you've been fooled by American propaganda into thinking that Ukraine is an extension of the continental US. The reality, of course,
is that Ukraine is on the other side of the world, and does not in any way matter to America's vital national interests.
In Ukraine, America is overstretching its ambitions, and is behaving like an aggressor.
Let's start with the sanctions passed by Congress on Russian oligarchs for invading the Ukraine. Somehow, they just weren't
imposed until Trump was forced to. Then there is the deliberate sabotage of all of our alliances. Now it's stabbing the kurds
in the back so Putin and Erdogan can split that area up between them. The only thing Trump, Turkey and Russia have in common are
Trump Tower Istanbul and his desire for Trump Tower Moscow. He is, quite literally selling us out.
P.S. Nice try, Russkie, but it wasn't us who invaded and seized Crimea and western Ukraine. That was you. We may stick our
noses into world affairs more than we should, but we have not stolen any land or resources of any country we are in. Get right
down to it, if it wasn't for your nukes, we'd put you down like a rabid dog. Don't think we can? Your economy is the size of our
state of Georgia and it ain't even close to the top. Just another commie basket case.
The dispute was not over whether the United States should continue to pursue empire but
rather how to continue to achieve it. The debates were occasioned by the rise of the
countries of the Global South, the societally wrenching experience of the Vietnam War, the
growth of power and influence of the former Soviet Union, and since its collapse, the
emergence of China as a new global economic, political and military power. In addition, the
new international economy was becoming more global, that is to say more interconnected.
Debates about strategy, tactics, surfaced between the neoliberal globalists who emphasized
so-called free trade, financial speculation, and the promotion of a neoliberal agenda that
advocated for the privatization of all public activities by states and the development of
austerity policies that would shift wealth from the many to the few. The international debt
system would be the vehicle for pressuring poor and rich countries to transform their own
economic agendas. This faction dominated United States foreign policy making for
generations, particularly from Reagan to Clinton to Obama. In political/military terms,
they have sought to push back challengers to neoliberal capitalism: Russia, China, populist
Latin American countries, and they have advocated advancing US economic interests in Asia
and Africa. Many of the institutions of the neoliberal globalists, sometimes called the
"deep state" include the CIA, NSA, and other security agencies.
On the other hand, as Targ explains, are the Trumpian, "America First" nationalist
capitalists. This faction of the ruling class, while also supporting global dominance and a
permanent war economy (military-related spending will consume 48 percent of the 2020
federal budget) favors trade restrictions, economic nationalism, building walls and
anti-immigrant policies.
Although Trump is inconsistent, bumbling and sometimes contradictory, he's departed from
the neocon's agenda by making overtures to North Korea and Russia, voicing doubts about
NATO as an expensive relic from the past that is being dangerously misused outside of
Europe, not being afraid to speak bluntly to EU allies, frequently mentioning ending our
"endless, ridiculous and costly wars," asserting that the U.S. is badly overextended and
saying "The job of our military is not to police the world."
I would add that Trump is also an "American exceptionalist" but ascribes a very
different provincial meaning to the term, something closer to a crabbed provincialism, an
insular "Shining City on a Hill," surrounded by a moat.
The constitutional power to impeach a
duly elected president was intended by the Framers of the Constitution as a neutral, non-partisan
tool of last resort to be used against only criminal incumbents in extreme cases.
It is
now being deployed as a partisan weapon that can be used routinely against presidents of a
different party from those who control the House of Representatives.
Under the views of some members of Congress, any time the House is controlled by one party, a
simple majority can properly vote to impeach. As Congresswoman
Maxine
Waters put it
:
"Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law."
She is wrong.
The Constitution is the law and she is not above it.
The recent partisan misuse of this emergency power began with the impeachment of former
President William Jefferson Clinton by the Republican-controlled House in 1998.
Clinton did
not commit an impeachable offense, even if he feloniously lied under oath about his sex life. Such
perjury, if it occurred, would satisfy the definition of a "crime," but not meet the required
Constitutional criteria of a "high crime and misdemeanor."
If President Clinton committed
a crime, it would be a low crime related to his sex life and comparable to the low felonies --
adultery and paying off an extortionist -- committed by Alexander Hamilton when he was Secretary of
the Treasury. Had Hamilton payed the extortionist from Treasury funds, as he was falsely accused of
doing, he would have been guilty of an impeachable high crime.
To be impeached, a president must commit a crime (misdemeanor is a species of crime) and
the commission of that crime must also constitute an abuse of office. An abuse of office without an
underlying crime is a political sin, but not an impeachable offense.
This very issue was debated at the Constitutional Convention, where one delegate proposed
"maladministration" as the criteria for impeachment and removal of a president. James Madison, the
Father of our Constitution, strongly objected on the ground that so vague and open-ended a
criterion would have the president serve at the will of Congress and turn us from a Republic with a
strong president into a parliamentary democracy in which the chief executive can be removed by a
simple vote of no confidence. Instead, the Convention adopted strict prerequisites for impeachment:
treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The House is no more empowered to
substitute its own criteria for those enumerated in the Constitution than the Senate would be to
change the 2/3 vote requirement for removal to a simple majority or a 3/5 super majority. Congress
is not above the law. It is bound by what the Framers accepted and cannot now apply the criterion
the framers explicitly rejected.
Those who characterize the impeachment and removal process as completely political are
wrong as a matter of constitutional law, even if they are right in describing the reality of how it
is being currently misused. Advocates of this view misquote Hamilton in Federalist #65.
Hamilton did characterize the criteria for impeachment as "political," but only in the sense
that they relate to "injuries done immediately to the society itself." He then immediately rejected
the view that the process should be partisan, based on "the comparative strength of parties,"
rather than on "the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt." He called that the "greatest
danger" and demanded "neutrality toward those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny." Those
who misquote and misunderstand Hamilton wrongly conflate the words "political," by which he meant
governmental, and "partisan, " by which he meant related to the comparative strength of parties and
factions.
It is difficult to imagine a greater breach of Hamilton's principles than the recent
House vote along party lines (with two exceptions, both opposing impeachment) to open a formal
impeachment investigation against President Trump. The vote was determined exclusively by the
"comparative strength of parties," as was the vote to impeach President Bill Clinton two decades
ago.
A partisan House vote to impeach President Trump, followed by a partisan Senate vote to acquit
him, would not only hurt the Democratic Party -- as the votes in the Clinton case hurt the
Republican Party -- it would damage our constitution and further polarize our already divided
nation.
Most important, misusing the impeachment power in a partisan manner would pose, in the
words of Hamilton, "the greatest danger" to our Constitution.
Attorneys Admit 'Whistleblower' Had Contacts With Other Presidential Candidates
by
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/04/2019 - 11:40
0
SHARES
President Trump has continued to his attacks on the Democrats' "impeachment resolution"
proceedings, and in particular the so-called 'whistleblower' and the irrelevance of his (or her)
thoughts and feelings...
" What I said on the phone call with the Ukrainian President is "perfectly" stated.
There is no reason to call witnesses to analyze my words and meaning.
This is just
another Democrat Hoax that I have had to live with from the day I got elected (and before!).
Disgraceful!"
"
The Whistleblower gave false information & dealt with corrupt politician Schiff. He
must be brought forward to testify.
Written answers not acceptable! Where is the 2nd
Whistleblower? He disappeared after I released the transcript. Does he even exist? Where is the
informant? Con!"
And, interestingly, this follows a statement from the attorneys representing the whistleblower
acknoweledging that their client "has come into contact with presidential candidates from both
parties."
In light of the ongoing efforts to mischaracterize whistleblower #1's alleged "bias" in order
to detract from the substance of the complaint, we will attempt to clarify some facts.
First
, our client has never worked for or advised a political candidate,
campaign, or party.
Second
, our client has spent their entire government career in apolitical,
civil servant positions in the Executive Branch.
Third
, in these positions our client has come into contact with presidential
candidates from both parties in their roles as elected officials – not as candidates.
Fourth
, the whistleblower voluntarily provided relevant career information
to the ICIG in order to facilitate an assessment of the credibility of the complaint.
Fifth
, as a result, the ICIG concluded – as is well known – that the
complaint was both urgent and credible.
Finally
, the whistleblower is not the story.
To date, virtually every substantive allegation has been confirmed by other sources. For that
reason the identity of the whistleblower is irrelevant.
* * *
Except the motivations of the whistleblower are relevant, as Dan Bongino noted on Fox this
morning:
"
There is no Whistleblower. There is someone with an agenda against Donald Trump.
What he was blowing the whistle on didn't happen.
We have the transcript of the call.
This is all a farce and no Republican should forget that."
"This was the transfer of Burisma Group's funds for lobbying activities, as investigators
believe, personally to Joe Biden through a lobbying company. Funds in the amount of $900,000
were transferred to the U.S.-based company Rosemont Seneca Partners, which according to open
sources, in particular, the New York Times, is affiliated with Biden. The payment reference was
payment for consultative services," Derkach said.
He also publicized sums that were transferred to Burisma Group representatives, in
particular Hunter Biden, a son of the former U.S. vice president.
"According to the documents, Burisma paid no less than $16.5 million to [former Polish
President, who became an independent director at Burisma Holdings in 2014] Aleksander
Kwasniewski, [chairman of the Burisma board of independent directors] Alan Apter, [Burisma
independent director] Devon Archer and Hunter Biden [who joined the Burisma board of directors
in 2014]," Derkach said.
"Using political and economic levelers of influencing Ukrainian authorities and manipulating
the issue of providing financial aid to Ukraine, Joe Biden actively assisted closing criminal
cases into the activity of former Ukrainian Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, who is the
founder and owner of Burisma Group," he said.
"Biden's fifth visit to Kyiv on December 7-8, 2015 was devoted to making a decision on the
resignation of [then Ukrainian Prosecutor General] Viktor Shokin over the case of Zlochevsky
and Burisma. Loan guarantees worth $1 billion that the United States was to give to Ukraine was
the point of pressure. Biden himself admitted exerting pressure in his speech at the Council of
Foreign Relations in January 2018, calling Shokin 'son of a bitch who was fired'," Derkach
said.
At a press conference at the Interfax-Ukraine agency on Wednesday, he made public the
documents received from investigative journalists, including correspondence between NABU
officers and representatives of diplomatic missions of foreign states in the framework of
criminal proceedings opened under Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (High Treason).
In particular, the documents that the deputy possesses indicate that Uglava, through his
assistant Polina Chyzh, gave information to the U.S. Embassy, which, he said, is an important
part of the "puzzle" of interference in U.S. elections and international corruption.
Joe Biden's drug addict son Hunter was sitting on the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian
natural gas company and being paid by some accounts over $200,000 a month even though he had
zero experience in the field.
Then-Vice President Joe Biden, who was tasked to oversee US dealings with Ukraine,
threatened to withhold over $1 billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine unless they fired Viktor
Shokin, the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma and Hunter.
Biden bragged about shaking down Ukraine and getting Mr. Shokin fired during a 2018 speech
to the Council on Foreign Relations.
New documents unearthed by award-winning investigative reporter John Solomon destroyed the
Democrat narrative that Trump strong-armed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The new documents show that Ukraine was reopening the investigation into Burisma and the
crooked Bidens back in February -- before Zelensky was elected president.
20191031-ukrainegate.pdfby Barbara Boyd, barbara@lpac-organizers.com - Be the first to be notified when we release
the next parts, text sc20 to (202)609-8371 - text stop to leave at anytime.
Part 2 is now available.
A parade of Washington's unelected diplomatic elite has been appearing before the House
Intelligence Committee in a tiny room in the House basement, a SCIF (sensitive compartmented
information facility), walled off from the world by a blanket of electronic security to enforce
absolute, total secrecy. There, in a proceeding reminding most of the British Star Chamber,
they are making claims against a man they hate, a man whom the voters elected in 2016 to throw
them all out of any power whatsoever over the nation -- the President of the United
States. Here is how America voted.
Here is a map of US counties, colored red and blue to indicate Republican and Democratic
majorities respectively. Source: personal.umich.edu
They are claiming that President Trump withheld necessary military aid for Ukraine in
exchange for a promise by the Ukrainians to investigate Joe Biden and his cocaine-addled son,
Hunter. This is the so-called "impeachment inquiry" which follows two previous impeachment
campaigns in sequence, launched by the Democrats and the Anglo-American defense and
intelligence establishment on the day Donald Trump won the election.
In this brief we will show you that Donald Trump should have withheld military aid from the
Ukrainians, but for a reason different than that stated. And, we will demonstrate that Joe
Biden should be investigated, for supervising a coup, led by neo-Nazis in Ukraine, which has
collapsed that country. Thousands have been killed or fled the country. Many of the foreign
policy mandarins now testifying against Trump were Biden's managers of that horrific crime, and
other similar crimes, which have created America's "forever" wars.
Joe Biden otherwise
played a key role as Obama's Vice President in the 2016-2017 illegalities against candidate
and President-elect Donald Trump, actively joining a small group of "principals" (John Brennan,
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, James Clapper, Jim Comey) discussing and implementing the
intelligence feed for a propaganda campaign intended to defeat Trump by smearing him as a
Russian agent. These conversations included Susan Rice, Avril Haines, and Lisa Monaco from the
White House side, in addition to Joe Biden. Biden also played a significant role in the
attempted coverup of the White House's direct role in the 2016 foreign interference
operation against Donald Trump.
After the string of illegalities against Trump, which continued through his firing of FBI
Director James Comey, and after the brutal
Robert Mueller inquisition , which destroyed many lives but came up empty as to any crimes
by the President, we have now entered phase three of the coup against the President. As
Congressman Al Green (D-TX) and even Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have admitted: impeachment now
is necessary because, without it, Trump will win a second term. The same sentiment was
pronounced by the British House of Lords in their 2018 "UK Foreign
Policy in a Shifting World Order," in an order to their American satrapy: a second Trump
term must not happen.
Everyone who has appeared before the House Intelligence Committee so far, is up to their
ears in U.S./British regime-change operations, particularly the one conducted by the Obama
Administration in 2013-2014 in Ukraine, where Joe Biden and Victoria Nuland engineered regime
change on Russia's border, using Neo-Nazis as muscle, and creating a post-coup vassal-state
which included the very same Neo-Nazis as government officials. Joe Biden, who served as the
Obama Administration's "point man" on Ukraine, and Biden's State Department, National Endowment
for Democracy, and Atlantic Council buddies misnamed their atrocity, the "Revolution of
Dignity." Victoria Nuland, the case officer with Joe Biden for the coup, says the United States
spent $5 billion dollars in creating this fiasco. Her figures do not include substantial funds
delivered by the British government and NATO, along with George Soros and other privateers.
Like other regime-change wars, most prominently Iraq, this one installed a government of
colonial administrators, and resulted in a perfectly predictable, violent insurgency from those
sections of Ukraine that would never agree to an occupation government, particularly after
being attacked by the coup's "Right Sector" neo-Nazis. In Ukraine, this insurgency involved the
Russian-speaking population of Eastern Ukraine, the Donbass, where, after the coup, the regions
of Donetsk and Lugansk declared themselves autonomous Republics. There is plenty of evidence
that the insurgency was provoked to facilitate a full-scale ethnic cleansing of this asset-rich
area which formerly housed that nation's manufacturing capacity and skilled
workforce.
March in Kiev on anniversary of the birthday of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera (depicted
on flag), January 2015, Photo: All-Ukrainian Union
The conflict in the Donbass has killed over 13,000 people to date. And the coup resulted in
the further disintegration of Ukraine into Europe's poorest country. The operation replaced one
set of corrupt oligarchs who stole the country's riches after the collapse of the Soviet Union,
but were considered "soft" on Russia, with a different set of oligarchs who have voiced a
desire to go to war with Russia, while continuing the stealing.
Biden, Ukraine, and
Burisma
This is the context for the real Joe Biden corruption story in Ukraine and his son's
estimated $3 million dollar haul from one of the largest and most corrupt Ukrainian gas and oil
companies: Burisma . This is a story about the obsession of Joe Biden and others who went
out to cripple Russia's economy by shutting down the gas transit lines that pass from Russia,
through Ukraine, to Europe, while supplying Ukraine through Western oil companies shepherded
into the country by Biden, along with a scheme for fracking in the war-torn Donbass. They
pursued this while overtly threatening Russia with nuclear war, facilitated by their new vassal
state, Ukraine, on Russia's border -- placing the entire world in jeopardy by their madness. To
accomplish his gas gambit, Biden had to capture Burisma.
Then Vice President Joe Biden with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, Secretary of
State John Kerry, Ambassador Victoria Nuland, and others in a bilateral meeting with Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko on February 7, 2015.
Many of the British and American intelligence operatives who accomplished the Ukraine
"regime change" in 2014, turned their attention, in 2016, to destroying the political candidacy
of Donald Trump, smearing him as a Manchurian candidate because he publicly stated a desire for
better relations with Russia.
When Rudy Giuliani started to investigate Kiev's role in the illegal 2016 attempt to defeat
Donald Trump, he touched a "third rail" of British and American intelligence, one that goes all
the way back to British and American adoption and support of the Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists (OUN-B) led by Stepan Bandera and Mykola Lebed. Bandera was an MI-6 agent, Lebed
became CIA. Earlier, during World War II, in collaboration with the Nazis, they slaughtered
thousands of Poles and Jews -- all in the name of defeating Russia. The Right Sector groups
used by Joe Biden for the coup and subsequently installed in the government, idolize Stepan
Bandera.
Now that Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham have, as anticipated,
undertaken a full criminal investigation of the U.S., British and other intelligence figures
who led the 2016-2017 effort to defeat Donald Trump and subvert his presidency, the Ukrainian
aspect of this operation has become a very, very hot potato.
The appearance of the bogus Ukraine-aid "whistleblower" -- himself, we now know, a CIA
agent, expert in Ukraine, who previously worked with Joe Biden in the Obama White House --
represents an effort to block this story from serious investigation at all costs. It also aims
to delegitimize the entire Barr/Durham criminal investigation, as well as the imminent report
of the Justice Department's Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Both DOJ investigations center
on illegalities in the first stage of the coup against Trump, prior to Mueller's appointment as
Special Counsel. And, most important, the bogus impeachment "inquiry" is yet another
full-spectrum information-warfare operation, using the media, fed by cascading, 24/7 bogus
headlines and leaks from the intelligence community and the Democrats in Congress, to tank the
President's standing with the American people and either impeach him or defeat him in
2020.
The Present Charade
We now know that the bogus whistleblower worked, covertly, with Congressman Adam Schiff's
staff to launder leaks about the President's July 25th phone call with incoming Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky, into a new bogus narrative about the President. This
whistleblower is represented by a law firm that has actively sought whistleblowers from the
intelligence agencies against the President, posting leaflets and billboard ads outside the
agencies and offering to cover any and all expenses.
Paul Sperry, in an October 30th
article at Real Clear Investigations , states that everyone in Washington and the national
news media "knows" that the bogus whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella. If true, it only highlights
the scandal embodied in the sham impeachment proceedings being run by the Democrats, it is the
equivalent of a hand grenade. Ciaramella worked in the Obama White House with Susan Rice, John
Brennan and Joe Biden on Ukraine. He also worked with Alexandra Chalupa, who ran Ukraine's
illegal 2016 election interference in the United States on behalf of Hillary Clinton. According
to a former NSC official, he got caught leaking to the media as an Obama holdover at the NSC
under Trump, where he chaired the Ukraine desk. His leaks framed the totally bogus narrative
that Putin caused the firing of James Comey by Trump. Rather than being fired,
Ciaramella returned to the CIA and his close friends, according to Sperry's story, joined Adam
Schiff's House Intelligence Committee, a most convenient setup.
The bogus whistleblower was also assisted by a new Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community, Michael Atkinson, who dubbed this bogus complaint "credible" and "urgent." Atkinson
migrated from the leadership of the National Security Division of the Justice Department -- a
central control point in Phases 1 and 2 of the coup -- to the IG post, and promptly rewrote the
rules so that whistleblower complaints could be based on total hearsay and gossip, rather than
first-hand knowledge. In Atkinson's January 2019 confirmation hearing before the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner (D-VA) charged him with a mission of protecting
whistleblowers first and foremost. This was most strange coming from a committee that has
repeatedly acquiesced in the destruction of actual whistleblowers such as Tom Drake, Bill
Binney, Jeff Sterling, and Julian Assange. It suggests that a new "insurance policy" was being
worked on already by the higher echelons of the intelligence community and the most corrupted
committee in the Senate.
Surprise: the Transcript
To the surprise of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the coup's strategists, the President
released the actual transcript of his July 25th phone conversation with President Zelensky,
which, in any reasonable culture, should have ended the entire affair. The bogus
whistleblower's gossip was proven demonstrably false by the transcript. Washington, D.C. is
not, presently, such a culture.
In the call, President Trump congratulated Zelensky on his victory in the parliamentary
elections, and Zelensky promptly announced that he would be reforming his government to clean
up its legendary and horrific corruption. The President and Zelensky discussed the fact that
the United States is shouldering the burden of support for Ukraine, while Germany and other
European countries, which have the most immediate strategic interest, are not contributing
enough.
