“I never would have agreed to the formulation of the Central
Intelligence Agency back in forty-seven, if I had known it would become the
American Gestapo.” ― Harry S. Truman
Let’s say the U.S. Government is a corporation. Let’s say that the shareholders (voters) of
that corporation are unhappy with the previous CEO and want the company to go
in a new direction. Let’s say that the shareholders decide not to renew the
contract of the previous regime and hire someone to take the company in a new
direction.
Now let’s say that the middle managers that served under the
previous CEO don’t want to go in a new direction and do everything possible to
stymie the new CEO and do everything to have the new CEO removed and go back to
the previous policies. Let’s say the
middle managers have been embezzling funds from the company for years and those
funds were laundered through a third party “shell company” and if the books are
ever opened they could all go to jail.
Let’s say the new CEO looks at the contracts that were made
with the shell company by the previous CEO and sees that those contracts are bleeding
the corporation dry and are of no benefit to the corporation, but in fact
threaten to bankrupt the corporation.
Let’s say those middle managers conspire to go to the
shareholders and claim they heard that the new CEO is conspiring to destroy the
corporation by cancelling the contracts with the shell company. Even though none of them heard the new CEO
say this, they heard it by the water cooler and want that CEO charged with criminal
sabotage and removed.
In other words the basis for the removal of the new CEO is, “I
heard if from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend
you’ve been messing around.” From RT:
Excerpt:
Transcript of US ambassador to Ukraine reveals leaked ‘smoking gun’ testimony
based on hearsay & ‘fake news’ media
Impeachment testimony from former
US ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor reveals the fatal ’quid pro quo’ at the center of the probe rests on mere
hearsay, even as Taylor’s words are held up as a smoking gun by Trump’s
enemies.
In the course of his October 22
deposition, made public on Wednesday, Taylor
explains it was his “clear understanding” that “security assistance
money would not come” until Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “committed
to pursue the investigation” of natural gas firm Burisma Holdings, where
Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden’s son was a director.
That understanding, however, came from being told by Trump adviser
Tim Morrison that another ambassador – US envoy to the EU Gordon Sondland –
had informed a Zelensky aide of the condition.
That fateful conversation appears
to be the closest Taylor got to the alleged quid pro quo. It’s not clear
exactly what was said between them, as Sondland
hurriedly revised his own testimony on Tuesday to better match Taylor’s.
“What I know for sure,” Taylor
testified, “is what Mr. Morrison told me
that he must have heard Ambassador Sondland tell [Zelensky aide] Mr. Yermak.
And as I said, this was the first time I’d heard [security assistance and
corruption investigations] put together.” (p.189)
Taylor also admitted he was not
listening in on the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky, and that he did
not see the transcript until it was released in late September. He acknowledged he had never spoken to
Trump, and when pressed by Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-New Jersey), pinned the entire “drug deal” (the words of
former national security adviser John Bolton, apparently) on Trump adviser Rudy
Giuliani (p.260) – even though Taylor had never spoken to him either.
Giuliani, Taylor said, dominated an “irregular” policy channel alongside
the wholesome, bipartisan way of doing things, a channel that ran “contrary
to the goals of longstanding US policy” – or at least that was what
Taylor “began to sense” (p.28) when the aid was held up.
At one point, Rep. Lee Zeldin
(R-New York) attempted to pin down exactly what Taylor’s relationship was to
the events in question.
“This isn’t firsthand. It’s not secondhand. It’s not thirdhand. But if I understand this correctly,
you’re telling us that Tim Morrison told you that Ambassador Sondland told him
that the president told Ambassador Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an
investigation into Biden?” Zeldin asks incredulously. (p. 298)
The New York congressman also got Taylor to admit that his sole source
for his belief that Trump wanted Biden investigated in order to influence the
2020 election was an article in the New
York Times – not exactly known for its accurate or sympathetic portrayals of
the president.
The Ukraine affair is damning, all
right – just not in the way you’re being told to think
Critically, Taylor admitted that no one in the Ukrainian government knew military
aid had been suspended until over a month after the Trump-Zelensky phone
call, which was the source of the anonymous whistleblower’s complaint.
The ambassador’s opening statement was “leaked” before the House
voted to make transcripts public, and
has been held up by intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff (D-California) and
other pro-impeachment Democrats as ‘proof’ that military aid was withheld
“through a shadow foreign policy channel” until Ukraine agreed to follow
through with the Biden investigation.
An examination of the transcript, however, reveals nothing of the sort.
Taylor’s political convictions –
that Russia must be kicked out of Ukraine, lest it blossom into a malevolent
empire – appear to motivate his testimony more than any firsthand knowledge
of what transpired between the American and Ukrainian heads of state.
That is what this whole impeachment inquiry is about, the
establishment doesn’t like the direction that the new CEO wants to take the
corporation. They have all been embezzling
funds for so long and if the books were ever scrutinized, they could all go to
jail. While it is not in the interest of
the people of the United States to use Ukraine as a spring board to war with
Russia, the Deep State agents are making a financial killing in Ukraine. From Moon of Alabama:
Deep State wants War in Ukraine at all costs
Excerpt:
Trump And Zelensky Want Peace With Russia. The Fascists Oppose That.
NBC News is not impressed by the
first day of the Democrats’ impeachment circus. But it fails to note what the
conflict is really about:
It was substantive, but it wasn’t
dramatic. In the reserved manner of veteran diplomats with Harvard degrees,
Bill Taylor and George Kent opened the public phase of the House
impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on Wednesday by bearing witness to a scheme they described as not only wildly
unorthodox but also in direct contravention of U.S. interests.