In the portion of the call the Democrats are trying to make an impeachable crime, President
Trump said he was concerned about Ukraine's intervention into the 2016 U.S. election on behalf
of Hillary Clinton and expressed concern that Zelensky is surrounded by some of the same people
who conducted those activities. Trump asked whether the Democratic National Committee (DNC)
computer server examined by CrowdStrike is in the possession of a Ukrainian oligarch. He asks
Zelensky to work with Attorney General Barr, who is conducting the investigation into the 2016
presidential election illegalities. He characterizes this request to investigate possible
Ukrainian illegalities in the 2016 election, and to speak with Attorney General Barr, as doing
him (Trump) a "favor."
The "favor," it is clear, had nothing to do with the 2020 elections or asking Ukraine to
"attack" Democrats and Joe Biden, as repeatedly mischaracterized by Democrats and the bogus
whistleblower. Instead, it had to do with investigating the ongoing coup in the United
States which threatens this nation's very existence .
It is Zelensky who brings up Rudy Giuliani, the President's lawyer, who has been conducting
his own investigation of Ukraine's interference on behalf of Hillary Clinton since January of
2019. The President then says that he had heard that a very good prosecutor in Ukraine was shut
down by some very bad people, and that the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie
Yovanovitch, was bad news, as were the people she was dealing with. The President then relates
that Joe Biden bragged about stopping the prosecution of Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company
where Hunter Biden sat on the Board. He says that whatever Zelensky can tell Attorney General
Barr about this would be great. Zelensky responds that Marie Yovanovitch was a bad ambassador
as she admired Petro Poroshenko, the previous President, and refused to accept Zelensky's
election.
That's it. There was absolutely nothing illegal or wrong here, despite the hair-on-fire
headlines fulminated daily by the news media and Adam Schiff -- the same "walls closing in"
nonsense that occurred daily during Russiagate. There is no reference to, "if you do this, I'll
do that." In fact, the Ukrainians were not even aware that the lethal military aid they were
expecting had been placed on temporary hold.
Unfortunately, the President, after the call, approved the lethal military aid to Ukraine
which Congress' war-mongers had ordered up in their continuing destructive madness about
"Russia, Russia, Russia." The aid was issued without any requirement whatsoever that Ukraine
produce anything to meet President Trump's concerns about 2016 election interference or the
corruption surrounding Burisma and/or Joe Biden. The aid was issued without any real guarantees
in place to ensure that lethal weaponry would not be put in the hands of the various Neo-Nazis
integrated into Ukraine's National Guard and militias, and who are now arrayed against
President Zelensky himself, charging that his effort to settle the war in the Donbass is a
sell-out to Russia.
Now if the President and his supporters choose to tell the real and whole truth to the
American people about what the Ukraine issue is really all about, the impeachers, so desperate
to block this from coming to light, will have hoisted themselves on their own petard in true
Shakespearian fashion, in the best boomerang imaginable. That story, the real story about Joe
Biden, Ukraine corruption, and the Ukrainian role in the effort to fix the 2016 election for
Hillary Clinton, is what we will set forth, in summary fashion, in what follows.
Then the Ukraine whistleblower story broke in September
The problem here is that the person in question does not fit well the definition of
"whistleblower" unless you want to change the meaning of this word.
A more plausible hypothesis is that Ciaramella (if it was he) was a Brennan spy in the
West Wing, which former key FBI Russaigaters Peter Strzok and Lisa Page named
"Charlie".
If Ciaramella was a "Confidential Informant" (CI) in no way he can be called
whistleblower, because it was his responsibility to produce regular reports about Trump
administration actions and intentions for FBI, CIA or both. And that makes him and his
handlers subjects to criminal investigation.
So then the question is, if this goes on through the election, will that be a
disaster? It may depend on what evidence comes out.
IMHO the intention is to drag it till the elections in order to repeat the success of
the influence of Mueller investigation on the 2018 elections results. Kind of "Hail Mary"
pass by Pelosi. Right now even Sanders has diminished chances against Trump due,
unfortunately, to his health problems (to say nothing about the fact that DNC would
prefer Trump to Sanders any day ;-).
But please understand that the real game will start only after the Senate will open
the trial. So the last thing Pelosi wants is to get this case on the Senate floor. At
this point Senate Republicans can wipe the floor with Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, and company
with impunity as long as they wish: they can call any witnesses and request any material
they want, using help from their House colleagues, especially Nunes, who proved to be a
pretty capable politician, much superior caliber then Schiff (who is the victim of
nepotism, so to speak ;-) . Tables will be instantly turned.
They can also destroy Brennan, Marie Yovanovitch (who can be criminally prosecuted for
informing Ukrainians that they do not need to deal with Trump, just wait until
impeachment) , Taylor, Vindman (who can be court marshaled) and other initiators of
Ukrainegate.
The question only is whether they want to do it or not, because most Republicans do
not like Trump.
Warren chances in the atmosphere of impeachment hysteria are not looking good (and the
fact the she jumped into Ukrainegate bandwagon proves that she is a weak politician.)
First of all, unhinged Trump is dangerous. Not only he is a much better showman, he is
a master of playing a victim. He will try to rally voters around the flag and make his
failures less significant for his core electorate (some faction of which, for example
anti-war Republicans, and a part of blue-collar workers might not vote at all).
In other words, this impeachment game (and it is a dirty game) may play for Trump the
same role that Iraq war played for Bush II: people understood that this reformed
alcoholic is a miserable failure, but voted for him anyway out of patriotism.
Likewise, many independents who were ready to defect Trump may hold their nose and
vote for Trump because they despise neoliberal Dems dirty games more then they despise
Trump. Kind of perverted version of LEV (lessee evil voting :-)
The House Intelligence Committee chairman has lied with impunity to the American public and
to Congress. Now he's running a secret inquiry, withholding evidence from colleagues, and may
have coached the "whistleblower" behind Ukraine-gate.
H ouse Republicans on Monday will
attempt to force a vote to censure Representative Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.), the chairman of the
House Intelligence Committee. The resolution, authored by Rep. Andy Biggs (R.-Ariz.), has 170
Republican co-sponsors. (It's unclear why the remaining 27 GOP congressmen have not signed on.)
The
motion condemns Schiff for actions that "misled the American people, bring disrepute upon
the House of Representatives, and make a mockery of the impeachment process, one of this
chamber's most solemn constitutional duties." It lists several specific offenses, including
Schiff's repeated claims that he possessed solid evidence of collusion between the Trump
campaign and the Russians, and his intentional misrepresentation of the July phone call between
Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
If Schiff were a Republican, his own colleagues would have dispatched him long ago. Compare
the way Schiff's caucus is condoning his misdeeds with the way House Republicans in 2017 signed
on to a bogus House ethics inquiry into Rep. Devin Nunes (R.-Calif.), sidelining his nascent
investigation into the corrupt origins of the FBI's Trump-Russia probe for eight crucial
months. (He was cleared of any wrongdoing.)
Schiff has lied with impunity to the American public and to Congress. He is suspected of
leaking nonpublic, and in some instances, classified material to the press.
At the same time, Schiff is denying
access to his secret impeachment proceedings and withholding information from House
members. Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee sent a letter to Schiff on Friday,
accusing him of failing to furnish documents related to his "impeachment inquiry," a clear
violation of House rules. Yet Schiff remains a media darling and a hero of
#TheResistance.
Schiff's Possible Crimes
But Schiff's repeated witness tampering is not just a breach of House protocol, it is a
crime. In a bombshell article, Breitbart
reported this week that Thomas Eager, a top Schiff aide, traveled to Ukraine in late August
and met with the acting U.S. ambassador to that country. The diplomat, Bill Taylor -- who is
temporarily occupying the position following Trump's removal of the previous ambassador -- is
scheduled to testify next week before Schiff's ongoing impeachment tribunal.
According to Breitbart , Eager traveled to Ukraine from August 24 to August 31;
Eager's meeting with Taylor was the first item of business. (The trip was approved by Schiff,
according to official documents.)
The timing of the trip is suspicious for several reasons: The junket occurred during the
exact timeframe that the "whistleblower" complaint
concerning Trump's call with Ukranian President Zelensky was under consideration by the
intelligence community's inspector general. On August 28, Schiff ominously tweeted that "Trump is
withholding vital military aid to Ukraine, while his personal lawyer seeks help from the
Ukraine government to investigate his political opponent."
But the report had not been submitted officially to Schiff's committee. Inspector General
Michael Atkinson did not alert Schiff's committee about the complaint until September 9 over an
internal disagreement about Atkinson's assessment that the complaint was of "urgent
concern."
Coincidentally (or not), on that very same day , Taylor sent a text to Gordon
Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union.
"As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a
political campaign," Taylor wrote
to Sondland, who seemed surprised by the message. "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about
President Trump's intentions," Sondland replied. "The President has been crystal clear no quid
pro quo's of any kind." The $250 million aid package was released two
days later.
So, Schiff's lackey suddenly shows up in Ukraine at the end of August to meet with the
fill-in American ambassador while his boss is concocting his latest collusion-based impeachment
fantasy? What exactly did Eager and Taylor discuss?
Did Eager brief Taylor about the forthcoming "whistleblower" report
, which also contained false accusations that Trump "is using the power of his office to
solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election" while expressing alarm
about a delay in American financial assistance to Ukraine? After all, there was no reason for
Taylor to suggest the aid was tied to giving assistance to a political campaign since nothing
of the sort had been reported by the news media. Why did Taylor send that text on the same day
that Atkinson tattled to Schiff's committee about a hold-up of the "whistleblower"
report?
Questions for Witnesses
Another question Republicans might want to ask Taylor is whether Eager told him that the
committee already had talked to the "whistleblower" before the official report was
prepared. In another example of his bad habit of tampering with witnesses, Schiff admitted
that, despite his public protestations to the contrary, his committee had been approached
by the "whistleblower" prior to filing the complaint on August 12.
An unnamed intelligence committee aide -- could it also be Eager? -- met with the
still-anonymous "whistleblower" and advised the official how to proceed. He then notified his
boss, Schiff, who later denied the pre-report rendezvous. Schiff
told MSNBC on September 17 that "we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower." After
the New York Times contradicted that claim on October 2, Schiff was forced to backpedal,
insisting he should have been more clear. The Washington Post
awarded Schiff four Pinocchios for his initial claim and subsequent excuse.
Now that his chicanery has been exposed, Schiff also is walking back his demand that the
"whistleblower" immediately testify before his committee.
In addition to his most recent witness-tampering escapades, Schiff has a few more incidents
on the books.
During his House testimony last February, Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney,
confessed
that he had been in contact with the California Democrat in advance of the spectacle. "I spoke
to Mr. Schiff about topics that were going to be raised at the upcoming hearing," Cohen told
Rep. James Jordan (R.-Ohio).
Reports later emerged that Schiff's staff traveled to New York on four separate occasions
to meet with Cohen for more than 10 hours before his testimony, leading to legitimate questions
about coaching a congressional witness.
And then there is the allegedly serendipitous meet-up in Aspen between Schiff and Glenn
Simpson, the co-owner of Fusion GPS, as Simpson faced congressional scrutiny for his role in
facilitating the bogus Trump-Russia
collusion hoax and handling of the infamous Steele dossier. A few months after his
encounter with Schiff in the summer of 2018, Simpson
pleaded the Fifth before the House Intelligence Committee, which was controlled by
Republicans at the time.
It will be clear once the transcripts are released, that the crew
testifying for Adam Schiff are upset about the President fulfilling his
Constitutional responsibility to run foreign policy rather than letting
them run it, about his determination to get to the bottom of Ukraine's role
in intervening in the 2016 U.S. Election, and the ongoing coup against him,
which implicates many of these very same "witnesses." The President,
knowing that Ukraine tried to take him out by intervening in the 2016
election, refused to meet with the Poroshenko government. That government
jockeyed for favor by revealing its role in the 2016 illegalities and
documenting the Biden story for Rudy Guilani and others.
When new
President Zelensky was elected, President Trump used an alternate channel
to assess him, rather than the State Department and National Security
Council operatives who were either involved in the coup against him or
refused to stand against it. That appears to have included Ukraine envoy
Kurt Volker, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
There is nothing unusual in this but it drove the unelected Mandarins,
including John Bolton, crazy, along with the considerable military
industrial complex grouping in the Congress who want permanent war with
Russia.
Here are the key players so far based on the applause provided by
Democrats and the Main Stream Media:
William B. Taylor, Jr.
Presented hearsay testimony, based on conversations with NSC John Bolton
protégé Tim Morrison, and others that somehow the President presented a
quid pro quo in his July 25th phone call with Zelensky, despite the fact
that the actual transcript of the call and repeated statements by President
Zelensky evidence no quid pro quo. Taylor's career has featured every U.S.
imperial disaster possible:
– "Economic development" coordinator for Eastern Europe, former Soviet
Union, resulting in the economic decimation of those countries and their
looting
– Coordinator for U.S. assistance of Afghanistan. Said the U.S. had the
right to stay forever until the country was secured to U.S. specifications
– Coordinator for Iraq Reconstruction. Program lost billions and left
the country destitute and mired in religious warfare.
– Ambassador to Ukraine in 2006-2009 right after the Orange Revolution,
the nation's first color revolution delivered by the British and the State
Department.
– Under Obama, Special Coordinator for Mideast "transitions" in the wake
of the Arab Spring, the program which set all of Southwest Asia on fire and
birthed the present round of Isis terrorism.
– Serves on the U.S./Ukraine Business Council with David J. Kramer as a
senior advisor. Kramer leaked the dirty Christopher Steele dossier against
Donald Trump to Buzzfeed. The Council coordinates the "investment" of
various vulture and "turnaround" funds in Ukraine. According to Breitbart's
Aaron Klein, Taylor met with a member of Adam Schiff's staff, Thomas Eager,
in Ukraine, prior to his testimony.
Marie Yovanovitch
U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine from August 18, 2016, until she was recalled,
in May of 2019. She claimed she was the victim of a smear campaign by Trump
attorney, Rudy Giuliani and Ukrainians who opposed her. But, she was at the
helm of the Embassy at the point when the Manafort black ledger smear
campaign was at full roar.
Way back in March, 2019, U.S. Embassy employees at the Ukrainian Embassy
were leaking that the Ambassador was telling Embassy employees and
Ukrainians not to pay any attention to President Donald Trump because he
was going to be impeached.
This was before a wave of articles featuring Ukraine's former prosecutor
Yuriy Lutsenko claiming that Yovanovitch had provided him with a list of
"do not prosecute" names, including those Ukrainians most involved in the
Ukrainian efforts to target and smear former Trump Campaign Advisor Paul
Manafort as a Russian agent.
Judicial Watch has just filed a FOIA request based on State Department
sources who claim that during her tenure in Ukraine, Yovanovitch ordered
the monitoring of various journalists who published negative stories about
her or who generally support President Trump.
Her resume evidences a trail of destruction. Dubbed the "Iron Lady" by
colleagues, she replaced the infamous Ambassador Geoffey Pyatt in Ukraine.
In 2002, after serving as one of the key State Department anti-Russian
diplomats, Yovanovitch played a central role in the Ukraine regime change
operation known as the "Orange Revolution." She promoted the scandal of
Ukraine selling 4 Kolchuga radar systems to Iraq in violation of the United
Nations sanctions. This led to the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Leonid
Kuchma being replaced by Washington and London's choice, Viktor
Yushschenko..
She was Ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic at the time the British-U.S.
Tulip Color Revolution occurred in that country, led by the State
Department and the British.
In 2008-2011 Yovanovitch was U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, where she was
heavily involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in neighboring Azerbaijan
(a separatist operation as part of a regime-change operation).
Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman
A Ukrainian born Army veteran, Vindman joined the NSC in July of 2018,
under John Bolton, as the NSC's "Ukraine expert." He claimed that all of
his corrections to the transcript of the Zelensky/Trump call were not
accepted although he admitted that his corrections were minor and did not
change the call substantively. He testified that he discussed with
Ukrainian colleagues how to "handle Trump."
The key to who he is and why he is testifying is contained in his
opening statement:
"When I joined the NSC in the Spring of 2019, I became aware of
outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent
with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful for
U.S. government policy."
There you have it, the "interagency" dictates U.S. foreign policy, not
the President as specified in Article II of the Constitution. Vindman also
says he authored the Russia strategy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff for
managing "competition" with Russia, an undoubtedly very bellicose document.
Amidst the media fanfare claiming that Vindman represents "the ultimate
immigrant hero" story, the Republicans finally leaked something substantive
about what happened behind closed doors. Asked to cite in the transcript of
the call where the President offered a quid pro quo, Vindman apparently
testified that the entire call evidenced this, since the President was in a
"position of power" over President Zelensky. If true, foreign policy is now
being managed on the same terms as the Me Too movement.
Right-wing media tries to smear former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch
Despite grave Judicial Watch allegations about a "surveillance" campaign from right-wing figures,
the facts so far point to mere tracking of a pro-Trump disinformation campaign
UPDATE (10/24/19)
: It
turns out
that the list Marie Yovanovitch allegedly used to "spy" on conservatives was really a basic Facebook
search on CrowdTangle, a
mundane and widely-used
social media
tool that
tracks
public
social media activity.
Judicial Watch
described CrowdTangle as a "Soros-linked media tracking tool."
Representatives of right-wing group Judicial Watch have been claiming during appearances on
conservative media shows that former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was "spying" on media figures
close to President Donald Trump by monitoring public statements they made on social media regarding
Ukraine.
Judicial Watch is alleging that Yovanovitch -- who recently
testified to House impeachment investigators
that Trump pressured the State Department to remove her
over baseless allegations -- was "basically running a war room" by monitoring public statements regarding
Ukraine
made by
figures in right-wing media like Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs, Trump personal lawyer Rudy
Giuliani, and Donald Trump, Jr. The list also includes former Obama ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul.
Judicial Watch also claims that the searches were looking for the following keywords: "Biden,"
"Giuliani," "Soros," and "Yovanovitch."
That Yovanovich would monitor public statements made by public figures is unsurprising given her
recent testimony
claiming that Giuliani had been criticizing her in the months before her ousting,
and the people she allegedly monitored are connected to the smear campaign Giuliani was waging. He had
accused her of privately criticizing the president and trying to protect the interests of Biden and his
son Hunter, who served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. The smear included accusations that
Soros was funding a conspiracy to hurt Trump's presidency and elect Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
Yovanovich said she was "incredulous" about her removal and that it was based on "unfounded and false
claims by people with clearly questionable motives" -- claims that have been
promoted publicly
by conservative media figures.
The Washington Post
reported that George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state responsible
for Ukraine, became concerned around October 2018 that Yovanovitch was the target of a "classic
disinformation operation."
NBC News
indicated that the State Department was concerned over the effort to oust Yovanovich,
reporting that the agency "attempted to ring alarm bells" regarding Giuliani's efforts to smear her:
The documents also show that Giuliani, through conservative writer John Solomon's columns in The Hill,
attempted to tie former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch to the liberal donor George Soros as part
of a massive conspiracy to take down Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort and help Hillary
Clinton win the 2016 election.
...
When State Department officials saw the disinformation campaign, they attempted to ring alarm bells
and strategized to correct the record, the documents show.
Yovanovitch, who has over 30 years of experience in foreign diplomacy, further testified that, as
The Washington Post
put it, "under Trump's leadership, U.S. foreign policy has been compromised by
self-interested actors who have badly demoralized and depleted America's diplomatic corps." The testimony
of
White House aide Fiona Hill
confirmed Yovanovitch's depiction of foreign policy under the Trump
administration.
Still, Judicial Watch is attempting to push the narrative that Yovanovitch nefariously
spied on Trump allies among right-wing media, appearing on the radio shows of Sebastian Gorka and Sean
Hannity and Fox Business host Lou Dobbs' prime-time show to spread the message. Some Fox News figures
responded with paranoia regarding their own conversations.
Judicial Watch
also shared
its report on Twitter, announcing that it is "investigating if prominent conservative figures/journalists
& persons [with ties] to @realDonaldTrump were unlawfully monitored by the State Dept in Ukraine at the
request of ousted U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, an Obama appointee."
Fox & Friends
hosted Judicial Watch
President Tom Fitton, who repeated that his "sourcing tells us that she was asking that folks like Rudy
Giuliani, Don Trump Jr., a whole list of your colleagues there at Fox, be monitored on certain phrases."
Co-host Steve Doocy invited Fitton to "go ahead and speculate for a second" about Yovanovitch's motives,
to which Fitton replied, "It looks an awful lot like an enemy's list to me." Doocy noted that Yovanovitch
is "keeping an eye on television, of all things," and he called it "particularly disturbing that, you
know, somebody in the federal government would be tracking people on TV."
FOX News contributor John Solomon revealed fired Ukrainian Ambassador Maria Yovanovich's
links to a radical Soros group. Yovanovich appeared before Congress on Friday, claiming that
she was unjustly fired just because she badmouthed the president, prevented Ukrainian officials
from coming to the US to expose Democrat corruption, and giving Ukrainian prosecutor a do not
prosecute list. Now, investigative reporter John Solomon reports on her link to a
Soros-supported group. Lutsenko told Solomon that in April 2016, Ukrainian prosecutors were
investigating an alleged anti-corruption group, AntAC, over $4.4 million that was illegally
diverted. AntAc was founded by the Obama administration and George Soros.
Trump's Little Surprise Is Making Liberals Cry! Got Yours Yet? Liberty Journalists x Ads by Revcontent Find Out More >
21,994
On Friday fired Ambassador Yovanovich testified behind closed doors in front of the
Pelosi-Schiff impeachment committee.
Yovanovich believes she was unjustly fired despite the fact that she was an Obama holdover,
was speaking out against President Trump and she was
colluding with the DNC and Hillary Campaign to undermine the US presidential election.
On Friday John Solomon told Lou Dobbs about the fired ambassador's links to a radical Soros
group operating in Ukraine.
On March 20th Solomon
published his interview with Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko alleging
Yovanovitch gave him a "do not prosecute list," back in 2016.
"Americans sharply divided over whether to impeach and remove Trump from office, Post-ABC
poll finds" [
WaPo ]. "The poll finds that 49 percent of Americans say the president should be
impeached and removed from office, while 47 percent say he should not. Among Democrats,
support for removing the president from office is overwhelming, with 82 percent in favor and
13 percent opposed. Among Republicans, it is almost the reverse, with 82 percent opposed and
18 percent in favor, even as the president's approval rating reached a new low among members
of his party. Independents are closely divided, with 47 percent favoring removal and 49
percent opposed." • If one wished to be completely cynical, one might argue that the
quick release and simple story of UkraineGate was more effective than the constantly shifting
story of RussiaGate.
"Impeach Trump. Then Move On." [David Brooks, New York Times ].
"During Watergate, voters trusted federal institutions and granted the impeachment process a
measure of legitimacy. Today's voters do not share that trust and will not regard an
intra-Washington process as legitimate," • Yep. More: "I get that Democrats feel they
have to proceed with impeachment to protect the Constitution and the rule of law. But there
is little chance they will come close to ousting the president. So I hope they set a
Thanksgiving deadline. Play the impeachment card through November, have the House vote and
then move on to other things." • The Democrats were muttering about the end of the year.
No way.
UPDATE "Why the Impeachment Fight Is Even Scarier Than You Think" [ Politico
]. "Democrats and Republicans might still disagree about policy, but they are increasingly
also at odds over the very foundations of our constitutional order. Political scientists have
a term for what the United States is witnessing right now. It's called "regime cleavage," a
division within the population marked by conflict about the foundations of the governing
system itself -- in the American case, our constitutional democracy. In societies facing a
regime cleavage, a growing number of citizens and officials believe that norms, institutions
and laws may be ignored, subverted or replaced." • Seems reasonable. Here's the tell:
"Decades ago, a regime cleavage divided Chileans, with conservatives aligning against the
elected government of Salvador Allende and eventually leading to a coup that replaced him
with General Augusto Pinochet." How on earth to do you write about the coup in Chile without
mentioning the role of the intelligence community? Well, the same way you write about a
change in the Constitutional order today, without mentioning the intelligence community.
IMO there is a lot of evidence of incompetence and malfeasance in the leadership of the 17
agencies of the Intelligence Community and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. A partial list
of failures and misdeeds:
1. They failed to predict the collapse of the USSR. There was a lot of scholarship on the
subject before the event and individual analysts were sure that the end was approaching for the
Soviet government but the agencies refused to believe that such a thing could happen. Why? The
IC accepted the insistence of the elected government of the US that history would continue in a
straight line forever with concomitant profits for industry.
2. They failed to predict 9/11. This failure was not "failing to connect the dots." It was
largely a failure to run clandestine HUMINT collection operations well enough to know what
al-Qa'ida was up to in detail. This was not an impossible task. The IC was offered the means of
penetration of the group and refused to take the risk of disclosure with subsequent damage to
executives careers even though it was well understood how dangerous AQ was after the East
Africa bombings.
3. They failed to infiltrate Al-Qa'ida before 9/11. Once again, this was not an impossible
task. I could tell you how, but ...
4. The FBI has repeatedly participated in DoJ efforts to "frame" persons charged in federal
courts. They helped DoJ prosecutors do that to Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. To my certain and
personal knowledge from my work as a consultant to the federal courts and an expert witness in
national security cases the FBI/DoJ have repeatedly withheld evidence from the discovery
process in which security cleared defense attorneys were due this knowledge, I have seen the
FBI bribe witnesses to testify against defendants on what amounted to a contingency basis,
i.e., no conviction, no fee.
5. And then there is the current murky situation concerning the leaders of the IC; Brennan,
Clapper etc., and the leaders of the FBI. IMO it is clear that whatever they did exactly, they
aligned themselves against Candidate/President elect Trump.
There are many, many more examples but time and space available here must limit my
recitation of these issues.
Tell me, pilgrims, why should we put up with such nonsense? Why should we pay the leaders of
these agencies for the privilege of having them abuse us? We are free men and women. Let us
send these swine to their just deserts in a world where they have to work hard for whatever
money they earn.
TTG and I are agreed that the very first thing to do is strip CIA of whatever role they
still have in the world of Covert Action. CA includes all measures short of war but more
violent than diplomacy that are taken to implement legal US foreign policy. The CIA should not
have this mission, one they have shared with the armed forces since 9/11. CIA's present mission
is to serve as the main US Clandestine Service, backed up by the military. In this role they
are supposed to recruit foreigners to spy for us but also to run a large part of CA. It is
obvious to anyone who has watched them try to do that over many decades that they simply lack
the skills needed. Watching them try, is like watching a monkey try to f---k a football. In
their efforts to comply with this mission the civilian leadership of CIA hire people who once
were soldiers but who sought other employment and they also borrow junior soldiers from Army
Special Forces. Why not cut out the "middle man" in the process and have the military run
CA?
An argument can be made that the FBI, the spawn of J. Edgar Hoover's peculiar brain (he
amassed dossiers on US politicians in order to control them) and the CIA an artifact of the
Cold War (which ALWAYS had too much power) should simply be torn down as institutions and
replaced with other government bodies more reflective of our collective nation values.
The country needs a police agency that obeys the law. The country needs a small agency to
conduct strategic level penetrations of important foreign threats.
Should existing structures like the US Marshal's Service and/or DIA be given the missions of
the CIA and FBI or should altogether new groups be constructed with better controls inflicted
on them?
Well over a decade and half ago our local Committee on Foreign Relations (parent company
Council on Foreign Relations CFT) had a guest speaker on this exact topic -what are we
getting from the millions (billions?) spent on our IC community.
He also at that time presented a compelling list of intelligence failures, and questioned
the value of this operation's continued existence. Wish I could recall who the speaker was,
other than being surprised such clearly "anti-government" position was being presented under
the auspices of the CFR.
Sir,
It seems like we've reached a juncture where burning these agencies to the ground is
necessary. You'd greatly expand the US Marshall's investigative abilities and pass the CIA's
mission over to the military. Fine. However, you've still got the DoJ involved with the
Marshalls and you've got people like Vindman in the military and you've got people like
Clinton and Kerry at State, etc. Why wouldn't the Marshalls and military, in time, become as
corrupt and incompetent as the FBI and CIA?
Then there's the lack of congressional and executive oversight (or worse, mal-direction)
that has allowed a lot of the corruption and incompetence to flourish. Our elected reps are,
for the most part, very shabby people.
So I'm not optimistic about the longer term impact, but yeah, burn them down as an object
lesson for the time being.
You could start your bill of particulars a lot earlier than 1991. The CIA systematically
overstated the capabilities of the Soviet Union over a period of 40 years. That had serious
policy implications which reach right down to the present day. Then there were the Bay of
Pigs failure and Aldrich Ames.
It is said that Greed is the root of all evil.
Uncontrolled capitalism is Greed.
Your Congress and Senate are bought by money, To become elected to any government position
usually goes to the highest bidder.
Board members get rich by share buybacks that drain the blood from your companies enriching a
few shareholders on the way. One only needs to use Boeing as example once a great innovator
and engineering company now it is like a sleigh of hands.
So of course all levels of government are corrupted
Hollywood and the media controlled by a few extremely wealthy who's agenda certainly does not
support America or the American people.
So to talk about your changing your letter agencies is to try to fix the symptoms not the
cause.
Uncontrolled capitalism is nothing more than a willing buyer meeting a willing seller. Both
are mutually greedy - one wants a high price; one wants a low price. Nothing has changed.
Maybe you are talking about class envy, Chibi.
Turning to the FBI, why should the agency exist at all? We got along fine for more than a
century without it. It didn't serve its present "elite" role until 1982 and it has been a
notable failure in that regard, as demonstrated by your list.
Presently, there are more than 30 different armed law enforcement agencies in the federal
government--everything from the Marshalls Service to Fish & Wildlife. At best the FBI is
redundant.
How can they be cleaned out when the whole government appears infiltrated with individuals
disloyal to the Constitution. And the hypocrites say this
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which I am about to enter: So help me God."
turcopolier
"No. Neocons seek world domination under their rule. The US is just a tool for them."
As far as I can see they hate National Borders as you have stated. I wouldn't be surprised
at this point that the massive illegal immigration was allowed to happen in order to destroy
the fabric of society in the United States with the eventual goal of a North American Union.
The EU is definitely the model for a "Republic" of World Governments which will only be a
mask or veil for a tyranny much as it is today. But much much worse is planned in my
opinion.
It is time individuals start deciding which Father they will follow. The "God" of this
World known as Death or the God of Life. That's the way it was put to me. And that's the way
it will be put to the inhabitants of Planet Earth. We will either have a Kingdom of Hell or a
Kingdom of Heaven. No more straddling the fence.
I will never betray him again. And look forward to meeting the Bastard on the
Battlefield.
Sometimes analysis of long serving success may reveal how the nation might proceed. A case in
point -- Morris, Jack and Benjamin Childs and their wives. Morris who?
Morris and Jack Childs were early graduates of a 1920 Soviet spy school. They returned to
the US and operated in the Illinois area with some success, especially during the Depression
years. Morris developed a heart condition during WWII and was abandoned by the Communist
Party of America. His brothers dropped extraneous activity and focused their time and
resources on helping him.
Then . . . the FBI came calling. At government expense Morris was moved to the Mayo Clinic
and Jack was instructed to solicit assistance from Party Chapters all across the US. The
money received was minimal, but donors were enthusiastically thanked.
By 1950, Morris had risen to the #2 position in the Communist Party of America, which
involved his visiting Russia for a month at a time, several times every year to discuss
budget and operations. As a communist graduate of the "heroic" age, he became a discreet
father figure for everyone in the Politburo. (All his fellow graduates had been eliminated
during the Stalin years.) His friends in Moscow learned that their confidences and expressed
annoyances were sympathetically discussed, but never shared with rivals. Ultimately, the
Kremlin asked him to visit Mao in Peking, Castro in Havana to smooth over disputes -- Morris
was the go-to friend to the Politburo.
A word about Jack and Benjamin. They established a mail-order business selling white shoes
and clothes to nurses, called "Women in White," as a cover for the income Morris enjoyed as
an invalid. Periodically, Jack would visit New York to order clothing and collect Soviet
funds, using time-consuming Soviet methods to detect whether he was being followed.
The FBI never revealed anything about the Childs. In fact, many of Morris' FBI handlers in
Chicago were never promoted from modest GS 11 and 12 positions. The very valuable
intelligence delivered by Morris was disguised by the FBI handlers in "think essays," or as
electronic intercepts.
By 1977, Morris was visibly failing. He made one last trip to Moscow and Andropov
organized a magnificent dinner for hundreds in the Kremlin. On his return to Chicago, an
unknown moving company assisted the family to relocate to Florida amid numerous well wishing
farewells. Somehow, communication with the Childs in Florida ceased -- perhaps Morris had
died.
For a fascinating read: Operation Solo: The FBI's Man in the Kremlin, by John Daniel
Barron.
As Colonel Lang said, the first step is to transfer all covert action to DoD. That's where it
belongs. The CIA grabbed onto that as it became their raison d'être with their
"capture, kill" mantra after 9/11 and it has only gotten worse since then. The majority of
their paramilitary officers are former SF soldiers and Rangers. We might as well hire these
former soldiers back into DIA and JSOC similar to the Military Intelligence Civilian Excepted
Career Program long used by the Army and DIA for HUMINT officers. Hell, we've already used
civilian HUMINTers in special mission units. I was one of them.
The CIA is largely into liaison and Embassy operations, the cocktail party circuit. The
Army and, later, the DIA relied mainly on rather scruffy and low level commercial cover
operations. In my opinion, it takes a lot more skill to develop and run HUMINT operations
using a scruffy, nobody cover than than as an Embassy official. We, the military, can do both
well. I don't know if the same can be said of most CIA officers. Although, I have to admit
the CIA does a much better job at developing cover support mechanisms. Maybe that's a niche
for them. Having said that, there are more than enough intelligence requirements to keep two
HUMINT organizations fully employed. Let DIA support DoD's requirements and let a CIA without
CA or paramilitary capabilities support DoS, Commerce Department, and DOE requirements. CIA
is always trying to hog military support. Stay in your lane!
I agree with Eric Newhill in that much of the FBI's problems lie with the DOJ and the
court system. Our adversarial system either seeks a conviction or seeks to avoid a
conviction. Truth and justice take a backseat to these goals. Maybe there should be
separation of law enforcement and counter-intelligence. I'm not sure how that would work yet,
but that whole Homeland Security mess ought to be included in our bonfire of the
Agencies.
From a mere citizen of our battered Republic, no expertise in intelligence work other than
distrusting everything the Borg wants me to believe, I say huzzah to you sir. As others said,
the rot infects all society in interlocking, Byzantine knots. But the I.C. is a good place to
start. After all, no reforms will matter if we let these maniacs pull us into thermonuclear
extinction. Priorities.
No organization is immune from the effects of men and women with huge egos and a lust for
power---not the elected government institutions, the government bureaucracy, the military, or
even the church. One consolation throughout this attempted "coup" upon Trump has been the
fact that the full weight of the military is not behind this. What happens if our foreign
intelligence is handled by the military and it becomes corrupt? Who is to stop them?
Can we talk about what is so much at stake that those inside our government would plot
against our system of government, just to ensure they get their hands on it?
'Power" is not the answer -- power to do what? Is it just money- hands on our own tax
money? Ego. Is it a guy thing? Hanging on to nice house in, Foxhall, Bethesda or Spring
Valley?
What drove this insider cabal, who already were at the peak of their power in this the
most powerful nation on the planet, to plot this alleged coup?
Given Ciaramella's rise within the Obama administration intelligence community, radio host
Rush Limbaugh frames
him as a spy
:
"He's lurking in there in the West Wing as an Obama holdover.
He's essentially a
spy for John Brennan
, and he's there to do the dirty work of the deep state." -
Rush
Limbaugh
Limbaugh cites journalist
Sharyl Attkisson
who wrote in response to Sperry's 'outing' of Ciaramella, " If the reporting
is correct, it implies
the "whistleblower" could have been worried Trump was getting close
to uncovering Democrat links to Ukraine's interference in US elections in 2016.
"
And if Ciaramella
was
a deep-state spy in the West Wing,
former FBI employees
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are potentially involved
- as pieced together by
Fox News
contributor and former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino, who starts with an
April 25 letter
from Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) to Attorney General
William Barr asking about
cryptic text messages between Strzok and Page
in which
they discuss someone named "Charlie" who may be "the CI guy."
Bongino posits that Strzok and Page may be talking about Ciaramella being a "Confidential
Informant" (CI), or spy - and 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.
Finally,
also discussed in Bongino's podcast, is an invitation for a series of events
sponsored by major Clinton Foundation donor ($25 million) and Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk
in the spring of 2016
. It looks to be an Ukrainian outreach type of event. Ukrainian
member of parliament Olga Bielkova is scheduled to meet with none other than Eric Ciaramella.
She hates Trump. (This can be viewed at 22:08 in the video.)
The emerging image of EC shows him to be a hyper-partisan Democrat, well-connected
within the ranks of the deep state, who was possibly spying on the Trump White House for the FBI
.
As voters see the individual behind the whistleblower complaint which has triggered an
impeachment inquiry, they will "have thoughts" about the Democrats.
Perhaps we'll find out more about Ciaramella from
John Durham
, the prosecutor
appointed by Barr to investigate the origins of the "Russiagate" counterintelligence operation
against the Trump campaign. As Rush Limbaugh puts it, this is a race between impeachment and a
Durham indictment.
Several mainstream media have made claims that Joe Biden's
intervention in the Ukraine and the Ukrainian interference in
the U.S. election are "conspiracy theories" and "debunked". The
public record proves them wrong. By ignoring or even
contradicting the facts the media create an opening for Trump
to rightfully accuse them of providing "fake news".
There are some serious questions around the Biden family
involvement in the Ukraine that the media have not picked up
on.
The first regards the ownership of the company which hired
Joe Biden's son Hunter for an exorbitant amount of money while
Joe Biden ran the U.S. Ukraine policy.
The second question is about the firing of the Viktor
Shokin, the former Prosecutor General of the Ukraine. Trump
accuses Joe Biden of having intervened in favor of his son's
sponsor to get Shokin fired. The timeline below supports that
assertion.
That Lisa Page needs to be put in prison for a long ******* time.
She's been playing her **** **** games with Congress and Trump for
a couple of years, then she lies under oath. **** her, send her
away.
Who ever was running that loser SJW Charlie needs to be
indicted and thrown in prison as well.
Starting with Hillary, Obama, Biden, Holder, Brennan, Clapper,
Strock, Page, Comey, and that cankle pig Loretta Lynch...this is
good start.....and by the way, don't let that pig Donna Brazille
off either for what she did..all of these people need to pay. And
when they pay, then it is payback for Rachel Maddow...Don Lemon,
Chris Hayes, Lawrence O'Donnel, Anderson Cooper, etc.
And then...who else do I want to see BURN IN HELL...Pelosi,
Schiff, Waters, Fat **** Nadler, and that pig Shiela "Hand them an
envelope of cash" Lee. I almost forgot that piece of **** Eric
Swalwell.
You left out Criminal at Large, Debbie Wasserman Shultz. Let's
also not forget the Awan brothers. Anthony Weiner's laptop,
Seth Rich & Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious
Psychopath at Large, Hillary Rodham Clinton's 33,000 missing
emails.
I know Lieutenant Colonel Alex
Vindman from a combined US-Russian exercise called Atlas Vision 13 in Grafenwoher, Germany.
He worked with the Russian Embassy and I was assigned to the Joint Multinational Training
Command within US Army Europe. Vindman worked coordination with the Russian 15th Peacekeeping
Brigade, and I was in charge of all Simulations planning, as well as assisting the US Army
Europe Lead Planner as the Senior Military Planner.
Share
photo credit:
Адміністрація
Президента
України
Alexander Vindman
I have a confession. I behaved badly recently, and I'm just going to admit it.
As a guest at a dinner party in Georgetown, I stormed in and started bossing everyone
around. First, I demanded that the foyer be painted a different color and wainscoting be added
to the dining room. Then I had my hosts assemble their children so I could give them all
different names. Before making my exit, I grabbed two legs of turkey off the entree platter and
stuffed them in my purse.
I have a second confession. None of that happened. But if it had, I would be exactly like
Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman.
He was born in Ukraine and raised there until age 3 1/2, when he was invited to our country.
As you've no doubt heard, he served in our military. Thank you for your service, Colonel!
Now he is the top Ukrainian adviser on the National Security Council. Of all the people who
could look out for the U.S.'s interests vis-a-vis Ukraine, we got someone who was born
there.
As such, Vindman was permitted to listen to a phone call the president of the United States
made to the president of Ukraine -- a completely unnecessary, pro forma task.
So, naturally, when he had a policy disagreement with President Trump pertaining to the
country he was born in, he thought he had a responsibility to agitate for removal proceedings
against the duly elected U.S. president, just as I might have taken issue with the carpets in
the Georgetown townhouse.
"Foreign policy is the idiot's shortcut to imagined erudition, the
last refuge of the insufferable."
For some reason, we keep hearing about Col. Vindman's valor and patriotism. I don't doubt
that he's a super swell guy. But unless I missed it in the newspapers at the time, I don't
believe he was elected president in 2016. In fact, there's a specific constitutional provision
that prevents Col. Vindman from ever being president: He wasn't born here.
Study question: Why might the framers have added that clause?
It would be bad enough if Col. Vindman's policy disagreement with the president had to do
with U.S. policy on Mexico or North Korea. But it was about the country where Col. Vindman was
born.
We're always told that Democrats don't have to prove wrongdoing by Trump -- for example,
under the emoluments clause, in his foreign policy negotiations or when he fired his FBI
director. Rather, it's claimed that Trump's conduct creates the appearance of impropriety.