“It is clearly in our national interest to deter further Russian
aggression,” Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a decorated
Vietnam War veteran, said in explaining why Trump’s decision to withhold congressionally appropriated aid to the
most immediate target of Russian expansionism didn’t align with U.S. policy…
“In direct contravention of U.S. interests” says the NBC and quotes a member of the permanent state who
declares “it is clearly in our national interest” to give weapons to Ukraine.
But is that really in the
national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such?
President Obama was against giving weapons to Ukraine and never
transferred any to Ukraine despite pressure from certain circles. Was Obama’s
decision against U.S. national interest? Where
are the Democrats or deep state members accusing him of that?
Which brings us to the really
critical point of the whole issue. WHO
DEFINES WHAT IS IN THE “NATIONAL INTEREST” WITH REGARDS TO FOREIGN POLICY? Here
is a point where for once I agree with the right-wingers at the National Review
where Andrew McCarthy writes:
[O]n the critical matter of
America’s interests in the Russia/Ukraine dynamic, I think the policy community
is right, and President Trump is wrong. If I were president, while I would
resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly associate myself with the
delusion that stable friendship is possible (or, frankly, desirable) with
Putin’s anti-American dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia family
and is acting on its revanchist ambitions. But you see, much like the policy
community, I am not president. Donald Trump is.
And that’s where the policy
community and I part company. It is
the president, not the bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people.
That puts him — not the National
Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the
military, and their assorted subject-matter experts — in charge of making
policy. If we’re to remain a constitutional republic, that’s how it has
to stay.
We have made the very same point:
The U.S. constitution “empowers the President of the United States to
propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other
countries.”
The
constitution does not empower the “U.S. government policy community”, nor “the
administration”, nor the “consensus view of the interagency” and certainly not one Lt.Col. Vindman to
define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy.
It is the duly elected president who does that.
The president does not like how the
‘American policy’ on Russia was built. He rightly believes that he was elected
to change it. HE HAD STATED HIS OPINION
ON RUSSIA DURING HIS CAMPAIGN AND WON THE ELECTION. It is not ‘malign influence’ that makes him try to have good
relations with Russia. It is his own
conviction and legitimized by the voters.
[I]t is the president who sets
the policies. The drones around him
who serve “at his pleasure” are there to implement them.
There is another point that has to
be made about the NBC’s assertions. It is not in the interest of Ukraine to be
a proxy for U.S. deep state antagonism towards Russia. Robber baron Igor Kolomoisky, who after the Maidan coup had financed
the west-Ukrainian fascists who fought against east-Ukraine, says
so directly in his recent NYT interview:
Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as
Ukraine’s most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron
of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for
Ukraine to give up on the West and turn back toward Russia. ‘They’re stronger anyway. We have to improve
our relations,” he said, comparing Russia’s power to that of Ukraine.
“People want peace, a good life, they don’t want to be at war. And you” —
America — “are forcing us to be at war, and not even giving us the
money for it.”
Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times
in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed Ukraine, not providing
enough money or sufficiently opening its markets.
Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine
to try to weaken its geopolitical rival. “War against Russia,” he said, “to the
last Ukrainian.” Rebuilding ties
with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine’s economic survival, Mr.
Kolomoisky argued. He predicted that the trauma of war will pass.
Mr. Kolomoisky said he was feverishly working out how to end the war,
but he refused to divulge details because the
Americans “will mess it up and get in the way.”
Kolomoisky’s interview is obviously a trial balloon for the
policies Zelensky wants to pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working
for better relations with Russia. He received nearly 73% of all votes.
Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday’s clown show
would certainly “mess it up and get in the way” if Zelensky would openly pursue
the policy he promised to his voters. They
are joined in this with the west-Ukrainian fascists they had used to arrange
the Maidan coup:
Zelenskiy’s decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on
the future of eastern Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but
very vocal minority of Ukrainians opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The
protests were relatively short-lived, but prospects for a negotiated end to the
war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in light of this domestic
opposition.
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two
parliamentary factions, European Solidarity and Voice, whose supporters are
predominantly located in western Ukraine… Only
some 20% of the Ukrainians favor to continue the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports.
During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25% of the
votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election.
Voice won 5.8%. By pursuing further
conflict with Russia the deep state of
the United States wants to ignore the
wishes not only of the U.S. voters but also those of the Ukrainian electorate. That
undemocratic mindset is another point
that unites them with the Ukrainian fascists.
Zelensky should ignore the warmongers in the U.S. embassy in Kiev and
sue for immediate peace with Russia.
(He should also investigate Biden’s undue influence.) Reengaging with
Russia is also the easiest and most efficient step the Ukraine can take to lift
its desolate economy.
It is in the national interest
of both, the Ukraine and the United States.
Hmm, yes that is what the testimony by Vindman, Kent and Yovanovitch
was about, “the deep state of the United States wants to ignore the
wishes not only of the U.S. voters but also those of the Ukrainian electorate.” If Ukraine ever normalizes relations with
Russia the books will be flung open and all will see the massive corruption,
theft, murder and graft perpetrated against Ukraine by the Deep State
operatives who are now desperate to remove Trump from office and reinstate the
status quo.
The impeachment circus will resume next week. What can we look forward to? More, heard it from a friend who, heard it
from a friend who, heard it from a friend you’ve been messing around.
No comments:
Post a Comment