Well, having a Ukrainian-born analyst butt in to ensure U.S. foreign aid flows effortlessly
to the country of his birth gives the appearance that he's concerned about fairness to Ukraine.
That's not what this is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about what's in the best
interests of the United States.
Worse, Vindman was dealing with the U.S.'s Ukrainian policy versus Russia, which Ukrainians
hate because Stalin murdered millions of them. It's like having an Armenian advise on whether
we should be hostile to Turkey.
This is not the usual dual loyalty claim insultingly attributed to Irish or Jewish Americans
who were born in this country. Lots of us have admixtures of other nationalities.
But when you were actually born in another country and that's the precise policy matter
you're sticking your nose into, people are going to wonder if it's really our national
interests you're looking out for.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 1: Immigrants are required to wait a minimum of two
(2) generations before bossing around the most successful, prosperous, free country on Earth,
and fully three (3) generations before advising on our government's policy toward the countries
of their forefathers.
We also need a constitutional amendment directed at 10th-generation Americans who fancy
themselves foreign policy experts. Foreign policy is the idiot's shortcut to imagined
erudition, the last refuge of the insufferable.
Sen. Lindsey Graham was on TV last week, bragging about how he'd been to Syria --
Afghanistan? Iraq? Who cares! -- 75 times.
Not one person who voted for Graham has the peace and contentment of Syrians on his Top Ten
Concerns list. Like everyone else, South Carolinians care about their jobs, their safety, their
neighborhoods, their country.
But Sen. Graham wouldn't sound like a deep intellectual if he went on TV and started talking
about water treatment plants, despite the fact that clean drinking water is of far greater
interest to his constituents.
It's very romantic to think of yourself as a geopolitical chess player, jetting around the
globe and staying in five-star hotels in Riyadh and Paris, chatting with dictators and
reporting back your impressions as a Master of the Universe -- I'm very concerned about the
leadership of the Kurds Richard Haas wrote a fascinating treatise about how our policy has been
deficient in the following nine ways I'll be sure to bring that up next week when I'm meeting
with the E.U.
These are the kinds of people who would join Mensa.
It would be annoying enough if government officials, whose salaries we pay, spent all their
time working on the betterment of other nations, but at least everything turned out GREAT. In
fact, however, they're never right, they always make things worse, and they never pay a price
because, again, no one cares.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 2: Elected officials may take one government-funded
boondoggle abroad for every three (3) trips they make to our southern border.
Given Ciaramella's rise within the Obama administration intelligence community, radio host
Rush Limbaugh frames
him as a spy
:
"He's lurking in there in the West Wing as an Obama holdover.
He's essentially a
spy for John Brennan
, and he's there to do the dirty work of the deep state." -
Rush
Limbaugh
Limbaugh cites journalist
Sharyl Attkisson
who wrote in response to Sperry's 'outing' of Ciaramella, " If the reporting
is correct, it implies
the "whistleblower" could have been worried Trump was getting close
to uncovering Democrat links to Ukraine's interference in US elections in 2016.
"
And if Ciaramella
was
a deep-state spy in the West Wing,
former FBI employees
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are potentially involved
- as pieced together by
Fox News
contributor and former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino, who starts with an
April 25 letter
from Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) to Attorney General
William Barr asking about
cryptic text messages between Strzok and Page
in which
they discuss someone named "Charlie" who may be "the CI guy."
Bongino posits that Strzok and Page may be talking about Ciaramella being a "Confidential
Informant" (CI), or spy - and 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.
Finally,
also discussed in Bongino's podcast, is an invitation for a series of events
sponsored by major Clinton Foundation donor ($25 million) and Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk
in the spring of 2016
. It looks to be an Ukrainian outreach type of event. Ukrainian
member of parliament Olga Bielkova is scheduled to meet with none other than Eric Ciaramella.
She hates Trump. (This can be viewed at 22:08 in the video.)
The emerging image of EC shows him to be a hyper-partisan Democrat, well-connected
within the ranks of the deep state, who was possibly spying on the Trump White House for the FBI
.
As voters see the individual behind the whistleblower complaint which has triggered an
impeachment inquiry, they will "have thoughts" about the Democrats.
Perhaps we'll find out more about Ciaramella from
John Durham
, the prosecutor
appointed by Barr to investigate the origins of the "Russiagate" counterintelligence operation
against the Trump campaign. As Rush Limbaugh puts it, this is a race between impeachment and a
Durham indictment.
"... This led to the formation of the Church Committee, which investigated abuses by the CIA, NSA and FBI. Senator Frank Church, commenting on the committees’ findings, warned that the NSA has the capability “to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency… operate[s] within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss.” ..."
"... The Nixon impeachment inquiry and the Iran-Contra scandals involved vast crimes, rooted, fundamentally, in the prosecution of illegal wars in pursuit of predatory US policy interests. They exposed sweeping abuses of democratic rights, from the COINTELPRO operation exposed by the Church Committee, to the revelation of the Rex 84 plan for mass detention of “subversive” elements documented by the Iran-Contra hearings. ..."
"... the present impeachment hearing is the exact opposite of the investigation of Watergate and Iran-Contra ..."
"... The broad unpopularity of war abroad has created a crisis of legitimacy for the Democrats’ impeachment drive. As might be expected, the Democrats have not mobilized significant popular support on this basis. ..."
"... And definitely any rational conclusion would not call for, as proposed by church commission, doomed to failure futile act of what amounts to harsh criticism, admonition of security and surveillance apparatus, an effective slap in a cheek proposing supposed remedial therapy that resembled instructing alcoholic to drink two not four drinks a day and call it moderation and compliance with.. US constitutional norms. ..."
"... And supposed fig leaf of FISA court pushed by Church Commission proven to never stopping any illegal spying and only confirming that US was always run by ruling elite delegating executive power to Deep State security and surveillance apparatus while POTUS belongs to stage theatrics of bourgeois liberal political puppet show. ..."
"... Unexpected benefit of Trump was that he inadvertently revealed true reality of US system of power where elections are meaningless as elected puppets have no power at all, they only may, more or less convincingly, pretend that they do if they smartly align their own blabbering with decisions already taken by ruling elite and being executed by Deep State. ..."
"... As a narcissistic oligarch Trump has pathological inability to follow, he had to reverse his decisions 99% of time after the fact. ..."
"... All is smoke and mirrors when it comes to the political establishment . It relies on ''workers being donkeys '' but alas for them the ''donkeys'' have found their political voice and for whatever the crimes of Trump, many if not most, remember the treachery of the Democrats ..."
"... Notice how the impeachment of Nixon, the Reagan Iran-Contra investigation, and now Trump's impeachment are all related to decades of insidious security state machinations tied to US imperialism and neoliberalism. ..."
"... Presidents don't get impeached or investigated for "committing social crimes" against the working-class they're only investigated, prosecuted or impeached when they lose favor with factions of the security state and the ruling class. Investigations of presidents are always internecine battles between segments of the military/surveillance/corporate state. ..."
"... If that was NOT the case, then Clinton, Bush, and Obama would have been impeached for war crimes. Trump, would be impeached not for his Ukraine phone call, but for his policies that resulted in the death of migrant children, the corruption within federal agencies, the deregulation of the EPA accelerating planetary ecocide, and for his numerous promises to the working-class about providing decent healthcare and good paying jobs, but were nothing but lies. ..."
"... The only thing that has changed over the last four decades is that the security state is now fully partnered with corporate mainstream media news and entertainment. They work seamlessly to propagandize the American public so that even liberals are convinced that being a Joe McCarthyite Russophobe is progressive ..."
In light of Thursday’s vote in the US House of Representatives to formalize the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump,
it is worth contrasting the events now unfolding in Washington to those that led to the resignation of Richard Nixon 45
years ago.
In July 1974, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon. The direct
cause of the impeachment proceeding was the Watergate scandal, in which Nixon directed a group of burglars known as the
“White House Plumbers” to break into and wiretap the offices of the Democratic National Committee.
However, the impeachment inquiry unveiled a far broader range of crimes by the administration. Among the five articles
of impeachment debated on the committee was one that accused Nixon of “the submission to Congress of false and misleading
statements concerning the existence, scope, and nature of American bombing operations in Cambodia” in connection to the
Vietnam War.
Before Watergate, the first task of Nixon’s “plumbers” was to burglarize the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist.
The aim was to discredit the man who released the Pentagon Papers, which documented that the White House “systematically
lied, not only to the public but also to Congress,” about the conduct of the war.
This burglary, as one commentator noted, linked “Vietnam and Watergate in one continuous 1961-to-1975 story.”
“In 1973 the Senate Watergate Committee investigation revealed that the executive branch had directed national
intelligence agencies to carry out constitutionally questionable domestic security operations,” notes the official history
by the United States Senate. “In 1974 Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh published a front-page New York
Times article claiming that the CIA had been spying on anti-war activists for more than a decade, violating the
agency’s charter.”
This led to the formation of the Church Committee, which investigated abuses by the CIA, NSA and FBI. Senator Frank
Church, commenting on the committees’ findings, warned that the NSA has the capability “to make tyranny total in America,
and we must see to it that this agency… operate[s] within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over
that abyss.”
Twelve years later, another crisis erupted in Washington, which nearly led to the impeachment of Ronald Reagan, who was
only saved by the unwillingness of the Democrats to remove him.
The crisis 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. According to the CIA officer
in charge of the covert war, the Contras routinely murdered “civilians and Sandinista officials in the provinces, as well
as heads of cooperatives, nurses, doctors and judges.”
The investigation revealed that the Reagan administration flagrantly violated the Boland Amendment, passed by Congress
to prohibit US government assistance to the Contras.
The Nixon impeachment inquiry and the Iran-Contra scandals involved vast crimes, rooted, fundamentally, in the
prosecution of illegal wars in pursuit of predatory US policy interests. They exposed sweeping abuses of democratic
rights, from the COINTELPRO operation exposed by the Church Committee, to the revelation of the Rex 84 plan for mass
detention of “subversive” elements documented by the Iran-Contra hearings.
One need only review this history to see that the present impeachment hearing is the exact opposite of the
investigation of Watergate and Iran-Contra. Instead of exposing and curbing the criminal activities of the US intelligence
agencies and military, it is aimed at expanding and empowering them.
House speaker Nancy Pelosi summed up the basis of the impeachment inquiry as follows: “In one phone conversation, he
[Trump] undermined our national security by withholding military assistance to a country [Ukraine] that has been voted on
by the Congress of the United States—to the benefit of the Russians.”
Trump, as former CIA Director David Petraeus recently put it, stands accused of “holding up assistance that’s
desperately needed by those who are on the front lines” of a war waged by the US-backed Ukrainian government against
forces aligned with Russia. Petraeus added, “This is World War I… it's a very hot war still going on.”
The broad unpopularity of war abroad has created a crisis of legitimacy for the Democrats’ impeachment drive. As might
be expected, the Democrats have not mobilized significant popular support on this basis. As Times columnist David
Brooks wrote, “For most [Americans], impeachment is not a priority. It’s a dull background noise… the fundamental reality
is that many Americans are indifferent.”
In fact, the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry has more in common with the impeachment of Bill Clinton by the Republicans,
in which a concocted sexual scandal was used as a cover for a right-wing agenda.
From the outset, as the World Socialist Web Site has explained, the Democrats’ opposition to Trump has had
nothing in common with the popular opposition to his fascistic administration. It is one side in a conflict within the
capitalist ruling class and the state, primarily over foreign policy questions.
From the day of Trump’s inauguration, when millions protested across the country, the Democratic Party has worked to
contain popular anger and channel it behind a pro-war agenda. It has sought to suppress opposition to Trump’s fascistic
assault on immigrants, his moves toward dictatorship, his praise for neo-Nazis, his tax cuts for the rich and his attacks
on social programs for workers and poor people.
The Democrats are neither able to nor willing to make any democratic appeal to the popular hatred of Trump. Having long
ago abandoned any program of social reform directed toward the working class, the Democratic Party has evolved into an
organization based on an alliance of the intelligence agencies, sections of finance and the affluent upper-middle class.
The current impeachment drive has no progressive or democratic content. The Democrats are attempting to impeach Trump
on false pretenses, concealing their real objectives. It has all the elements, in other words, of a palace coup.
As the Socialist Equality Party Political Committee wrote in its
statement posted October 14, “No to American
fascism! Build a mass movement to force Trump out!”:
So long as the conflict is confined to the divisions within the ruling class, there can be no democratic or
progressive outcome. Should the impeachment drive of the Democrats fail, it will strengthen Trump’s political position.
Should it succeed, it will elevate Trump’s factotum, Mike Pence, to the presidency. Moreover, impeachment will actually
strengthen the political influence of the CIA and FBI over the White House. It will legitimize a foreign policy based
on an anti-Russia hysteria that will justify a dangerous confrontation with a nuclear-armed power. Either outcome
represents an immense danger to the working class.
The fight against Trump can only take a progressive character to the extent that is completely separate from, and
hostile to, the palace coup being orchestrated by the Democrats on behalf of the intelligence agencies and the military.
It must be conducted by the working class through the expansion of the class struggle against war, dictatorship and
social inequality. It must be informed by a conscious struggle to put an end to capitalism, the source of war and
inequality, and establish a socialist society.
As author correctly point out true crimes of POTUS against life, human rights, against peace,
tranquility and prosperity committed in the name not of American people but on orders from
ruling elite he serves were never on trial and so called oversight procedures were all sham.
Example of praised Church commission that supposedly rein in CIA and NSA:
Church Committee, which investigated abuses by the CIA, NSA and FBI. Senator Frank Church,
commenting on the committees' findings, warned that the NSA has the capability "to make
tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency operate[s] within the law
and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss.
Would that shocking disclosure of a grave, existential threat to democracy not solicit the
only rational response namely abolition, dismantling and prosecution of all US security
agencies including political police called FBI?
And definitely any rational conclusion would not call for, as proposed by church
commission, doomed to failure futile act of what amounts to harsh criticism, admonition of
security and surveillance apparatus, an effective slap in a cheek proposing supposed remedial
therapy that resembled instructing alcoholic to drink two not four drinks a day and call it
moderation and compliance with.. US constitutional norms.
And supposed fig leaf of FISA court pushed by Church Commission proven to never stopping
any illegal spying and only confirming that US was always run by ruling elite delegating
executive power to Deep State security and surveillance apparatus while POTUS belongs to
stage theatrics of bourgeois liberal political puppet show.
Unexpected benefit of Trump was that he inadvertently revealed true reality of US system
of power where elections are meaningless as elected puppets have no power at all, they only
may, more or less convincingly, pretend that they do if they smartly align their own
blabbering with decisions already taken by ruling elite and being executed by Deep State.
As a narcissistic oligarch Trump has pathological inability to follow, he had to reverse his
decisions 99% of time after the fact.
Impeachment? Hollow spectacle to cover up real high crimes and misdemeanors.
All is smoke and mirrors when it comes to the political establishment . It relies on
''workers being donkeys '' but alas for them the ''donkeys'' have found their political voice
and for whatever the crimes of Trump, many if not most, remember the treachery of the
Democrats.
As this tale plays itself out, it does so in a world where the condition of the working
class may be confused somewhat, but the condition for the ruling class is ''hopeless''.
They simply have ''no'' solutions based on the free market and a nationalist perspective
that the working class could be remotely interested in .
"The Nixon impeachment inquiry and the Iran-Contra scandals involved vast crimes, rooted,
fundamentally, in the prosecution of illegal wars in pursuit of predatory US policy
interests.
One need only review this history to see that the present impeachment hearing is the exact
opposite of the investigation of Watergate and Iran-Contra. Instead of exposing and curbing
the criminal activities of the US intelligence agencies and military, it is aimed at
expanding and empowering them."
Notice how the impeachment of Nixon, the Reagan Iran-Contra investigation, and now Trump's
impeachment are all related to decades of insidious security state machinations tied to US
imperialism and neoliberalism.
Even Lewinisky's "blue dress" was not just about Bill Clinton's debauchery which was a
known fact since Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, but was used by the intelligence agencies
as leverage to ensure the continuation of military interventions in the Middle East, Eastern
Europe, and Africa as well as the implementation of extremely exploitative economic polices
in the US and abroad transferring enormous wealth to Wall Street, the big banks and the arms
industry.
Presidents don't get impeached or investigated for "committing social crimes" against
the working-class they're only investigated, prosecuted or impeached when they lose favor
with factions of the security state and the ruling class. Investigations of presidents are
always internecine battles between segments of the military/surveillance/corporate
state.
If that was NOT the case, then Clinton, Bush, and Obama would have been impeached for
war crimes. Trump, would be impeached not for his Ukraine phone call, but for his policies
that resulted in the death of migrant children, the corruption within federal agencies, the
deregulation of the EPA accelerating planetary ecocide, and for his numerous promises to the
working-class about providing decent healthcare and good paying jobs, but were nothing but
lies.
The only thing that has changed over the last four decades is that the security state
is now fully partnered with corporate mainstream media news and entertainment. They work
seamlessly to propagandize the American public so that even liberals are convinced that being
a Joe McCarthyite Russophobe is progressive .
"... The main difference is that the right of the president to have his own attorneys attend and participate at sessions of the Judiciary Committee is conditional on Trump dropping his order that executive branch officials refuse to testify before the various House probes or supply documents to them. ..."
"... Already, on Thursday, the Intelligence Committee took hours of testimony from Bolton's top deputy for Russia and Eastern Europe, Timothy Morrison. Morrison was brought on the National Security Council by Bolton with main responsibility for White House policy on weapons of mass destruction. He spearheaded the drive by the Trump administration to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which both he and Bolton vehemently opposed, in order to give the US military the green light to develop nuclear missiles that could target China from US bases like Guam, other US-controlled islands, and ships in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. ..."
"... There are other indications that Bolton is playing a key role behind the scenes in the gathering storm over impeachment. Two Democratic senators have sent a letter to US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer seeking details on the Trump administration's decision not to restore Ukrainian access to the "generalized system of preferences" (GSP), a program that benefits developing countries. The letter follows a Washington Post report October 24 that Bolton had warned Lighthizer not to seek restoration of benefits to Ukraine because Trump would not approve it, as part of his effort to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens. Given the content of the article, the most likely source for the leak is Bolton or one of his top aides. ..."
"... General Joseph F. Dunford, who retired only a month ago as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a statement to CNN Wednesday defending Colonel Vindman against attacks from Fox News and other ultra-right media, calling him "a professional, competent, patriotic, and loyal officer" who "has made an extraordinary contribution to the security of our nation in both peacetime and combat." ..."
"... Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan defended the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and agreed that she was the victim of a smear campaign by Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who helped engineer her recall from her post in Kiev because she was an obstacle to the effort to dig up dirt on the Bidens. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Boot focuses on two decisions that have most provoked the CIA-Pentagon-State Department axis of evil: holding up aid to Ukraine, thus undermining military operations against pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, and Trump's partial pullout of US forces in Syria. ..."
"... Boot is, of course, a fervent supporter of impeachment, because he sees that as a step towards reversing course on foreign policy and adopting a more aggressive and militaristic US role in the Middle East. His ranting only underscores the reality of the political conflict in Washington. ..."
By a near party-line vote of 232-196, the US House of Representatives voted Thursday for a
resolution laying out the procedures for the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump
that was begun September 24. The resolution sets the stage for the holding of public, televised
hearings and the likely drawing up of articles of impeachment in the course of the next
month.
Only two Democrats out of 233 in the House voted against the resolution, Jeff Van Drew of
New Jersey and Colin Peterson of Minnesota. Only one member elected as a Republican, Justin
Amash of Michigan, voted for the resolution. He left the Republican Party in July because of
his support for impeachment, and he now sits as an independent.
The sharp divisions over the resolution were reflected in the hour-long debate, in which
Republican defenders of Trump denounced the impeachment inquiry with hysterical anticommunist
rhetoric, calling it "Soviet-style" and a "show trial." Democrats wrapped themselves in the
American flag -- or displayed it on a large placard as they spoke, in the case of Speaker Nancy
Pelosi -- and denounced Trump for endangering US "national security."
The procedure laid down in the eight-page resolution, drafted Wednesday by the House Rules
Committee, gives an outsized role to the House Intelligence Committee, which is to begin public
hearings sometime in November at which many of the witnesses who have testified behind closed
doors will be asked to do so again in front of television cameras.
The Intelligence Committee, along with four other committees conducting investigations into
various aspects of President Trump's personal, business and official conduct, will report its
findings to the Judiciary Committee, which would actually draw up any articles of impeachment,
vote on them, and send them to the full House for final action.
The overall procedures, including provisions for extended questioning of witnesses by
representatives of both the majority and minority parties, conform generally to similar
measures adopted during the impeachment hearings against President Richard Nixon in 1974 and
President Bill Clinton in 1998.
The main difference is that the right of the president to have his own attorneys attend
and participate at sessions of the Judiciary Committee is conditional on Trump dropping his
order that executive branch officials refuse to testify before the various House probes or
supply documents to them.
In the event of continued presidential stonewalling of the House committees, the resolution
provides that the chair of the Judiciary Committee "shall have the discretion to impose
appropriate remedies, including by denying specific requests by the president or his counsel
under these procedures to call or question witnesses."
In other words, if Trump continues to block testimony and evidence, his attorneys will not
be allowed to cross-examine those witnesses who do appear despite the full-throated opposition
of the White House. Given that many officials and former officials of the Trump administration
have agreed to testify under subpoena, this could become a significant issue.
The special role of the House Intelligence Committee underscores the reactionary nature of
the Democrats' impeachment drive. Trump is being targeted, not for his real crimes as
president, attacking immigrants, undermining democratic rights, and asserting quasi-dictatorial
powers, but for his foreign policy actions that are opposed by a substantial section of the US
military-intelligence apparatus.
The witnesses testifying before the closed-door sessions of the Intelligence Committee are
not immigrant mothers, cruelly and in some cases permanently separated from their children, or
the victims of Trump-inspired fascist gunmen like the El Paso mass shooter. Instead, they are
an array of State Department and military officials at odds with Trump's efforts to browbeat
the government of Ukraine into supplying him with political dirt against former vice president
Joe Biden, viewed by Trump as a likely opponent in the 2020 election.
Particularly significant in that context is the announcement that the Intelligence Committee
has set a November 7 date for the testimony of John Bolton, Trump's former national security
advisor. It is not clear whether Bolton will testify, but the potential alignment of the
Democrats and one of the most notorious war criminals in the American government is a clear
demonstration of the reactionary motives of the Democrats, who are acting as front men for
rabid warmongers in the national-security state.
Already, on Thursday, the Intelligence Committee took hours of testimony from Bolton's
top deputy for Russia and Eastern Europe, Timothy Morrison. Morrison was brought on the
National Security Council by Bolton with main responsibility for White House policy on weapons
of mass destruction. He spearheaded the drive by the Trump administration to withdraw from the
Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which both he and Bolton vehemently opposed, in order
to give the US military the green light to develop nuclear missiles that could target China
from US bases like Guam, other US-controlled islands, and ships in the Pacific and Indian
Oceans.
Morrison is the highest-ranking Trump aide to provide evidence to the Intelligence
Committee, and he announced his impending departure from the White House on Wednesday night,
hours before he was sworn in as a witness. According to leaks to the press from the closed-door
hearing, Morrison largely confirmed the testimony of other witnesses, particularly Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman, that there was a direct quid pro quo involved in US policy towards Ukraine:
Trump demanded a public investigation into the Democratic Party and the Bidens, in return for
military aid and a visit by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the White House.
There are other indications that Bolton is playing a key role behind the scenes in the
gathering storm over impeachment. Two Democratic senators have sent a letter to US Trade
Representative Robert Lighthizer seeking details on the Trump administration's decision not to
restore Ukrainian access to the "generalized system of preferences" (GSP), a program that
benefits developing countries. The letter follows a Washington Post report October 24 that
Bolton had warned Lighthizer not to seek restoration of benefits to Ukraine because Trump would
not approve it, as part of his effort to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the
Bidens. Given the content of the article, the most likely source for the leak is Bolton or one
of his top aides.
There were further indications of support for the impeachment drive -- or at least for the
national-security officials who have come forward to testify against Trump -- from the top
levels of the military and diplomatic establishment. General Joseph F. Dunford, who retired
only a month ago as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a statement to CNN Wednesday
defending Colonel Vindman against attacks from Fox News and other ultra-right media, calling
him "a professional, competent, patriotic, and loyal officer" who "has made an extraordinary
contribution to the security of our nation in both peacetime and combat."
And in testimony Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is expected
to confirm his nomination to be US Ambassador to Russia, Deputy Secretary of State John
Sullivan defended the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and agreed that she was
the victim of a smear campaign by Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who helped engineer
her recall from her post in Kiev because she was an obstacle to the effort to dig up dirt on
the Bidens.
Asked whether it was "ever appropriate for the president to use his office to solicit
investigations into his domestic political opponents," Sullivan replied, "I don't think that
would be in accord with our values." Given Trump's frequent declarations that his telephone
conversation with Zelensky, in which he made just such a request, was "perfect," Sullivan's
statement is extraordinary. It suggests an unprecedented degree of open revolt against Trump
within the national-security establishment.
The real motives of the impeachment drive were spelled out with particular frenzy in a
column by neoconservative Max Boot, who, like Bolton, has been an all-out supporter of US
military aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and throughout the world. Writing in the
Washington Post , under the headline, "More Trump gifts to Russia," he declares,
"Trump is bringing the United States to its knees and making Russia great again."
Boot focuses on two decisions that have most provoked the CIA-Pentagon-State Department
axis of evil: holding up aid to Ukraine, thus undermining military operations against
pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, and Trump's partial pullout of US forces in
Syria.
He writes: "Russian soldiers are entering U.S. bases and taking up the joint patrolling
duties with the Turkish army that U.S. troops had been performing until recently. The fate of
Syria was settled not in Washington but in Sochi -- Putin's favorite Black Sea resort. Trump
has given Russia what it has sought for decades: a leading role in the Middle East. This is the
biggest geopolitical shift in the region since 1972 when Egypt's Anwar Sadat expelled Soviet
advisers and aligned with Washington."
Boot is, of course, a fervent supporter of impeachment, because he sees that as a step
towards reversing course on foreign policy and adopting a more aggressive and militaristic US
role in the Middle East. His ranting only underscores the reality of the political conflict in
Washington.
Petri Krohn's comment @37 "ERIC CIARAMELLA IS NOT A WHISTLEBLOWER - HE IS A SUSPECT"
Little mentioned is the server in Ukraine which was brought up in the phone call. Barr's
investigation has become a criminal investigation and interested in a server in Ukraine.
The impeachment farce is trying to put the focus on Biden, but the server may be what they
are trying to protect.
This impeachment show looks to be a rearguard or defensive action to try and stop the Barr
criminal investigation into russiagate.
Ukrainegate is the new Russiagate. The 'whistleblower complaint' is the new 'dirty
dossier'. The 'former' MI6 spy Christopher Steele wrote the dossier.
The whole impeachment
show the Democrats launched is a major political mistake. The Democrats have chosen the wrong
issue, Ukraine, where they themselves have a lot of ballast
The choice of a Trump phonecall with the Ukrainian president as the item to hang the
impeachment on is especially dumb. Trump's call was less incriminating than Biden's pressure
on the Ukrainian president
to help his son's paymaster . It is also a mistake to let the Chair of the House
Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff run the impeachment
process . Schiff already
flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was reported that
two members
of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the Obama National Security
Council, had advised him.
The process will create a lot of collateral damage. It will hurt a number people involved
in it, but it will not hurt Trump with his electorate. It will not end with impeachment. I
believe, like
Noam Chomsky , that it will, in the end, even help Trump
... the Democrats try to defeat him with theater. But Trump is a much better showman than
Schiff or any other Democrat. It almost looks as if they want Trump to win.
...To me, the question remains if the Dems are a totally lost party or if this process
will be the spark that refocus them with new leadership and a set of potential president/vice
that is some Bernie/Tulsi/Warren combo which could beat Trump, IMO.
..The DS must know that Biden or Warren are not going to beat Trump, so may have decided
they can keep Trumpy corralled by an endless stream of MIC Swampers
Schiff already flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was
reported that two members of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the
Obama National Security Council, had advised him.
Now that the identity of the "whistleblower" is apparently known, all the
Republicans under Devin Nunes have to do is sub-poena the "whistleblower" to attend.
The House Intelligence Committee will hold public hearings, and Republicans will need
approval from at least some Democrats to call witnesses or to otherwise issue subpoenas
.
But the Democrats will look like wankers and will eventually cave, because the Senate is
in no way obligated by the impeachment reolution. Schiff is so deranged about getting Trump
that he'll fail and Trump will win in 2020. Just like 2016 was Hillary Clinton's
responsibility, 2020 will be Adam Sciff's.
Zerohedge just posted, citing the Washington Examiner, that CiaraMeLLA refuses to testify
after it became known he worked with Biden et al and was coached by Schiffty's staff. A
little cold feet, must be the snowl. And also, his Attorneys came down with rat's flu.
How they could otherwise effectively bluntly steal all what has been planned to steal ( at
whatever cost for others...)before the dollar falls, as it is currently happening in
Syria?
Plus, the phone call issue, IMO, fails to meet the criteria for impeachment as there's no
crime involved. As I've written many times, there are plenty of valid reasons--crimes--that
Trump ought to be impeached over but the Ds will never employ them just as Pelosi refused to
do her duty and allow impeachment charges to be filed against Bush/Cheney.
IMO, Gabbard and Sanders must seriously consider forming a 3rd Party to mount a challenge
to Trump as the D-Party's about to shoot itself in the head--and hopefully it won't miss.
What it is is the Corporate party will still take Trump over Sanders or Tulsi. And why is
that? That is because either one of those two, having won, will promptly defenestrate all of
the current crop of federal-trough-feeders into the street, and take over, just as Clinton
did back in the day.
Ever since it because clear that Obama did not intend to use the mandate we gave him, and
he dis-assembled the machine he built to win, I have never given the DNC a thought. Never
again.
There is no doubt that Impeachmentgate is the Act 2 of Russiagate. There is so much
continuity between the two acts, most of all that neither are/were wise. It reminds me so
much of US military interventions - no good endgame, withdraw like a dog with a tail between
your legs from a war that was lost even before it was started (Vietnam, Afghanistan etc).
Naturally, those wars were not started to win then to get rich. Now here comes a genius who
wants to actually steal the oil or something else of value instead of spending huge amounts
of money just to make the world a better place. Much better, isn't it? What a novel idea, the
wars were never before about stealing other people's property (cattle and women)!
But, one has to put himself into the shoes of the Democrats to understand why Russiagate
must continue. Firstly, as b says they got nothing, no policy, no differentiation, no
believable claim that they could do something better than the incumbent, no new spring of
hope faux agent of change like Obama. There is a chance of real change in Gabbard, but who is
crazy enough to subject the entrenched interests to real change. Secondly, they have this
spiffy Main Sewerage Media machine under their control, which can churn out an endless stream
of turds (Vindman, Ciaramella) wrapped into golden foil to pass them as voter candy. Remember
that genocide-personified Democrat Madeleine Albright: "What's the point of having this
superb military if you can't use it?" No machine runs on empty, they need to feed some crap
into the propaganda machine.
So what are the Democrats to do? B, it is easy to say Impeachmentgate is bad
electioneering, but do suggest any better approach that could return this most criminal gang
on the planet back into power and safety from prosecution.
Societies all over the world have been turned upside down, creating untold suffering en
mass by such bogus half cooked rabbit in the hat tricks....only to find its way back to the
US and sicken the American society.....Poor Americans, like poor civilians elsewhere have no
idea where its all coming from and are instead at each others' throats.
" It nearly looks as if they want Trump to win."
Nearly? it have seemed like they wanted him to win since 2016, nearly is a understatement
imho...
This bread and circus for the plebs is getting boring,, the utter stupidity in their
manuscripts and the gaggle of vassals and terrorists they support is the lowest iq and
degenerate nihilists in the world.
The Benedict option seems like the only option left, unless one wants to let the "modern
world" drive one insane or into isolation..
Careful b. You don't want to give more leash to those who think the democrats are in cahoots
with potus. As I have said before, trump has done more than any other president in memory to
pull the wool from the independent voter's eye. They will no longer vote along partisan
lines, knowing there is so little daylight, or in any case the stuff that actually matters,
between the parties.
It is a brand new world thanks to trump. Regardless of any temporary rethug policy he
manages to employ.
The bed has been thoroughly shat. No gluing humpty-dumpty, and no writing schiff's
ship.
The DNC is now, effectively, fighting on two fronts: the GOP from the Right and the
developmentists/progressives from the Left.
In this scenario, it may well be the case it will choose to use a botched impeachment to
reelect Trump and thus implode the Leftist opposition inside their own party. It isn't a
perfect strategy, but at least it buys them time (four years, to be precise).
The GOP and the Dems may have their differences, but they are both from the Capitalist
Party. The divergence is not that the USA shouldn't be an empire anymore, but how the empire
should be managed.
You're headline is perfect b. This is Theater. These are the Vagina Monologues of the Beltway
Bourgeoise.
It is the US political process that is being impeached, so to speak, to prepare us for
it's eventual dismantling.
Living in the day to day one might think this circus matters. It does not. All
actors/public figures work for hidden interests, who in turn take orders from a centralized
authority.
Frankly it is foolish and childish to pretend otherwise.
My sole exposure to straight up Octopus Media is listening to the radio, which I sometimes
turn on during long drives. Sometimes. Even then mostly I turn it off, in anger. I dislike
being taken for a fool. I have no cable, don't watch garbage movies and no longer bother
glancing at newspaper headlines as I'm passing by. There's just no point. To the best of my
ability I am self directed in my thinking.
We should all do the same. When we surf we are partly self directed, that's true, but also
here we must acknowledge EVERYTHING available is Octopus Media and Intelligence controlled,
by one means or another.
thanks b... the dems could question trumps comment that the usa plans to steal syrias oil...
that would be an actual conversation of merit here.. instead the dems have the gun pointed at
their foot and are going to hit it again with this...
@10 karlof1... there is no way sanders would consider a 3rd party run.. the guy is not
capable of independent action like that..he is another cog in the wheel happy to go along
with all the same bullshite..
the whole usa system of bullshite has to come down... trump is helping as i see it.. the
dems are too!! this is really an impeachment case against this joke called freedom and
democracy that the usa likes to cloak itself in..
We can speculate all we want about which strings the Deep State is pulling or which
dimensional chess it is playing, the bottom line is that I cannot vote either for the
"Neocon/Warmonger/Israelfirst/MIC-Wallstreet" Dim Party or the
"Neocon/Warmonger/Israelfirst/MIC-Wallstreet" Repug Party. I'll therefore, as usual and most
likely, vote for the Green Party.
I think Bashar Al-Assad gave in the last interview the best description of the US system I
have heard so far...in a nutshell...
"American politics are no different from Hollywood; it relies on the imagination. Not even
science fiction, just mere imagination. So, you can take American politics and see it in
Hollywood or else you can bring Hollywood and see it through American politics."
Yes, what were they thinking... it really is more of the same.
That said, the national Dem party leadership is getting some minor things out of it, at
the cost of I think +1% to Trump in the 2020 general election:
* Biden got a small boost. He was going to get attacked on his and Hunter's Ukraine
business anyway, they defended him. It was also a big show of support for him by the entire
House Democrat side - in the face of surprisingly weak fundraising.
* Completely drowned out TV/press coverage of everything else to do with the primary.
* This ends the chances of all the minor candidates except Buttigieg (but i bet some will
stick around anyway in hopes of a VP nomination or cabinet position)
* Public support for impeachment gained something like 8-10%, now evenly split. But this
statistic means little because it is Senate Republicans who decide, and they would be
committing political suicide given Trump's 85%+ support among Republican voters.
Besides that, it is the undecided / apathetic voters who are the real audience, and they
seem to remain unswayed. The swing-state polling is not looking great either, with FL, AZ,
and perhaps WI viewing impeachment less favorably than the national average. PA on the other
hand is neutral to very faintly supportive of impeachment.
Also with Harris looking finished, Buttigieg picked up another 10% of the "moderate" Dems
in polls. Biden will want this group of voters, so something will be happening there sooner
or later.
The House intel committee investigation will continue, maybe indefinitely. With the star
witness backing out, it does seem that they got taken for a ride (once again) by the national
security guys. And Trump's outsider status, a positive in today's electorate, is again
established.
The gateway pundit is asking if Ciaramella is the "Charlie" referred to in Strzok and Page
emails. This Charlie was the FBI appointed spy in the whitehouse. Oops, Ciaramella and his
FBI handlers might have a big problem.
At our stage of political disintegration the interesting question is what comes after Trump-
a return to business as usual? doubt it that Rubicon has been crossed,
If I understand this year's DNC rule changes, Biden needs to either keep Sanders below 15%
- the minimum threshold to get voting delegates at the convention - which is unlikely, or he
needs another "moderate" such as Buttigieg to get above 15% and then endorse him, or he needs
enough of a lead to beat Warren and Sanders together.
Otherwise, only delegates for Sanders, Warren, and Biden vote. Sanders can endorse Warren,
and their combined delegates would be enough to give Warren the nomination on the first round
of the convention (before superdelegates). To complete the nightmare scenario for the DNC,
Sanders would get to name his price for supporting Warren.
So perhaps they are hoping to scrape up all the random-other-moderate Dems, give their
supporters to Buttigieg to get him over 15%, and have him endorse Buden in the end. That
would be a semi plausible scenario...
One legitimate issue is if the government should investigate political opponents
. There is a potential for abuse in two directions: impure political tools of y
ou do it, impunity to established powers if you do not.
For example, if you desire to investigate bankers as a part of your political pr
ogram, you can bet that more than a random sample of bankers will join the ranks
of your political opponents.
Concerning the politics of the issue, a surprising percentage of Americans trust
s FBI and CIA, and centrist Democrats would like to ride on the wave of this sen
timent. But "interagency consensus" is not as popular, however illogical it may
seem. Chances are, champions of interagency consensus may gain the support of
the majority of the Democratic "base", but they will get slim picking in other d
emographics.
ERIC CIARAMELLA IS NOT A WHISTLEBLOWER - HE IS A SUSPECT
The identity of the whistleblower was publicly known already on October 10, 2019. Another
important detail about Eric Ciaramella and his activities was revealed at the same time.
John Solomon published an article in The Hill on April 25, 2019 on the origins of
Ukrainegate :
That makes the January 2016 meeting one of the earliest documented efforts to build the
now-debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative and one of the first to involve the Obama
administration's intervention.
The White House visitor records available online reveal that the meeting in the Eisenhower
Executive Office Building was hosted by Eric Ciaramella, the CIA "whistleblower".
BREAKING: Alleged #Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella ran the meeting that @jsolomonReports
was "one of the earliest documented efforts to build the now-debunked Trump-Russia
collusion narrative".
@AndriyUkraineTe please confirm.
United States Attorney General William Barr is investigating the origins of the
Trump-Russia collusion narrative. The New York Times reports that this investigation
has turned into a criminal investigation. Would this make Eric Ciaramella a suspect?
Pardon me for asking, but how many people died in the course of events both before and
after the coup in Ukraine? Biden abetted everyone of those deaths, as did Obama, Nuland, and
a host of other Outlaw US Empire pukes. Trump was correct in asking about Biden's level of
involvement with the Ukraine government that he helped install through his help in murdering
people. Trump hasn't used such terms yet, but there're lots of Trump folk out there plus a
few like me that don't have any reason not to review the truth about the huge crime that
Biden was responsible for as Veep. And of course, that's not the only Capital Crime that
Biden abetted as Obama's Veep.
I for one am sick and tired of not calling a spade a spade when it comes to accusing
Outlaw US Empire pukes correctly of the crimes they've committed. And as I've written often,
Trump's guilty too, but what they're trying to pin on him doesn't meet the impeachment
threshold required by the constitution. Hell, he's bent on stealing Syrian oil and trying to
illegally profit from its sale, and if that's not an impeachable crime I don't know what
is!
Occasionally on Twitter you run into a great photo of two terrorists pointing their
pistols at each others head. That's what I see happening between the D and R Parties. It
would be a boon to the nation and world if they'd pull their triggers at the same time and
die.
this political theater by the democratic Elites about impeachment will not come to a good
end. I can see it going much as B and others are imagining. A few republican senators might
abstain, or even perhaps vote against Trump, but he'll actually come out better than Clinton
in the final Senate vote.
The millionaires and billionaires that now run the democratic party will never allow a
Sanders or Gabbard to be candidate - so it's going to be either biden or Warren, I strongly
suspect.
even worse, these wankers in the democratic party and their billionaire backers (some
exceptions of course) don't even realize, they haven't the faintest idea really, nor do they
perhaps even care, how close the human race is to being totally wiped out this century by
climate catastrophe (leave alone the possibility of some nuclear war in the next 80 years).
Hell you can't even get much enthusiasm among the american people/voters because they've been
so propagandized and brainwashed by the right wing crackpots who control the US/world economy
and the media Narrative, and who believe that this capitalist-consumerist orgy of a show will
go on forever.
it's not looking good, no matter who wins at the impeachment barker circus, or in the 2020
election....
Did a quick search and found it only passed the House and now moves to the Senate. It's
one of those funding acts for Title VIII that needs to be reauthorized to stay alive, and
that's what happened. Joyce at his Twitter didn't mention Gabbard as co-sponsor, taking full
credit for its passing.
Meanwhile, The Flynn Trial continues to
produce details of entrapment, manipulation, perjury, and prosecutorial misconduct. One
commenter is surprised Trump's DoJ continues to pursue the case when it ought to be obvious
why: He spilled the beans about the formation of Daesh and its use by the Outlaw US Empire,
and IMO Barr didn't like that.
engaged Ukraine to give Russia collusion narrative an early boost
Good info, and as a sidelight...I'll play "language maven" on the quotes you use, put some
fire in "give Russia collusion narrative." Improve on what they said.
Perhaps instead we should use the current get-Trump language.
"Obama sought to induce the government of Ukraine to become involved in the 2016 presidential
election."
"Ukraine was given military gear in exchange for dirt on Obama's election opponent"
etc
i dunno; i think with the addition of federal prosecutor john durham,, the investigation's
expanding, and just might grow some legs, and grow barr an actual spine.
If it weren't the phone call to Ukraine, it would be some other petty reason to impeach
Trump. Primarily there was the move, led by CNN, right after Trump unexpectedly won the 2016
election, to hurt Trump's inauguration in January 2017. The "Impeach Trump" movement included
the Steele Dossier first showcased on CNN Jan 10, 2017 and also magazine articles such as
Vanity Fair's "Democrats Are Paving the Way to Impeach Donald Trump" on Dec 15, 2016
here
, both prior to Trump's inauguration. And it's gone on since then, culminating in this
political side show, as if "digging up dirt" on one's political appointment originated with
Trump. They couldn't come up with anything really important, any really good reason to dump
the elected president, to negate his election, sort of like with Nixon and Clinton.
"... A former federal prosecutor who sits on the committee tasked by Democrats with removing President Donald Trump from office blasted Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., as being unfit to oversee the process. Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Tex., told The Federalist on Friday that Schiff's problem isn't mere partisan political bias, it's that Schiff has a conflict of interest given his secret interactions with the anti-Trump whistleblower before his false complaint against Trump was even submitted. ..."
"... "It's more than just bias -- it's an actual legal conflict of interest," Ratcliffe told The Federalist. "Schiff is using his authority as a Chairman presiding over an impeachment inquiry to prevent the investigation and discovery of facts about his own actions or the actions of his staff." ..."
This is impeachment effort 3.0 by Schiff. After twice falsely accusing the President of
treason with Russia and obstructing justice, Democrats put Schiff in charge of impeachment 3.0
with someone who became a whistleblower after meeting with Schiff's staff.
A former federal prosecutor who sits on the committee tasked by Democrats with removing
President Donald Trump from office blasted Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., as being unfit to
oversee the process. Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Tex., told The Federalist on Friday that Schiff's
problem isn't mere partisan political bias, it's that Schiff has a conflict of interest given
his secret interactions with the anti-Trump whistleblower before his false complaint against
Trump was even submitted.
"It's more than just bias -- it's an actual legal conflict of interest," Ratcliffe told The
Federalist. "Schiff is using his authority as a Chairman presiding over an impeachment inquiry
to prevent the investigation and discovery of facts about his own actions or the actions of his
staff."
"... "He is essentially a witness in the trial over which he is presiding," Ratcliffe continued. "He has a conflict of interest because his testimony is relevant to the origins of the impeachment process that he is simultaneously conducting, directing and managing." ..."
"... Although Schiff initially claimed that he and his staff had never interacted with the anti-Trump complainant and didn't even know who he was, the New York Times reported that the whistleblower secretly coordinated with Schiff's Democratic staff, who then urged him to file a complaint against the president. ..."
"... "Despite initially denying any contact with the whistleblower, Schiff had already been briefed about at least one meeting between his staff and that individual prior to the filing of the complaint," Ratcliffe said. "Material facts about the date, nature and extent of that meeting as well as any other contacts, communication or possible coordination between Chairman Schiff, his staff and the whistleblower were never disclosed by any of those parties to ICIG Michael Atkinson -- facts confirmed in the sworn testimony of ICIG Atkinson which Chairman Schiff is refusing to release." ..."
"... Testimony by Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) Michael Atkinson revealed that the whistleblower, whom Real Clear Investigations has identified as former National Security Council (NSC) staffer and current Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst Eric Ciaramella, concealed his contacts with Schiff from the ICIG in his complaint form. If the anti-Trump complainant did, in fact, refuse to disclose previous disclosures of his allegations to Congress or the news media, he could be subject to felony criminal penalties for making false statements. The final portion of the whistleblower form requires whistleblowers to attest under penalty of perjury that they have neither misstated nor concealed material facts in their complaints. ..."
"... Schiff has refused to detail the breadth of his interactions with the anti-Trump complainant or explain why he lied about his staff's collusion with the complainant. Ratcliffe told The Federalist that Schiff's behavior was an "outrageous offense to legal due process." ..."
"... "Your actions both past and present are incompatible with your duty as Chairman of this Committee, which alone in the House of Representatives has the obligation and authority to provide effective oversight of the U.S. intelligence community," they continued . "As such, we have no faith in your ability to discharge your duties in a manner consistent with your Constitutional responsibility and urge your immediate resignation as Chairman of this Committee. Sean Davis is the co-founder of The Federalist. ..."
"The person who planted fake evidence shouldn't be the one ruling on the admissibility of fake
evidence," Ratcliffe said of Schiff on Friday. November 1, 2019 By Sean Davis A former federal prosecutor who
sits on the committee tasked by Democrats with removing President Donald Trump from office
blasted Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., as being unfit to oversee the process. Rep. John Ratcliffe,
R-Tex., told The Federalist on Friday that Schiff's problem isn't mere partisan
political bias, it's that Schiff has a conflict of interest given his secret interactions with
the anti-Trump whistleblower before his
false complaint against Trump was even submitted.
"It's more than just bias -- it's an actual legal conflict of interest," Ratcliffe told
The Federalist . "Schiff is using his authority as a Chairman presiding over an
impeachment inquiry to prevent the investigation and discovery of facts about his own actions
or the actions of his staff."
"He is essentially a witness in the trial over which he is presiding," Ratcliffe continued.
"He has a conflict of interest because his testimony is relevant to the origins of the
impeachment process that he is simultaneously conducting, directing and managing."
Although Schiff initially claimed that he and his staff had never interacted with the
anti-Trump complainant and didn't even know who he was, the New York Timesreported
that the whistleblower secretly coordinated with Schiff's Democratic staff, who then urged him
to file a complaint against the president.
"The person who planted fake evidence shouldn't be the one ruling on the admissibility of
fake evidence," Ratcliffe said on Friday.
"Despite initially denying any contact with the whistleblower, Schiff had already been
briefed about at least one meeting between his staff and that individual prior to the filing of
the complaint," Ratcliffe said. "Material facts about the date, nature and extent of that
meeting as well as any other contacts, communication or possible coordination between Chairman
Schiff, his staff and the whistleblower were never disclosed by any of those parties to ICIG
Michael Atkinson -- facts confirmed in the sworn testimony of ICIG Atkinson which Chairman
Schiff is refusing to release."
Testimony by Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) Michael Atkinson revealed that
the whistleblower, whom
Real Clear Investigations has identified as former National Security Council (NSC) staffer
and current Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst Eric Ciaramella, concealed his contacts
with Schiff from the ICIG in his complaint form. If the anti-Trump complainant did, in fact,
refuse to disclose previous disclosures of his allegations to Congress or the news media, he
could be
subject to felony criminal penalties for making false statements. The final portion of the
whistleblower form requires whistleblowers to attest under penalty of perjury that they have
neither misstated nor concealed material facts in their complaints.
"I certify that all of the statements made in this complaint (including any continuation
pages) are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief," whistleblowers
are required to attest under penalty of perjury. "I understand that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1001, a false statement or concealment of a material fact is a criminal offense punishable by a
fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both."
Schiff has refused to detail the breadth of his interactions with the anti-Trump complainant
or explain why he lied about his staff's collusion with the complainant. Ratcliffe told The
Federalist that Schiff's behavior was an "outrageous offense to legal due process."
"Chairman Schiff has likewise refused to allow any inquiry by Republicans into these
material facts which may bear on the credibility and motivation of the whistleblower and
perhaps Chairman Schiff," Ratcliffe said. "Republicans have been and continue to be deprived of
the ability to investigate these material facts which can only be ascertained from the sworn
testimony of Chairman Schiff, his staff and the whistleblower."
"Chairman Schiff is a material fact witness in the same impeachment inquiry that Democrats
have authorized him to preside over," Ratcliffe continued. "It's an outrageous offense to legal
due process and any standard of fairness."
Earlier this year, all nine Republican lawmakers on the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence called on Schiff to step down as chairman due to his repeated lies about
treasonous Russian collusion by the president.
"The findings of the Special Counsel conclusively refute your past and present assertions
and have exposed you as having abused your position to knowingly promote false information,
having damaged the integrity of this Committee, and undermined faith in U.S. government
institutions," they wrote.
"Your actions both past and present are incompatible with your duty as Chairman of this
Committee, which alone in the House of Representatives has the obligation and authority to
provide effective oversight of the U.S. intelligence community," they
continued . "As such, we have no faith in your ability to discharge your duties in a manner
consistent with your Constitutional responsibility and urge your immediate resignation as
Chairman of this Committee. Sean Davis is the co-founder of The Federalist.
"... And this process or digging out neoliberal Dems and CIA machinations already started: Schiff already flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was reported that two members of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the Obama National Security Council, had advised him. ..."
"... Now this process is starting to create more and more collateral damage for neoliberal Dems, as Schiff will not be able to fully block republican efforts to bring witnesses. But it will not hurt Trump with his electorate. And it will not end with impeachment. ..."
Orange Watch@45 is a little confusing. If I prefer "conduct unbecoming a president"
as an impeachment charge I'm not restricting impeachment to violations of criminal statutes.
Hatemongering is not a criminal offense, but a political and moral one.
I think the real objection is that I view insinuations Trump is treasonous as exactly the
same rotten politics as insinuations Clinton was treasonous.
Or that it is exactly as foolish to freak out over Russian interference in the 2016 election
as Ukrainian interference, or vice versa, the only distinction being one is a Democratic
bugbear and the other is a Republican.
likbez 11.03.19 at 4:15 am (no link)
steven t johnson 11.01.19 at 3:27 pm
likbez@42 doesn't realize that the legal course was for the US Justice Department to
draw up a list of requirements of the sort specified in the treaty. The US embassy in Kyiv
would then relay the request to their counterparts. If and only if the request was denied
would there be any occasion for presidents to discuss the matter, and only then would such
discussion be legally mandated. What Trump did was press Zelensky for a public announcement
of an investigate, or worse, to rig and investigation.
I respectfully disagree. Road to hell is always paved with good intentions. How you can do
it, if you know that Kiev embassy is controlled by Obama/Brennan plotters including the
ambassador, and the CIA controls Ukrainian security services? Speaking directly to president
about Crowdstike was the only way to move this investigation forward. Inclusion of Biden was
a huge, suicidal political blunder, for which Trump now is paying a price. "Full of Schiff"
commenters here emphasize it, and conveniently forget to mention Crowdstrike part and
"Manafort dirt" part of the "Ukrainian influence on 2016 elections" story. Which are far more
important.
It looks to me as if somebody within Trump administration wanted to sabotage the whole
thing. He should have been staying strictly on Russiagate investigation topic (which is a
criminal investigation now, if I understand the situation correctly), but being Trump he
can't (Rick Perry was probably a contributing factor in this stupidity). As the result it
served as a pretext for the counterattack on his Russiagate origins investigation by
Obama/Brennan faction.
But there is a silver lining in any dark cloud. If Ukrainegate is the new Russiagate then
the 'whistleblower complaint' is surprisingly similar to the 'former' MI6 spy Christopher
Steele 'dirty dossier'. It has a lot of problems. First of all Obama/Brennan faction have
chosen the issue, Ukraine, where they themselves have a lot of skeletons in the closet. The
choice of a CIA officer as a whistleblower and his complaint as the cornerstone of the
impeachment was especially dumb: the word "CIA" is a dog whistle for Trump electorate. It
also puts Brennan and Obama in undesirable spotlight.
And this process or digging out neoliberal Dems and CIA machinations already started:
Schiff already flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was
reported that two members of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the
Obama National Security Council, had advised him.
Now this process is starting to create more and more collateral damage for neoliberal
Dems, as Schiff will not be able to fully block republican efforts to bring witnesses. But it
will not hurt Trump with his electorate. And it will not end with impeachment.
I believe, like Noam Chomsky, that it will, in the end, help Trump and might put Warren
(forget about Biden) in disadvantage: the noise for impeachment will deafen all her proposals
and will convert 2020 election into another show. And Trump is much better showmen then
she.
That is the point that "full of Schiff" commenters, in their excitement about the new
opportunity to unseat Trump, are unable to comprehend.
"... If you think that a person who does such research as this "Structural ambiguity in the Georgian verbal noun" is a serious analyst, I have a bridge to sell. Knowing language is just a first step in knowing cultures and nations. The idea that some barely 30 years old kid can have a profound understanding of factors forming geopolitical balance by merely studying language or working in the Wold Bank is preposterous ..."
"... It is not even the issue of IQ-driven so called intelligence metric. I met many people with IQ through the roof and some of them were one of the most impressive dumbfvcks I ever encountered in my life. The issue here is deeper--you literally have brainwashed political operatives, most of them not even book-smart, who are excreted every year from the American "humanities" programs who have "credentials" but have zero actual serious skills which are imperative for a serious statesmanship. They simply do not teach this in the US, nor can it be changed because the whole machine of the US "humanities" education pulsates between two extremes: one is of a complete deconstruction of the American history and culture into one non-stop genocide by whites of everyone else or, on the other extreme, utterly delusional exceptionalist shining city on the hill narrative with latter being as false as the former one. Few common sense and objective views which exist in between are pure coincidence which are there despite a totally corrupt educational system in the US when dealing with humanities. ..."
"... That is why, US elites having "analysts" like Ciaramella will not get out of this rut because the only thing they can reproduce are such specimens as this guy perfectly honed for one thing--to exist in the self-contained system of corruption, treachery, snitching, dirty intrigue and delusion, also known as American political system. ..."
Whistle While You Work... In the CIA or in the White House. Evidently, if to believe
media frenzy, the name of the so called "whistle blower" against Trump is 33 years old Eric
Ciaramella, whose profile nails him directly as a snitch to the Brennan's cabal of putchists
who continue to rape Constitution and eradicate the last remnants of the Republic, turning it
into the Third World shithole mafia state.
OK, that clarifies it somewhat but this is not what is truly interesting about
this CIA "analyst" who, at this moment still may or may not be a blowjo...pardon me,
whistle-blower for Adan Schiff and his collection of treasonous operatives. No. The thing which
catches one's attention who have at least some serious military or intelligence background is
this:
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.
Ah, that's warmer. And it is an Exhibit A of a main reason why the United States
finds itself where it is today and why current American so called "elites" cannot find their
own ass with both hands in a brightly lit room. One is bound to struggle with own ass finding
when having background such as Ciaramella's, and his background with slight deviations within
narrow confines of humanities education, from Law to Political "Science", is a background of
the overwhelming majority of people who "shape" US policies both domestically and abroad.
Ciaramella is a classic product of the US Ivy League degree mills for good ol' boys and girls
and, as is expected, possesses zero required instruments for serious foreign policy analysis in
which power factor is at the center of an issue and it is beyond, wrong as they are, so called
modelling and methodology used in the US for studying this issue--a body of absolutely
overwhelming evidence of utter and humiliating, I may add, failure of American institutions
dealing with country studies. No bigger evidence exists than a wasteland of Russia Studies
field in the United States.
If you think that a person who does such research as this "Structural ambiguity in the
Georgian verbal noun" is a serious analyst, I have a bridge to sell. Knowing language is
just a first step in knowing cultures and nations. The idea that some barely 30 years old kid
can have a profound understanding of factors forming geopolitical balance by merely studying
language or working in the Wold Bank is preposterous.
It is not even the issue of IQ-driven so
called intelligence metric. I met many people with IQ through the roof and some of them were
one of the most impressive dumbfvcks I ever encountered in my life. The issue here is
deeper--you literally have brainwashed political operatives, most of them not even book-smart,
who are excreted every year from the American "humanities" programs who have "credentials" but
have zero actual serious skills which are imperative for a serious statesmanship. They simply
do not teach this in the US, nor can it be changed because the whole machine of the US
"humanities" education pulsates between two extremes: one is of a complete deconstruction of
the American history and culture into one non-stop genocide by whites of everyone else or, on
the other extreme, utterly delusional exceptionalist shining city on the hill narrative with
latter being as false as the former one. Few common sense and objective views which exist in
between are pure coincidence which are there despite a totally corrupt educational system in
the US when dealing with humanities.
That is why, US elites having "analysts" like Ciaramella will not get out of this rut because
the only thing they can reproduce are such specimens as this guy perfectly honed for one
thing--to exist in the self-contained system of corruption, treachery, snitching, dirty
intrigue and delusion, also known as American political system. In this case, forestalling any
undeniably upcoming claims from these types of guys about their "honor", duty to a country or
"democracy" it should be made patently clear that they have none, other than personal and
narrow political interests and ambitions attached to a destruction of America which, at least
nominally, was so far known as a land of laws and of the Constitution and which it is no more.
Orange Watch@45 is a little confusing. If I prefer "conduct unbecoming a president"
as an impeachment charge I'm not restricting impeachment to violations of criminal statutes.
Hatemongering is not a criminal offense, but a political and moral one. I think the real
objection is that I view insinuations Trump is treasonous as exactly the same rotten politics
as insinuations Clinton was treasonous. Or that it is exactly as foolish to freak out over
Russian interference in the 2016 election as Ukrainian interference, or vice versa, the only
distinction being one is a Democratic bugbear and the other is a Republican.
... ... ...
likbez@42 doesn't realize that the legal course was for the US Justice Department to draw up
a list of requirements of the sort specified in the treaty.
The US embassy in Kyiv would then relay the request to their counterparts. If and only if
the request was denied would there be any occasion for presidents to discuss the matter, and
only then would such discussion be legally mandated.
What Trump did was press Zelensky for a public announcement of an investigate, or worse, to
rig and investigation. It is the equivalent of the CIA planting a libel in the foreign press so
that it can be "reported" as legitimate news in the US.
There are legal and ethical issues with the President directing underlings to begin
investigations of his opponents in the domestic sphere. They don't disappear abroad. I don't
think there's any doubt, except for Trump's lawyers, the call was a campaign violation.
While House Democrats gear up for kangaroo-court impeachment proceedings triggered by a whistleblower complaint over President
Trump's communications with Ukraine, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has invited Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani
to explain allegations of rampant corruption against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter in Ukraine.
Joe Biden infamously bragged on tape last year about abusing his position as Vice President to force Ukraine to fire a prosecutor
investigating Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas company which was paying Hunter Biden $600,000 to sit on its board.
Democrats have gone to great lengths to avoid addressing this - and have instead launched impeachment proceedings after a CIA
employee approached the House Intelligence Committee chaired Adam Schiff (D-CA), lawyered up with Democrat operatives, and then filed
a whistleblower complaint using second-hand information on a
recently changed form - the previous version of which explicitly prohibited anything but first-hand info.
The whistleblower and concurrent media reports claimed that President Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky to
investigate the Bidens, however in a surprise move the White House released both a transcript of the call proving there was no pressure
or quid pro quo . A release of the whistleblower complaint suggested it was written by a legal team, and several of its claims were
proven false by the transcript.
On Tuesday, Graham tweeted: "Have heard on numerous occasions disturbing allegations by @RudyGiuliani about corruption in Ukraine
and the many improprieties surrounding the firing of former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin," adding "Given the House of Representatives'
behavior, it is time for the Senate to inquire about corruption and other improprieties involving Ukraine."
"Therefore I will offer to Mr. Giuliani the opportunity to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee to inform the committee
of his concerns ," Graham concluded.
In addition to allegations of malfeasance and profiteering by the Bidens, Giuliani is also looking into Democratic efforts to
meddle in the 2016 US election in favor of Hillary Clinton. In December of 2018, a Ukrainian court ruled thatUkraine's Ukraine's
Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), Artem Sytnyk "acted illegally" when he revealed the existence
of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort's name in a "black ledger" containing off-book payments to Manafort by Ukraine's previous
administration.
While the ruling against Sytnyk and Leshchenko was later overturned on a technicality, The Blaze obtained and translated recording
of Sytnyk bragging about helping Clinton in the 2016 US election .
In response to Graham's offer, Giuliani told
CNN "Love Lindsey,
but I am still a lawyer and I will have to deal with privilege," although "Given the nature of his invitation about my concerns I
might be able to do it without discussing privileged information."
If and when Giuliani shows up, Kamala Harris appears ready to go full attack dog - with theatrics which haven't been witnessed
since last October's anti-Kavanaugh performance.
Perry is another neocon in Trump administration and it looks like he pushed Trump under the train.
Notable quotes:
"... In November, Perry touted a shipment of Pennsylvania coal to Ukraine as "just one example of America's readiness and commitment to help diversify Europe's energy markets." ..."
"... Another major priority for Perry is opposing the construction of Nord Stream 2, a proposed gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany that many nations, including the United States, fear will increase the European Union's reliance on Russia for its energy needs. While in Ukraine in May, Perry promised that Trump would back a bill sanctioning companies involved in the project. ..."
Congressional Democrats want to know more about Rick Perry's travels to Ukraine and
conversations with officials there, signaling that the mild-mannered energy secretary won't
escape the intense of heat of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
In a memo released Wednesday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.)
said he plans to issue a subpoena for White House documents by the end of the week centered on
Trump's requests to the Ukrainian government to open an investigation into one of his chief
political rivals, former vice president Joe Biden.
Among the records his committee is seeking are any related to Perry's attendance of
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's inauguration on May 20 as well as a White House
meeting Perry attended three days later.
Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
similarly sent a letter to Perry on Tuesday asking him what instructions Trump gave him when
the Cabinet official flew to Ukraine in May, as well as who asked Perry to go there in the
first place. And three House committees on Monday issued a sweeping subpoena to Trump's
personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, in part seeking documents related to Perry.
The multiple congressional inquiries have put a spotlight on Perry, who has distinguished
himself during his time in the job for avoiding controversy. Though the energy secretary is not
accused of wrongdoing and has not been directly subpoenaed, Perry and his Energy Department
spent Wednesday reassuring congressional Democrats they will cooperate with the impeachment
probe.
"We're going to work with Congress and answer all their questions," Perry told reporters
Wednesday at a departmental event in Chicago on artificial intelligence.
Leading a department he once called to eliminate when running for president in 2012, Perry
has kept his head down and avoided the scandals that embroiled some of Trump's original energy
and environmental policy team members, including former Environmental Protection Agency chief
Scott Pruitt and ex-Interior Department secretary Ryan Zinke, who were both ousted amid ethics
investigations. Perry's easygoing demeanor has let him develop productive relationships with
members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
"Regardless of subject, the Department is always willing to work with Congress in response
to requests that follow proper procedures," Energy Department spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes wrote
by email.
An explosive whistleblower complaint from an anonymous U.S. intelligence official alleged
Trump did not want to meet with Zelensky until he saw how the new Ukrainian leader "chose to
act" in office. In May, Perry led the American delegation to Zelensky's inauguration in lieu of
Vice President Pence after Pence canceled his planned trip, according to the complaint.
Two months later, on July 25, Trump repeatedly urged Zelensky in a phone call to investigate
Biden, offering to enlist Attorney General William P. Barr in that effort while dangling the
possibility of a White House meeting, according to a rough transcript of the call the White
House released.
On Wednesday, Perry declined to say to reporters whether he was on the July phone call. He
joked that he was asked to fill in for Pence in Ukraine in May because he is "just such a darn
good Cabinet member."
As energy secretary, Perry has regularly traveled to Eastern Europe to promote the sale of
U.S.-produced natural gas and coal. "I've had the opportunity to go into so many different
countries to represent the United States, our energy opportunities," Perry said Wednesday.
"Ukraine is one of those."
It is not unusual for energy secretaries to have a hand in foreign policy. Ernest Moniz, a
nuclear physicist who served as President Barack Obama's energy secretary, played a central
role in brokering the Iran nuclear deal in 2015.
Energy secretaries "do get involved from time to time on diplomatic issues," said Susan
Tierney, a former assistant secretary for policy at the Energy Department under Obama.
Curbing Eastern and Central European countries' dependence on Russia for electricity and
heating fuel was "very early on a priority" for the Trump administration, according to George
David Banks, a former Trump White House energy policy adviser. Given Perry's happy-go-lucky
charm -- and the fact that former secretary of state Rex Tillerson was recused from dealing
with several energy issues because of his previous job as ExxonMobil's chief executive -- it
made sense for Perry to work on Ukraine, Banks said.
"He's a natural-born diplomat," Banks said.
Ukraine, rich with its own natural gas reserves, does not import gas from the United States,
unlike some Eastern European nations such as Poland and Lithuania. But it does take in and burn
American coal -- about 4.8 million tons of it in 2018, according to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration. Most of that U.S.-to-Ukraine-bound coal is of a special grade often used in
manufacturing steel, a major industry in Ukraine. The United States is only one of a few
coal-exporting countries that has that type of coal.
The country has its own coal reserves, but much of them are located in contested territory
in eastern Ukraine. Facing costly imports from Russia, Ukraine has begun getting coal supplies
from the United States, Australia, Kazakhstan, and others places in recent years, according to
EIA.
In November, Perry touted a shipment of Pennsylvania coal to Ukraine as "just one example of
America's readiness and commitment to help diversify Europe's energy markets."
Another major priority for Perry is opposing the construction of Nord Stream 2, a proposed
gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany that many nations, including the
United States, fear will increase the European Union's reliance on Russia for its energy needs.
While in Ukraine in May, Perry promised that Trump would back a bill sanctioning companies
involved in the project.
While true whistleblowers pay the heavy price for their courage, neoliberal Democrats and corrupt to the core neoliberal MSM lionize
a CIA leaker because he justifies their impeachment crusade.
Why couldn't this CIA asset not simply report through regular channels? He wasn't blowing whistle on the CIA itself so no risk there.
Notable quotes:
"... The whole impeachment charade, and that's what it is, rests on the paradoxical and ahistorical assertions that 1) the president's phone call with Ukraine's leader is Trump's worst crime, and 2) the "liberal" press has always supported government whistleblowers. Both are absurd claims, though fitting for this partisan political moment. ..."
"... The inconvenient reality is that Trump and both his predecessors have committed far worse crimes against the Constitution by engaging in illegal wars. ..."
"... The only reason the Left -- which historically has distrusted U.S. intelligence activities -- has canonized this anonymous CIA whistleblower is that he or she, and the entire clandestine apparatus, has implicated Trump, the reflexive archenemy of the liberal elite. Trump's actual crime, contrary to the prevailing yarn, was not his overriding of Congress on war policies (which he largely copied from Obama and Bush II), but that he dared to attack a longtime Democratic insider: Joe Biden. ..."
"... Notice that the Democratic leadership in Congress has declined to investigate the fact that this president, and others before him, overrode congressional authority to wage all sorts of military operations outside the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11, including the current assistance we are giving Saudi Arabia in its attacks on Yemen. ..."
"... President Obama, for example, dropped 26,171 bombs on at least seven countries using an AUMF that has been extended well beyond those who attacked America on 9/11. He even executed American citizens overseas without due process . ..."
"... Meanwhile, Trump abets legitimate war crimes in Yemen to the tune of 100,000-plus dead -- without evident remorse. But Obama started that war , providing U.S. aerial refueling, targeting support, and deadly munitions to the Saudis back in 2015. So the Democratic leadership stands down on the issue of Yemen, not wanting to implicate their hero in the process of impeaching The Donald. ..."
"... Mainstream liberal hypocrisy runs even deeper, unfortunately. I'm just old enough to remember when the Left railed against the CIA, NSA, and spooks in general. ..."
"... Suddenly every Obama- and Bush-era national security staffer and intelligence super-sleuth -- John Brennan, James Clapper, Michael Hayden, etc. -- was regularly appearing on CNN and MSNBC to attack Trump and pine for the status quo of U.S. military hyper-interventionism. ..."
"... Even the language is instructive. They aren't "leakers," "traitors," or "criminals," but whistleblowers , surging with moral courage and exposing ostensibly unthinkable presidential wrongdoing. That's funny: where were these folks when other, far more profound whistleblowers uncovered criminality during the Bush and Obama years? Either crickets or pejorative attacks were all they proffered back then. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Obama utilized the archaic 1917 Espionage Act to prosecute more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined. The liberal press and most Democratic legislators barely made a peep. Barack was their guy , one of their own -- the "leakers" must have been in the wrong, enemies, so to speak, of the people. ..."
"... So while Trump is by no means without serious flaws, the Beltway elites and media personalities stuffing impeachment down our throats are hypocritical and dishonest enough to make one believe in a "deep state." ..."
"... Trump's crime is he's an outsider and the CIA did not expect him to win. His very existence is a threat to them. ..."
"... Can he clean up the mess? I doubt it. Imagine what would happen, the screams and agony, were he to eliminate all government secrecy. Imagine what the CIA would claim if the Black Budget became transparent. If Trump tried to eliminate the CIA it would simply reconstitute and shape-shift within other agencies or outside government. ..."
Few see the irony in the corporate mainstream media's love affair with the anonymous whistleblower in President Trump's alleged
Ukraine-gate affair. Yet everyone should. Few see the irony in the corporate mainstream media's love affair with the anonymous whistleblower
in President Trump's alleged Ukraine-gate affair. Yet everyone should.
The whole impeachment charade, and that's what it is, rests on the paradoxical and ahistorical assertions that 1) the president's
phone call with Ukraine's leader is Trump's worst crime, and 2) the "liberal" press has always supported government whistleblowers.
Both are absurd claims, though fitting for this partisan political moment.
The inconvenient reality is that Trump and
both his predecessors have committed
far worse crimes against the Constitution by engaging in illegal wars. Certainly this is more serious than the shady Ukraine/Biden
incident. And the mainstream media has a rather poor track record when it comes to whistleblowers, often demonizing leakers who expose
nefarious government actions. The only reason the Left -- which historically has distrusted U.S. intelligence activities -- has
canonized this anonymous CIA whistleblower is that he or she, and the entire clandestine apparatus, has implicated Trump, the reflexive
archenemy of the liberal elite. Trump's actual crime, contrary to the prevailing yarn, was not his overriding of Congress
on war policies (which he largely copied from Obama and Bush II), but that he dared to attack a longtime Democratic insider: Joe
Biden.
Sure, Trump's apparent threat to use aid as a cudgel to pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden, and his son Hunter,
is a serious matter. Far be it for me, or anyone else, to dispute that. Whether that meets the threshold for impeachment is debatable
-- and by the way, Hunter Biden's $50,000 a month, unqualified position on a foreign corporate gas company's board while his father
was vice president doesn't exactly pass the smell test either. But I'll table that for now.
Notice that the Democratic leadership in Congress has declined to investigate the fact that this president, and others before
him, overrode congressional authority to wage all sorts of military operations outside the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(AUMF) passed after 9/11, including the current assistance we are giving Saudi Arabia in its attacks on Yemen.
President Obama, for example,
dropped
26,171 bombs on at least seven countries using an AUMF that has been extended well beyond those who attacked America on 9/11.
He even executed American citizens overseas
without
due process .
Meanwhile, Trump abets legitimate
war crimes in Yemen to the
tune of 100,000-plus dead -- without evident remorse. But Obama
started that war , providing
U.S. aerial refueling, targeting support, and deadly munitions to the Saudis back in 2015. So the Democratic leadership stands down
on the issue of Yemen, not wanting to implicate their hero in the process of impeaching The Donald.
Mainstream liberal hypocrisy runs even deeper, unfortunately. I'm just old enough to remember when the Left railed against
the CIA, NSA, and spooks in general. And
rightfully so . That, however,
was before Mr. Trump shocked coastal elites and got himself elected president of their America. It was impressive watching
media and Democratic insiders immediately turn on a dime.
Suddenly every Obama- and Bush-era national security staffer and intelligence super-sleuth -- John Brennan, James Clapper,
Michael Hayden, etc. -- was regularly appearing on CNN and MSNBC to attack Trump and pine for the status quo of U.S. military hyper-interventionism.
It was as though all their sins -- mass surveillance, drone assassination, illegal rendition, torture -- had been collectively
pushed down the memory hole, the entire intel apparatus born again as agents of truth and honor. The whole masquerade was bizarre,
and beyond duplicitous.
The final insult was the recent canonization of the anonymous Ukraine-gate whistleblower(s). Even the language is instructive.
They aren't "leakers," "traitors," or "criminals," but whistleblowers , surging with moral courage and exposing ostensibly
unthinkable presidential wrongdoing. That's funny: where were these folks when other, far more profound whistleblowers uncovered
criminality during the Bush and Obama years? Either crickets or pejorative attacks were all they proffered back then.
... ... ...
Meanwhile, Obama utilized the archaic 1917 Espionage Act to
prosecute more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined. The liberal press and most Democratic legislators barely
made a peep. Barack was their guy , one of their own -- the "leakers" must have been in the wrong, enemies, so to speak, of
the people. So while Trump is by no means without serious flaws, the Beltway elites and media personalities stuffing impeachment
down our throats are hypocritical and dishonest enough to make one believe in a "deep state." Ultimately it will amount to nothing.
Each side remains entrenched.
Either the Dem elites will hand Trump a second term with this impeachment charade, or, maybe just as likely, President Biden will
take the helm. When he does, whistleblowers will revert, once again, to being traitors.
So while Trump is by no means without serious flaws, the Beltway elites and media personalities stuffing impeachment down
our throats are hypocritical and dishonest enough to make one believe in a "deep state."
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army Major whose writing has appeared in The American Conservative, Harper's, the Los Angeles
Times, The Nation and Tom Dispatch. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history
at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq war,
Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers,
Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter @SkepticalVet
.
The problem with designating this CIA officer a whistleblower, while denigrating the actual whistleblowers as something other,
as criminals, is obvious enough, or should be: in the cases of the latter, they were exposing the crimes of the intel establishment,
and punished for it, the 'protections' of the law notwithstanding; in other words, the intel establishment got its way; in the
case of the former, the intel establishment is getting its way in its campaign to undermine the administration, notwithstanding
Trump's incompetence and corruption, for which he deserves censure, impeachment, whatever.
Heads, they won; tails, we lose.
The problem, in other words, is that we - collectively, as a nation - get to choose only the modality of how our institutions
and norms are degraded, not whether they will be degraded. Pick your poison.
The CIA and the intelligence services operate black budgets. They kill, steal, run drugs, bribe leaders at home as well as
abroad, arrange accidents like the airplane crashes that have killed several Democrats who danced out of tune, have operatives
placed in government including state governments, the courts and Congress. Who owns your favorite candidate? The CIA. Who controls
the media including the New York Times? The CIA. Bribery, threats, blackmail, control files, setups. The chicanery we tolerate
and celebrate in the name of National Security abroad has come home. Secrecy works wonders for control.
Trump's crime is he's an outsider and the CIA did not expect him to win. His very existence is a threat to them.
Can he clean up the mess? I doubt it. Imagine what would happen, the screams and agony, were he to eliminate all government
secrecy. Imagine what the CIA would claim if the Black Budget became transparent. If Trump tried to eliminate the CIA it would
simply reconstitute and shape-shift within other agencies or outside government.
That, however, was before Mr. Trump shocked coastal elites and got himself elected president of their America.
That, for the elitist Left (and Right), is Donald Trump's real and only crime. He got himself elected president of their America.
But to get right to the heart of it, he didn't get himself elected as much as the American people got him elected. This is about
us..all about us..not about him. Any subsequent attacks on him are in fact attacks on the American electorate.
After the DOJ/FBI advanced their defensive efforts
last weekend via the New York Times and NBC, now the CIA/ODNI faction step forth with the
same intents and purposes.
CIA defending journalist Natasha Bertrand has been participating in the multi-year PR effort
which helped frame the CIA/ODNI talking points against President Trump, and she is deployed
again in the latest effort within
Politico . The timing here is predictable.
( Via
Politico ) President Donald Trump's obsession with former CIA director John Brennan could
be on a collision course with an ongoing Justice Department probe as Attorney General Bill
Barr takes a more hands-on approach to examining the intelligence community's actions in
2016.
[ ] Durham's report is likely to land well after the results of an inquiry by the Justice
Department's Inspector General, who is examining the FBI's applications to a secret court in
2016 and 2017 to obtain surveillance warrants on a Trump campaign aide.
[ ] "Is the IG report going to say we made mistakes? Yes," said one of the former
officials. "But it won't say we did so for some nefarious purpose. So the report will be a
dry hole for Trump and his supporters. Which is why [Barr and Durham] have now gone to this
other theory, positing that the CIA was engaged in some rogue operation to overthrow Trump
and therefore feeding the FBI bullshit," he said. "It's complete nonsense."
"Haven't you heard?" said another former FBI official, sarcastically. "Brennan was a
puppet-master and we were just his puppets."
Unfortunately, Ms. Bertrand gets too far over her defensive skis when she scribes defense
and obfuscation that is laughable to anyone who followed the activity of CIA Director John
Brennan when she writes:
[ ] Asked for comment, White House deputy press Secretary Hogan Gidley said: " John
Brennan lied before Congress when he got caught spying on American citizens and lied about
having Russian collusion evidence that never existed. The only way I've ever heard anyone in
the White House mention him is as a punchline."
It's not clear what Gidley was referring to -- Brennan has not been accused of lying to
Congress. ( read
full article )
Obviously Ms. Bertrand is counting on people not knowing that John Brennan was caught lying
about his instructions to CIA operatives to spy on the networks of the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence. Brennan later
apologized to the Senate for that effort; but hey, what's a little forgetfulness amid
professional narrative engineering.
Additionally, in directly related matters; while remembering the 'gossip-blower' stems from
the same CIA institution headed by Brennan while a member of the National Security Council; and
while remembering the Washington Post is the primary outlet for the PR efforts of the CIA
resistance du jour; the mysterious "white house insider" who penned an op-ed in the New York
Times last year has now signed an anonymous book deal expand on the anti-Trump intelligence
community narrative.
(
WaPo ) The author of an anonymous column in the New York Times in 2018, who was
identified as a senior Trump administration official acting as part of the "resistance"
inside the government, has written a tell-all book to be published next month.
The book,
titled "A Warning," is being promoted as "an unprecedented behind-the-scenes portrait of
the Trump presidency" that expands upon the Times column, which ricocheted around the world
and
stoked the president's rage because of its devastating portrayal of Trump in office. (
read more )
When CTH originally penned the term "The Big Ugly" we were directly describing a looming
confrontation that would happen between President Donald Trump and the aligned interests of the
deepest part of the Deep State. Those interests are not along party lines, they are ideological
interests directly related to the construct of the institutions of government and how those
interests tied financially back to the Administrative State.
The DOJ, FBI, CIA, ODNI and State Department do not oppose the deconstruction efforts of
Donald Trump as an outcome of bland institutional opposition. Rather the institutions
themselves are subsidiaries of a larger network that exists for the purposes of Washington DC
as a business and financial enterprise.
The reason the DC system -writ large- is going bananas is because selling the influence of
political office for financial gain is the custom and currency of DC affluence.
Selling influence and manipulating government action – both foreign and domestic
– to enhance the financial interests of other participants, is a purposeful part of DC as
a way to gain financial affluence. In essence the U.S. government is used as a tool to
accumulate wealth. This process is at the heart of all Trump's opposition.
The Christopher Steele dossier was called " Crown Material " by FBI agents within the small
group during their 2016 political surveillance operation. The "Crown" description reflects the
unofficial British intelligence aspect to the dossier as provided by Steele.
In May 2019 former House Oversight Chairman
Trey Gowdy stated there are emails from former FBI Director James Comey that outline
instructions from CIA Director John Brennan to include the "Crown Material" within the highly
political Intelligence Community Assessment
.
Specifically outlined by Gowdy, the wording of the Comey email is reported to say :
"Brennan is insisting the Crown Material be included in the intel assessment."
However, on May 23rd, 2017, in testimony -under oath- to the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) John Brennan stated [ @01:54:28 ]:
GOWDY: Director Brennan, do you know who commissioned the Steele dossier?
BRENNAN: I don't.
GOWDY: Do you know if the bureau [FBI] ever relied on the Steele dossier as part of any
court filing, applications?
BRENNAN: I have no awareness.
GOWDY: Did the CIA rely on it?
BRENNAN: No.
GOWDY: Why not?
BRENNAN: Because we didn't. It wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information that
we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment that
was done. Uh it was not.
.
Video of the exchange [ prompted 01:54:28 just hit play ]
[ ] James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey are now all accusing one another of being
culpable for inserting the unverified dossier, the font of the effort to destroy Trump, into
a presidential intelligence assessment -- as if suddenly and mysteriously the prior seeding
of the Steele dossier is now seen as a bad thing. And how did the dossier transmogrify from
being passed around the Obama Administration as a supposedly top-secret and devastating
condemnation of candidate and then president-elect Trump to a rank embarrassment of
ridiculous stories and fibs?
Given the narratives of the last three years, and the protestations that the dossier was
accurate or at least was not proven to be unproven, why are these former officials arguing at
all? Did not implanting the dossier into the presidential briefing give it the necessary
imprimatur that allowed the serial leaks to the press at least to be passed on to the public
and thereby apprise the people of the existential danger that they faced? ( read more )
Fox News Maria Bartiromo has more knowledge of the details within the 2016 political
surveillance scandal than any other MSM host. Bartiromo has followed the events very closely
and now she is the go-to person for those who are trying to bring the truth behind the scandal
to light.
On the morning of May 20th, 2019, on her Fox Business Network show Ms. Bartiromo outlined
the current issues between Comey and Brennan. WATCH:
It certainly looks like former CIA Director John Brennan has exposed himself to perjury.
However, beyond that and even more disturbing, what does this say about the political intents
of a weaponized intelligence apparatus?
CTH has previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis
Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about
Russian hacking.
The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment .
The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that
Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.
The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. While the
majority of content was from the CIA, some of the content within the ICA was written by FBI
Agent Peter Strzok who held a unique "insurance policy" interest in how the report could be
utilized in 2017. NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the "high confidence" claims,
likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.
(
JUNE 2019 – New York Times ) [ ] Mr. Barr wants to know more about the C.I.A.
sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference
campaign, an official has said. He also wants to better understand the intelligence that
flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016.
During the final weeks of the Obama administration, the intelligence community released
a declassified
assessment that concluded that Mr. Putin ordered an influence campaign that "aspired to
help" Mr. Trump's electoral chances by damaging Mrs. Clinton's. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I.
reported they had high confidence in the conclusion. The National Security Agency, which
conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence. (
read more )
Questioning the construct of the ICA is a smart direction to take for a review or
investigation. By looking at the intelligence community work-product, it's likely Durham will
cut through a lot of the chatter and get to the heart of the intelligence motives.
Apparently John Durham is looking into just this aspect: Was the ICA document a politically
engineered report stemming from within a corrupt intelligence network?
The importance of that question is rather large. All of the downstream claims about Russian
activity, including the Russian indictments promoted by Rosenstein and the Mueller team, are
centered around origination claims of illicit Russian activity outlined in the ICA .
If the ICA is a false political document . then guess what?
Yep, the entire narrative from the JAR and ICA is part of a big
fraud. [Which it is]
Among all media personalities Maria Bartiromo easily has the most comprehensive grasp of the
2016 operation against President Trump. During two interviews today Bartiromo outlines the
evidence that leads directly to the person at the origination point, former CIA Director John
Brennan.
First, here's a mash-up of the two interviews (Senator Graham and John Solomon) where
Bartiromo asks the same question. [ hat tip Michael Sheridan for the video]
Former CIA Director John Brennan lies at the heart of the intelligence community decision to
weaponize against Donald Trump. In this outline I will provide supporting evidence for
Bartiromo's assertion, which I suspect has already led to a criminal referral to U.S. Attorney
John Durham by HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes.
Suspicious Cat ate canary
The FBI's formal origination of the counterintelligence investigation into candidate Donald
Trump known as "Operation Crossfire Hurricane", begins with a two-page memo submitted by former
CIA Director John Brennan to former FBI Director James Comey.
The two page origination memo is known as an "EC" or "electronic communication". This
classified origination memo is one of the key documents requested by congress for
declassification by President Trump, to be shared with the American people.
According to House Intelligence Committee member Devin Nunes; who is also a member of the
intelligence oversight 'Gang-of-Eight'; that EC contains intelligence material that did not
come through "official intelligence channels" into the U.S. intelligence apparatus.
The origin of the 2016 counterintelligence operation was the Electronic Communication
document, a 'raw intelligence product' delivered by CIA Director John Brennan to the FBI.
The EC was not an official product of the U.S. intelligence community. Additionally,
Brennan was NOT using official partnerships with intelligence agencies of our Five-Eyes
partner nations; and he did not provide raw intelligence – as an outcome of those
relationships – to the FBI.
When we first watched this interview the initial questions were: if the EC is not based on
official intelligence from U.S. intelligence apparatus or any of the 'five-eyes' partners, then
what is the origin, source and purpose therein, of the unofficial raw intelligence? Who created
it? And why?
Now we know many of the answers to those questions.
All research indicates CIA Director John Brennan enlisted the help of U.S. and foreign
intelligence assets to run operations against the Trump campaign early in 2016. The objective
was to give the false and manufactured appearance of compromise. Once the CIA established the
possibility of compromise, that activity created the EC which opened the door for an FBI
investigation.
The operation run by Brennan targeting Papadopoulos is at the
center of the two-page "EC" (
electronic communication ); given to FBI Director James Comey to start the
counterintelligence operation (Crossfire Hurricane) against the Trump campaign.
Yes, the primary intelligence sources of John Brennan's "EC" is were operations run by FBI
and CIA operative Stefan Halper, and western intelligence asset Joseph Mifsud. A great
background on Halper is HERE .
In March 2018 Chuck Ross of The Daily
Caller took a deep dive on how Stefan Halper interacted with George Papadopoulos and Carter
Page. Halper is sketchy, and he was trying to initiate contacts with low-level Trump campaign
aides. [ SEE HERE ]
DAILY CALLER
– Two months before the 2016 election, George Papadopoulos received a strange request
for a meeting in London, one of several the young Trump adviser would be offered -- and he
would accept -- during the presidential campaign.
The meeting request, which has not been reported until now, came from Stefan Halper, a
foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British
counterpart, MI6.
Halper's September 2016 outreach to Papadopoulos wasn't his only contact with Trump
campaign members. The 73-year-old professor, a veteran of three Republican administrations,
met with two other campaign advisers, The Daily Caller News Foundation learned. ( Please
Keep Reading )
We now know Brennan's
originating structure involved Stefan Halper the foreign policy expert and Cambridge
professor deeply connected to the CIA and willing to run the operation to benefit the political
objective for CIA Director Brennan. This is how John Brennan originates the "EC" through
non-traditional intelligence channels. The EC is then given to James Comey, who starts
Operation Crossfire Hurricane on July 31st, 2016.
[ NOTE : •On July 31st, 2016 the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation against
the Trump campaign. They did not inform congress until March 2017. •At the beginning of
August
(1st-3rd) 2016 FBI Agent Peter Strzok traveled to London, England for interviews with UK
intelligence officials. •On August 15th , 2016 Peter Strzok
sends a text message to DOJ Lawyer Lisa Page describing the " insurance policy ",
needed in case Hillary Clinton were to lose the election. That's where Carter Page comes
in.]
However, CIA Director John Brennan didn't stop with simply originating the FBI
investigation, he went on to promote additional material from his knowledge of the Christopher
Steele Dossier.
This is the part that John Brennan has denied ; however, the evidence proving
his lies is overwhelming.
We start by remembering the sworn testimony of John Brennan to congress on May 23rd, 2017.
Listen carefully to the opening statement from former CIA Director John Brennan and pay close
attention to the segment at 13:35 of this video [transcribed below]:
Brennan: [13:35] "Third, through the so-called Gang-of-Eight process we kept
congress apprised of these issues as we identified them."
"Again, in consultation with the White House , I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of
our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional
leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard
Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between
11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of
eight members."
"Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that
means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential
election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of
congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member."
Notice a few things from this testimony. First, where Brennan says " in consultation with
the White House ". This is a direct connection between Brennan's activity and President
Obama, National Security Adviser Susan Rice and Chief-of-Staff Denis McDonough, each of whom
would have held knowledge of what Brennan was briefing to the Go8.
Secondly, Brennan is describing raw intelligence (obviously gathered prior to the Carter
Page FISA Application/Warrant – October 21st, 2016) that he went on to brief the
Gang-of-Eight (pictured below). Notice Brennan said he did briefings "individually".
Brennan also says in his testimony that he began the briefings on August 11th, 2016. This is
a key point because former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter
to James Comey on August 27th, 2016, as an outcome of his briefing by John Brennan. But it is
the content of Reid's letter that really matters.
In the last paragraph of Reid's letter to Comey he notes something that is only cited within
the Christopher Steele Dossier [ full letter pdf
here ]:
This letter is August 27th, 2016. The Trump advisor in
the letter is Carter Page. The source of the information is Christopher Steele in his dossier.
Two months later (October 21st, 2016) the FBI filed a FISA application against Carter Page
using the Steele Dossier.
So what we are seeing here is CIA Director John Brennan briefing Harry Reid on the Steele
dossier in August 2016, even before the dossier reached the FBI. However, John Brennan has
denied seeing the
dossier until December of 2016. A transparent lie.
Brennan goes on to testify the main substance of those 2016 Go8 briefings was the same as
the main judgements of the January 2017 classified and unclassified intelligence assessments
published by the CIA, FBI, DNI and NSA, ie. "The Intelligence Community Assessment" (ICA).
We also know from Paul Sperry: "[ ] A source close to the House investigation said
Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included
former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok . "Strzok was the intermediary between
Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,"
according to the source."
(link)
♦ Summary so far : During a period early in 2016 CIA Director John Brennan
manufactured the material needed to start the FBI investigation on July 31st, 2016. John
Brennan also received information from within the Steele Dossier which he put into President
Obama's Daily Briefing and shared with the Gang of Eight.
So it would seem that Brennan was leaking to the media and pushing hard on this same Russia
narrative during the transition period. It's almost bizarre to see Brennan now saying "perhaps
he had bad information" BRENNAN IS THE INFORMATION !!
Fucking Brennan.
Additionally, if you want to throw on an even more stunning layer upon this manipulation
matrix, consider that Nellie Ohr was
likely working for the CIA.
"I read an article in the paper that mentioned Glenn Simpson. And I remembered because he
had been a Wall Street Journal reporter working on things like Russian crime and corruption,
so I recognized the name. I was underemployed at that time and I was looking for
opportunities. "
If Nellie Ohr, a known CIA open source contractor, sought out Glenn Simpson at Fusion GPS
for the job in 2015, not vice-versa, then it would appear a sting operation from within the CIA
(John Brennan) was underway and long planned. The evidence of this likelihood surfaces later
from Brennan's knowledge of the specific intelligence within the Steele Dossier as shared with
Obama and briefed to Harry Reid in August 2016.
So let us recap:
♦In the first phase of this operation the CIA, likely Brennan, seeded Fusion GPS with
information via Nellie Ohr. After it became clear that Donald Trump would be the 2016 GOP
candidate, that information was then piped-into another Fusion GPS contractor and former FBI
Source, Chris Steele. Steele then "laundered", and returned the Ohr research material into an
official intelligence product to the FBI. [The tool was Carter Page.]
♦Concurrently timed with the start of this first phase, Brennan was running an
operation using Stephan Halper and Joseph Mifsud to generate the "EC" and initiate the FBI to
begin a counterintelligence operation named Crossfire Hurricane. [The tool was George
Papadopoulos]
This is why the media got/get somewhat confused with the origins of everything:
Papadopoulous (Crossfire Hurricane) -vs- Carter Page (dossier into FISA); an origination
confusion which still exists through today.
In essence we can see that John Brennan was the initiator manipulating everything, somewhat
behind the scenes, for all of the activity (tangentially noted by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in
their text messages about the CIA leaks). After the 2016 election, Brennan continued pushing
the Steele Dossier into the media bloodstream as it carried the Russian Conspiracy virus he
created.
During the time James Comey's FBI was running operation Crossfire Hurricane, Comey admitted
he intentionally never informed congressional oversight: " because of the sensitivity of
the matter ". I suspect he knew there was manipulation behind the events that initiated the
construct; he was, however, willfully blind to it.
When Brennan
now says in hindsight he might have received " bad information ", it's laughable
– because the information is his creation.
Now with all of that hindsight in mind, watch the first four minutes of this interview and
pay attention to the duping delight:
Lastly, unlike other DOJ and FBI officials connected to the fraudulent exploitation of the
FISA court, John Brennan is not attached to the ongoing DOJ Inspector General investigation
being conducted by IG Horowitz.
Presumably Inspector General Michael Horowitz is only looking at the process, procedures and
people who were involved in submitting an unverified and likely fraudulent FISA application.
Though his investigation would mean reviewing the underlying evidence for the FISA warrant, ie.
the Steele Dossier, the list of IG targets does not necessarily include anyone outside the DOJ
and FBI process.
This could mean former CIA Director John Brennan, or any other Obama-era official outside
the DOJ and FBI, could be referred for criminal investigation to John Durham; and investigation
or review of that referral should not impede any ongoing investigation by IG Michael
Horowitz.
That's why it is possible for Devin Nunes to have submitted a ¹criminal referral for
John Brennan; which would be one of the primary aspects of review by Durham (noted by Solomon),
and only tangentially connected to the IG Horowitz investigation.
¹Or, NSA Advisor Susan Rice, ODNI James Clapper, or former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.
Samantha Power (unmasking); or any other administration official who may have engaged in
leaking and/or disseminating classified intelligence information.
Advertisements Report this
ad Report this ad Share this:
House Republicans on Thursday said that testimony from the State Department's former envoy to Ukraine, sought by
House Democrats with regards to their impeachment inquiry, won't advance the drive to impeach President Donald Trump.
Emerging from the day-long deposition, New York Republican
Lee Zeldin
said that former U.S. Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker's private Thursday testimony, "blows a hole in the
argument" presented by Democrats that Trump asked the president of Ukraine for a quid pro quo.
Volker on Thursday spent hours testifying with congressional investigators who are seeking to discover if he
played any role in Trump's efforts to obtain from Ukrainian officials information on Hunter Biden, the son of 2020
presidential hopeful
Joseph R. Biden Jr.
House Intelligence Chairman
Adam B. Schiff
briefly addressed reporters during the testimony, charging that Trump encouraging a foreign nation
to investigate his political rival was a "fundamental breach of the president's oath of office."
"It endangers our elections, it endangers our national security, it ought to be condemned by every member of this
body, Democrats and Republicans alike," Schiff said.
While Volker testified, Ohio Republican
Michael R. Turner
, an Intelligence Committee member, released a statement saying he does "not believe that
Volker's testimony advanced Schiff's impeachment agenda."
Zeldin urged the relevant congressional committees to make public a transcript of Volker's deposition, along with
text messages Volker sent to Ukrainian officials, which have become a source of intrigue in the fledgling impeachment
push.
About two-and-a-half hours into Volker's deposition,
Jim Jordan
, an Ohio Republican and founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, emerged and told reporters that
Schiff wanted to limit certain members from questioning Volker and that the California Democrat had barred State
Department lawyers from participating in the closed briefing.
Want insight more often?
Get Roll Call in your inbox
"If this is how Mr. Schiff is going to conduct these types of interviews in the future," Jordan said, "that's a
concern."
Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo
has drawn the ire of congressional Democrats this week for rejecting a subpoena and rebuffing
congressional requests to question five current and former State Department officials to testify in the impeachment
inquiry.
Trump: House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff should "resign from office"
https://g.jwpsrv.com/g/gcid-0.1.2.html?notrack
Press shift question mark to access a list of
keyboard shortcuts
Keyboard Shortcuts
Play/Pause
SPACE
Increase Volume
↑
Decrease Volume
↓
Seek Forward
→
Seek Backward
←
Captions On/Off
c
Fullscreen/Exit Fullscreen
f
Mute/Unmute
m
Seek %
0-9
Off
Automated Captions - en-US
facebook
twitter
Email
Link
Copied
Live
00:00
02:34
02:34
Jordan praised Volker, calling him "impressive." Turner called Volker "an incredible diplomat," in his statement.
Volker resigned from his position as special envoy less than a week ago after his name appeared in a whistleblower
complaint alleging that Volker was coordinating with Ukrainian officials on how to handle requests from Trump's
personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. That whistleblower report is central in justifying House Democrats' impeachment
inquiry.
Turner said he doesn't believe Volker would have done anything untoward during his State Department service.
"It is my strong belief that Volker would not have been involved in nor permitted anything inappropriate, let
alone illegal, in his service to our country," Turner said. "Today he continued his legacy of integrity under
questioning from Schiff's staff."
Horse trading
is the oxygen of politics;
it is how politicians are persuaded to care about things that otherwise would not make their radar.
Not only does it happen all the time, but it is a core feature of our political system;
representative government relies on this kind of political trading to ensure a plurality of
interests and needs are satisfied.
Members of Congress routinely trade "policy for policy." You sponsor my bill, and I'll sponsor
yours, you vote for a road in my district, and vice versa. Members even trade policy for personnel
and hiring purposes: you support my bill, and I'll let so-and-so's hearing move forward, you
appoint me to this, and I'll recommend your protege for that. These deals can even cross the
blood/brain barrier between states and the federal government.
It is not corruption. It's the warp and woof of a democratic political system. But in routinely
branding
President Trump's dealings with Ukraine as potential "corruption,"
and pointing to the exchange
of unrelated asks as proof of that corruption, our friends in the fourth estate are acting in
willful ignorance and bad faith.
The President has taken a
firm
position
that he did not hold out foreign aid to Ukraine as a condition for investigating
Hunter Biden's activities there. But, even if he did, bargaining isn't corruption -- it's
policymaking.
Rod Blagojevich.
GOVERNANCE WOULD HARDLY BE POSSIBLE
An esteemed panel of federal judges in Chicago made precisely this point a few years ago. You
may recall the
prosecution
of former-Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich
on various federal charges. And although the judges
largely upheld his conviction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit commentary on the
affair was crystal clear. At least one of the counts that the trial judge had sent to the jury was
just politics, pure and simple, and could not have been a crime.
"[A] proposal to trade one public act for another, a form of logrolling, is fundamentally
unlike the swap of an official act for a private payment."
In 2008, then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama was elected to serve as President of the United
States. Appointment of his successor in the Senate, until an interim election was held, fell by
operation of statute to Governor Blagojevich.
In
the words of Judge Frank Easterbrook
, writing for the court, the Governor saw this as a
"bonanza." Among other things, Governor Blagojevich (through intermediaries) was alleged to have
asked President-elect Obama for an appointment to the Cabinet (for himself) in exchange for him
appointing Valerie Jarrett to the interim seat in the Senate. Alternatively, he was alleged to have
asked the President-elect to "persuade a foundation to hire him at a substantial salary after his
term as Governor ended, or find someone to donate $10 million and up to a new 'social welfare'
organization that he would control."
The President-elect declined on all counts, but the lawyerly point is this: the trial judge told
the jurors that if it found the Governor had proposed any of these three deals, it could return a
verdict of guilty.
Not so fast, said Judge Easterbrook.
Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Easterbrook noted that, indeed, the trial judge's
instructions to the jury supported a conviction "even if [the jury] found that his only request of
Sen. Obama was for a position in the Cabinet." But not all the Governor's proposals were the same.
According to the court, "[A] proposal to trade one public act for another, a form of logrolling, is
fundamentally unlike the swap of an official act for a private payment."
In other words, swapping one policy for another is a political commonplace. "Governance would
hardly be possible without these accommodations," the court went on to observe.
Rudy Giuliani.
INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION IS -- AND SHOULD BE -- POLICY
To be sure, some folks may disagree with the President's foreign policy, but elections matter in
a representative democracy, and President Trump was duly elected.
Whether or not you agree
with his politics, he has been elected to do a job: govern.
So let's suppose -- strictly for the sake of argument -- that the President did withhold foreign aid
to Ukraine in exchange for a commitment to investigate allegations of corruption. This is, quite
literally, the exchange of one policy for another -- horse-trading in every sense. Does the United
States have no policy interest in making sure that the countries with which it interacts -- and to
which it sends aid money -- do not engage in corrupt practices? Of course, it does. The case for
"corruption" would require that President Trump withdraw aid in exchange for personal profit -- not
policy gains that are ultimately good for American foreign policy.
At its core, the case for impeachment is more than a sham: it's a misinformation
campaign in which Democrats and their media are willfully ignoring the way our policy process works
to prevent our President from governing.
Uh, yes, "horse trading" with a foreign government for info on a
political opponent is not allowed...that is the simplest form of
dictator style corruption that there is.
"Horse trading" with a
foreign government to trade hostages, or any other variety of deal
making that doesn't involve your own countries political
enemies is of course allowed and has always been done.
They already did and had no problem with the corruption
under Clinton or Obama--they just considered those "scandal
free" administrations and looked the other way. Now they
don't like the president and they want to change the rules
or take their ball and go home because they don't like the
game. Some children never grow up.
Proud-Christian-White-American-Man
,
3 hours ago
link
The case for "corruption" would require that President Trump
withdraw aid in exchange for personal profit -- not policy gains that
are ultimately good for American foreign policy.
My comment:
Great article which sums up exactly what politics is..horse
trading and deal making. If President Trump is impeached on this
basis, then all elected officials in the US must also be
impeached. If you can't understand this then either : you are a
vile TDS troll or you think that there are 57 states in the US.
IT is a Coup and that is all it is. The Democrat's and their
Deep State cohorts in the CIA, FBI, MSM, are subverting the will
of the US Voter.
How do you feel about that US voter? Do you
enjoy unelected and opposition Politicians taking down an Elected
President because they don't like him and his policies?
Is that what your country has became? Does it NOT have a
Constitution anymore? Are the General Population drugged up
sufficiently to NOT NOTICE....or Understand what is going on
around them?
Are the Children of the middle class brain washed enough in
school and college to be good little neoliberals and give up ALL
FREEDOM's fought for with blood for hundreds of years?
I think there are enough SANE Americans left to st
by Cristina Laila
October 9, 2019 1164 Comments
20191031-ukrainegate.pdf
by Barbara Boyd, barbara@lpac-organizers.com - Be the first to be notified when we release
the next parts, text sc20 to (202)609-8371 - text stop to leave at anytime.
Part 2 is now available.
21,994
